Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO [LWN.net]

Canonical has announced that its new chief operating officer will be Matt Asay. "'As more companies and people are embracing Ubuntu for their day-to-day computing, we felt it critical to bring in a person who knew not just open source, but has a long experience in making Linux relevant to businesses and users alike,' said Jane Silber, current COO and upcoming CEO, Canonical. 'We think Matt brings to Canonical the perfect blend of industry, executive and community savvy'"

to post comments

Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO

Posted Feb 5, 2010 17:24 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (6 responses)

In other news, Matt will continue to draw salary and benefits from his current employer, and Canonical will copy his work and re-theme it with a cool logo and brown background.

Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO

Posted Feb 6, 2010 2:39 UTC (Sat) by zaitcev (guest, #761) [Link] (3 responses)

This reference went right above my head, Don.

Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO

Posted Feb 7, 2010 5:05 UTC (Sun) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (2 responses)

Mine too. Hint?

Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO

Posted Feb 7, 2010 6:32 UTC (Sun) by SEJeff (guest, #51588) [Link]

Sounds like a subtle "ubuntu is poo-themed debian" snipe to me.

2008 talk and old LWN thread

Posted Feb 7, 2010 16:37 UTC (Sun) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

I just remembered this old comment thread and was trying to make a funny. Sorry about that--I'll stop.

Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO

Posted Feb 6, 2010 18:50 UTC (Sat) by ianwoodstock (guest, #56970) [Link]

Excellent !

Matt Asay becomes Canonical's COO

Posted Feb 7, 2010 7:39 UTC (Sun) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]

I laughed for five minutes. It's not only funny, it's also
far too true.

Yikes.

Posted Feb 5, 2010 18:30 UTC (Fri) by leoc (guest, #39773) [Link] (29 responses)

Would this be the same Matt Asay, lawyer and open source "legal expert" who doesn't know the difference between patents and copyright?

Yikes.

Posted Feb 5, 2010 19:30 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (6 responses)

Uh, unfortunately yes. I don't know how to explain it. He claims to have gone to Stanford and to have studied with Larry Lessig. But some of the things he has written in his column don't show much evidence of legal training. I sometimes wonder if he has a ghost-writer. He also writes things that are astonishingly hostile to the "Free Software" segment of the community.

Yikes.

Posted Feb 8, 2010 7:58 UTC (Mon) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (5 responses)

Bruce, I've usually tried to look at Matt's blogs as something where quantity has taken over quality. And I don't mean this in a bad way - well, obviously not in a good way either - I just think if you write a blog each day, on the side of your real job, you end up writing all kinds of stuff. Personally my reaction has been to just not read his stuff that much, at most I do it for entertainment value, like watching a soap opera or something. (This is not to say that everything he writes is bad, just that he writes a lot and not everything is great.)

The good news here is that Matt also then has a track record of easily changing opinion. I don't think there is any reason to fear Matt will convince Mark S to transform Canonical into an open core company - it is clearly much more likely that Matt will at Canonical quickly rediscover his past love for pure FOSS models.

Yikes.

Posted Feb 8, 2010 19:30 UTC (Mon) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] (1 responses)

Canonical follows a pure FOSS model? I'm not so sure about that.

Landscape is a proprietary web service that comes with zero access to server source code.

UbuntuOne is a proprietary web service that comes with zero access to server source code.

What's that you say, those are web services they don't count because its Canonical's servers running the software. Okay, well...the newer Landscape Dedicated Server..which runs on YOUR hardware on YOUR premises...comes with zero access to source code.

Canonical is not a FOSS company. In the same way that Google is not. Canonical gives away Ubuntu because Canonical sees no monetary value in trying to sell Ubuntu...believing that no one would choose to purchase it even if they were given the option. The business theory Canonical holds to is closer to the theory of "Open Core" than you realize. The client-side software defined by the Ubuntu software repositories is a valueless commodity that is being leveraged to upsell a number of related proprietary software products and services. Canonical's support of Ubuntu is a means by which they hope to attract customers to other proprietary services and products.

Proprietary "cloud" services

Posted Feb 8, 2010 20:42 UTC (Mon) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Hi Jef (that's the correct spelling is it?)

