In defense of Ubuntu reproach

Fedora makes use of an entirely open software stack for its infrastructure.
People can replicate the entire build system and mirror manager and so on and so on. As long
as people can find the hosting bandwidth and the iron, the software that grinds the sausage
isn't proprietary and there is no secret sauce anywhere in the build system.  In fact to grow
out additional architecture support, people in the Fedora community do in fact find that
additional hosting and bandwidth and iron.  Why? because... its a community effort... whose
entire framework is open so that motivated community members and even other business interests
can contribute beyond the bounds of what Red Hat can sustain.  Honest sustainable development
where multiple interests can co-exist without anyone being asked to support more than what
they feel they can sustain.  I can just imagine the pressure some Canonical employees feel to
make sure they continue to live up to the perception they've marketed...without a sustainable
bottomline to build resource allocation budgets around.

Fedora's build system is setup to allow motivated Fedora community to work on interests other
than those that Red Hat feels it can sustain on its own.  Doing things that way was a
deliberate choice.. a sustainable choice made by Red Hat empower the community as partners in
the process and not just consumers.  

How open is launchpad? How critical is it to the inner workings of Ubuntu distribution
development? If the launchpad service disappeared with Canonical..would it be replicable? If
Canonical decided to drop support for an arch(sparc or arm just as examples) because it was no
longer deemed potentially profitable to support.. is the Ubuntu development framework flexible
enough to allow the community to take over those sorts of things? Or would Canonical feel
burdened to continue supporting arches even though it was a negative on their business? Very
important questions for the Ubuntu community to ask of Shuttleworth.

-jef

What the what now? You're making less sense than usual here.

"Do you possess any proof of that assertion? "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/may/22/internet...

TG: How close are you to breaking even?
MS: Not close. It will require time and ongoing investment.

Straight from the horse's mouth. As of May of this year Canonical was "not close" to breaking
even.... so sayth Shuttleworth. Not close. Are they any closer than they were a year ago? two
years ago? three years ago?

"Therefore, assuming the business success of Canonical as being paramount, is based upon a
weak foundation."
Another quote from Shuttleworth...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/07/23/Ubuntu-founder-...

"When we look back at this era, we'll be looking at economics,"

So again..straight from the horses mouth.. the economics of things are of parmount importance.
That's not me talking, that's Shuttleworth. But what doe the economics of Canonical look like?
Canonical's business interests are completely opaque. How important is launchpad based
services going to be to Canonical's bottomline moving forward?  Anyone got a clue on that? Is
the Dell desktop arrangement a profit center for Canonical or is it a wash..or is it a net
drain or company resources. How many people are buying Ubuntu support contracts for their
Dells when they purchase the hardware?   How is the mobile initiative fairing as a business
initiative? 
And then there's landscape...which is clearly not aimed at the home desktop user.

How many different revenue concepts is Canonical currently pursuing? Can they sustain interest
in all these areas simultaneously? What happens if Canonical decides to drop support for one
of their current initiatives like mobile devices a year from now? Is the Ubuntu infrastructure
that they control open enough to allow a non-commercial community effort to flourish in its
wake?  Popularity doesn't automatically make something is an economical business venture...
and if Shuttleworth is to be believed.. its the economics that ultimate matter.. not the
popularity.

"You dislike Ubuntu and perhaps every thing it may represent"

I have no problem with Ubuntu as a community, nor as a distribution. But I am concerned that
Canonical may not be able to sustain the level of interest it has strategical cultivated, and
I don't want to see the Ubuntu community suffer while Canonical flounders around trying
different business models until they find one that works.  If I wanted to see the Ubuntu
community suffer, I'd find a way to get myself hired by Canonical.

What I am concerned about is that so much community good will is being placed into the hands
of a single business entity. Canonical. Canonical is not Ubuntu.  A business entity whose CEO
who is attempting to centralize how open developers interact by driving them into using a
centrally managed proprietary infrastructure that only Canonical has control over.  

Which Mark Shuttleworth should we believe? The one that is protectionist of his own company's
important codebases.. or the one that goes to conferences and proclaims that Free software is
"the ultimate form of disclosure" and serves as an engine for innovation?

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/07/23/Ubuntu-founder-...

If you are going to stand up as the head of a corporate entity and talk the talk, I think its
perfectly acceptable for the people whom you are talking to to expect you walk the walk
instead of promising to walk the walk in around 12 months or so, market conditions depending.


If you are a Ubuntu desktop user, you should be concerned when Shuttleworth speaks to the
press as he did earlier this year about Ubuntu "migrating" into a business phenomenon. 

http://searchitchannel.techtarget.com/news/article/0,2891...

If Canonical is planning to "migrate" into a company that services business customers... have
they created an infrastructure open enough to let the Ubuntu community fill in the gaps so
that the Ubuntu community can serve the needs of the non-business userbase while Canonical
chases after business user service contracts?
 
He didn't say expanding.. he said..migrating..That sort of terminology should concern any
active Ubuntu community member who is more concerned about the home desktop user than the
office professional. If Canonical is looking to chase the sort of certifications that allow it
into the doors of corporate businesses, that is going to end up being an engineering drain on
Canonical, no doubt about it. Certification processes are about as far away as 'just works'
polish as one can possibly imagine.  Can Canonical chase those certs and continue to serve the
home desktop users? Can Canonical sustain both a corporate initiative and a consumer desktop
initative with its available resources?  Will Canonical open up the infrastructure they
tightly control so that the Ubuntu community can step in and help sustain the Ubuntu momentum
and keep Canonical from spreading itself too thin?  Canonical needs to open up its
infrastructure and let the Ubuntu community take on some of the responsibility for the
development of the Ubuntu process itself. How far will Canonical allow community to be
involved in the development of its own future?
 

-jef