I'm fully open to discuss what is open core, what is "pure" FOSS and what is desirable and undesirable. After all, I come from MySQL AB where my managers would tell me that closed source software is not closed source if you don't sell it but only rent it :-) (renting here referring to the subscription model) So it is important that we maintain a firm grip on what is acceptable FOSS and what is not.

However, I do believe it is Canonical's intent to - and they succeed in - following "pure FOSS" business models, which traditionally would mean:

1) You distribute only DFSG/OSD software, or if you distribute closed source software it is a) out of necessity and b) clearly separated (a second class citizen) and c) certainly not key to your business model. (Ie proprietary drivers in a non-free repository is excused, but Suse's Yast when it was closed source means you are open core.)

2) Since web services are not distributed, having a web services doesn't make you non-free.

Landscape Dedicated Server is problematic, just like Red Hat Satellite used to be for many years. I don't see this making Canonical an evil company, just like we never consider Red Hat being evil for not releasing Satellite, but yes, it is the one thing they could improve upon.

Now, to cycle back to the meaningful part of your question: Should we deem it acceptable that Linux distributions or any open source companies build their business on web services that they keep proprietary? I honestly don't know. Like I said, I think that traditionally we've found this acceptable. The good thing is that there is a clear line: If you distribute the software, it needs to be FOSS. But long term, if a great distro like Ubuntu just becomes the entry point to a host of services proprietary to Canonical, we would probably need to rethink our opinion.

I think this is pretty much the same question we need to ask ourselves as cloud services become more popular in general. Is it ok that Amazon can build a fully proprietary service mostly on open source sw, without an obligation to release anything back? If not, then we will increasingly turn to AGPL software in the future.

Yikes.

Posted Feb 8, 2010 23:20 UTC (Mon) by chromatic (guest, #26207) [Link] (2 responses)

The quantity over quality argument doesn't excuse a lack of understanding of patents versus trademarks versus copyright, especially given Mr. Asay's supposed credentials. Sloppiness I can understand, but outright wrongness is bizarre.

Yikes.

Posted Feb 9, 2010 8:23 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (1 responses)

Oh, I could give a long list of similar points of ignorance. (No, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not an open core business model!) I'm just saying, I would be much more worried about someone that understands quite well what patents are and *likes* them, than someone who just doesn't understand them. It's a big difference.

Yikes.

Posted Feb 9, 2010 9:28 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

One problem with confusing assertions and mixing up basic concepts is that
noone can be sure what you like or dislike anymore

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 2:50 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (21 responses)

[PJ: On a personal note, while I like Matt personally, he wrote to me not long ago that he couldn't see why people were so negative about Microsoft, so this is the end for Ubuntu being truly FOSS, as far as I'm concerned, and the beginning of it becoming fused mystery meat, if I may put it that way. They can be whatever they want, of course, but I think it would be foolish to expect anything now but a loss of the F in FOSS at Canonical now.]

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 3:58 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (13 responses)

Uh-huh. I would feel really humiliated if I had put a lot of work into the "ubuntu community" right now. I feel odd enough regarding what they got from Debian. On the other hand, maybe people won't be so (unjustifiably) crazy about Ubuntu and we can get on with something community developed again.

Not so fast

Posted Feb 6, 2010 10:47 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

A COO just needs to tend to day to day operations. I don't know what that means exactly for Canonical, but I would guess it's about moving boxes and counting licenses. Now, if we were speaking about a CEO, a CIO or even a CLO (executive, information or legal; this CxO business is becoming quite silly by the way) you might be right, but in that post a solid businessman is all that is needed, right? Or am I missing something?

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 13:48 UTC (Sat) by danieldk (guest, #27876) [Link] (5 responses)

I would feel really humiliated if I had put a lot of work into the "ubuntu community" right now.

Wouldn't that be a bit naive? They can play the whole 'we are free' game, but in the end Canonical is, and has always been a for-profit company. If that weren't enough, the the whole Launchpad episode should have pointed that out. The same could be said of Red Hat, but the difference is that they have built a lot of trust through their actions.

I am not sure a community distribution could ever fill the role of Ubuntu. One of the assets of Ubuntu (that they mostly killed afterwards), is that it was a simple and consistent environment. Yes, you could install nearly everything from Debian Sid afterwards, but it was just one desktop, mostly one API, and a consistent selection of applications without overlap. I think this is one of the primary reasons why OS X ran away with potential GNU/Linux marketshare on the desktop. OS X provides a simple and consistent environment, the look and feel is the same everywhere, and there is only one major API. I do not think a community distribution could not make such an environment, since it requires touch choices that not everybody is going to like.

The result is that nearly no distribution has a clear vision, is a mixture of applications with inconsistent user interfaces, at least five widget toolkits, with a new sound server every year. Yes, it is freedom, however, not something that will capture a significant part of the mainstream.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 14:53 UTC (Sat) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (4 responses)

On software patents, Canonical is one of the only useful corporate friends we have!

They filed a great brief for the European Patent Office's software patent consultation in 2009, and Mark Shuttleworth has made good statements against software patents in the press (including vowing never to sign a patent deal with Microsoft, and calling their actions racketeering).

Most of our corporate friends do nothing, and some take Microsoft's side against us. So I hope this appointment won't change Canonical's software patents stance.

Here's the info I've gathered about Canonical:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Canonical
It's a public wiki, so if I've missed something or got it wrong, feel free to edit.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 5:22 UTC (Sun) by wtogami (subscriber, #32325) [Link] (3 responses)

> On software patents, Canonical is one of the only useful
> corporate friends we have!

Oh please. Canonical began fighting software patents only in 2009? Red Hat has been at this for years, as one of the leading sponsors and voices in the fight to defeat sofware patents in the European Union back in 2006.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Red_Hat
This page contains some insinuations that may be misleading or inaccurate but it does point out some real context.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 10:14 UTC (Sun) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Red Hat is our best ally. They've probably done more than any other company to fight software patents - much more than Canonical.

But my point is that Canonical has helped. Since most of our friends don't help at all, that makes Canonical special. We have very few helpful friends, so I hope we don't lose any.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 9, 2010 13:13 UTC (Tue) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link] (1 responses)

Canonical has been fighting software patents a lot longer than that. For example, I heard Shuttleworth give a really effective speech about 3 years ago at the EUPACO2 (june 2007) 'future of software patents' EPO/EU event. Effective both because he is a very good speaker and most importantly because he represents real entrepreneurs and proper business people with millions to invest, who tend to get a better hearing from politicians that your average beardy geek. And that wasn't the first useful intervention. Since then they have been consistent good citizens both independently and via the FTF legal network.

You can be critical of their free software contributions and business practices if you like, but they have been very solid to date on swpats, and I see no reason for that to change in a hurry as MarkS is fairly vehement on the subject (as all right-thinking people should be).

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 9, 2010 20:27 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Hi wookey.

Do you know if Mark's speech was recorded and put online?

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 17:03 UTC (Sat) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] (5 responses)

> On the other hand, maybe people won't be so (unjustifiably) crazy about
> Ubuntu and we can get on with something community developed again.

It's hardly unjustified. Ubuntu is polished with a focus on ease of use which is something that most other distros lack. Just compare what is installed in Ubuntu versus Debian. A default Debian desktop is a mess. Just how many CD burners and word processors does one need in the default install? Just pick one and let the user install a different one later if they choose.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 5:02 UTC (Sun) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (1 responses)

Comparing Ubuntu to a default Debian install is not really comparing it to "most other distros". You are not disputing the parent's comments in any meaningful way.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 7:15 UTC (Sun) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]

> You are not disputing the parent's comments in any meaningful way.

That's because the parent had no meaningful information for me to dispute. Bruce will need to elaborate on his comments for someone to give any meaningful response. For example, why does Bruce feel that Ubuntu's popularity is unjustified? Have Canonical or Ubuntu supporters done something unethical to artificially inflate the popularity of the distro? If so, I would like to hear about it.

Why does Bruce feel odd about what Ubuntu got from Debian? As long as the licenses are respected then the Ubuntu team is free to use the software as they see fit. That is one of the costs of freedom; users may use your software in ways that you do not approve. If that's a problem then you should have been more careful in your licensing.

I see the popularity of Ubuntu as an indication that Canonical and the Ubuntu community have done something right. Something was lacking in desktop Linux distros and Ubuntu filled that void. Even though other distros have improved in the meantime, Ubuntu continues to enjoy the first-mover advantage.

Nothing is stopping a community distro from achieving the same level of popularity. Talk is cheap. It's going to take strong leadership, a solid vision, and enough differentiation for a new distro to position itself as a viable alternative. Ubuntu had all three of those qualities to bring it to where it is today. I'm not confident that a community distro can focus itself well enough to overtake Ubuntu. There are too many stakeholders and decision makers with conflicting agendas.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 5:55 UTC (Sun) by interalia (subscriber, #26615) [Link]

I wouldn't have thought there were more than 1 of each in the default install, actually.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 11:51 UTC (Sun) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link]

> A default Debian desktop is a mess.
Actually, it's almost the same as Ubuntu's; and both have one application
per task; with the exceptions in Debian of WWW browsing (iceweasel +
epiphany) and ripping audio CDs (sound-juicer + rhythmbox). But the Debian
desktop has a bit more applications, depending on how many CDs you use to
install it. We're also getting (or pulling) much stuff back from Ubuntu,
like update-manager or the Software Center.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 8, 2010 18:45 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

The last Debian release you installed was woody, right ?

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 6:36 UTC (Sat) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link] (1 responses)

Hmmm Ubuntu truely FOSS ??? Since when? A distro shipping binary kernel modules by default is hard to call "truely FOSS" by any standard.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 12:11 UTC (Sat) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]

You can choose not to at install time, or easily remove non-free bits after installation. Both work equally fine for me. Some others claim even offering non-free binaries like Debian contrib/non-free is against FOSS... to me the defining thing is whether the non-free bits are properly separated from the free bits. That's what caused me to switch from SUSE to Ubuntu in the first place, in 2004 (before SUSE became openSUSE and it started paying a bit more attention to these things).

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 6, 2010 13:11 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (3 responses)

In other news, Daniel Robbins worked for Microsoft at one point.
Therefore, Gentoo is not 'truly FOSS'.

(sheesh.)

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 12:33 UTC (Sun) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (1 responses)

Unfortunately, this seems's to perfectly capture the depth of PJ's "analysis" lately: Look for a connection with Microsoft and you have solid evidence that this is the bad guy. The unfortunate thing is that MSFT is involved in enough bad things that once in a while you get lucky with this methodology, but it still doesn't make it a real analysis. (For instance, in the SCO case this kind of thinking did occasionally turn up interesting evidence, in later stages probably mor FUD than real MSFT connections.)

There's a lot you could say about Matt, but "he once blogged something nice about MSFT" isn't really the thing to focus on. You could however say, if you're posting one or more blog posts per day, you'll find out you're not the expert of everything, and by pure statistics you'll sometimes write silly things.

Feeding PJ: Microsoft has published more GPLv2 code than my employer, and we only publich 100% FOSS stuff ever.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 13:15 UTC (Sun) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Come to think of it, the US word "pundit", as used to describe someone who often comments or is asked to comment on recent news, perfectly captures what I'm trying to say above.

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 9, 2010 12:59 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Could this be the same well known Microsoft lover and freedom enemy Daniel Robbins who has past connections with Microsoft as detailed here and here?

PJ's comment when she posted this story in newspicks

Posted Feb 7, 2010 20:58 UTC (Sun) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link]

You could answer him that:

Here's a list of some of the things they've done
* patents abuse (e.g. fat)
* monopole abuse
* OS bundling (how many times was I forced to give them money ?)
* IE 6 dominance abuse. Stalled the web for years
* closed de facto "standards" (NTFS, SMB, MSN, WMV, Office Open XML, ...)
* ISO fast track standardization abuse
* stance against open source and GPL
* trusted computing and DRM. Lucky we didn't get that...

Should I go on ?

On the contrary, name things that Microsoft has done with regard to open
standards and open software ? Apart from interoperability with the samba
project (which they were forced to [1]), I don't see much...

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/371952/