Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

webstylr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#41

Post by nicholassmith »

pedrocr wrote: post #31
nicholassmith wrote: post #15

The bigger issue is Ubuntu isn't a product. It's a nice community layer with some high level project management spearheading the direction and a team of core developers adding nifty features. If there is paying for the product then how is that money distributed to Jack John Johnson the guy doing patch fixes on his free time because he enjoys it. Does he get a salary? Some kind of financial bonus? Then you've got the…

This idea that what Ubuntu does is just some light packaging is pretty demeaning to their true value. Ubuntu really pushed the state of the art in terms of polish for Linux distributions. You can argue how much of the total product value that is but I don't think it's at all reasonable to say "Ubuntu isn't a product" and that it's just a "nice community layer with some high level project management". I'm also curious…

It could be taken as pretty demeaning, I accepted that as I wrote it, and I don't think of it in demeaning terms. They do a fantastic job, they have as you say pushed Linux forward a lot, I have nothing but respect for them.

I won't however change my opinion. They did push the state of it forward, but so did Knoppix in many ways, and a fairly large amount of other distros. Are they all products? No, they're projects, with varying levels of success. It's a great platform, but I don't think that classing it as a product is helpful. It's a community project, approaching it like RHEL wouldn't work, they have completely different aims.

My argument isn't that Ubuntu is a quick paint gloss improvement, it's that they've taken the core work and improved it rapidly (although Unity could be argued) and teamed it with their biggest marketable quality which is that they've built a community around their work.

Do they deserve money? Yes, of course, thats why they take donations. Should they sell it as a product, as an actual thing? I don't think so.

(if you're working for Ubuntu, I love you and I'm not being mean!)

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#42

Post by jballanc »

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the obvious solution: go with the Apple model and build Ubuntu machines.

Sure, Apple made some money from selling OS X at $129. It's making less now. But new OS sales were never the reason for Apple to remain closed source. That had more to do with branding/marketing. Not many people remember that one of the reasons Steve killed the affiliate program is that the Mac affiliates were making better machines than Apple, and people were buying them instead of a "Mac". That reduces Apple's revenue, but more importantly dilutes their brand.

Ubuntu, on the other hand, has a very different brand proposition from the start. Open is their brand. But so is "convenience", and what could be more convenient than a machine for which you don't have to do research to find out if all the drivers will work?

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#43

Post by RobAley »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #38
realize wrote: post #7

Getting pretty tired of these "dear company, let me pay for your product instead of showing me ads" arguments. They show a lack of understanding of business models.

I think it shows a clear understanding of business models. In an ad-supported service, the advertiser is the customer and the user is the product being sold.

But its more nuanced than that. Ubunut (or rather Canonical) is not just an ad-supported service. It has "real" enterprise support customers, it has OEM engineering services, certification services and other things that puts Ubuntu as at least part of the product, if not front and centre. In a multivariate business model like this, the pulls in each direction tend to even out for the betterment of the product as a whole (or pull it apart completely, but with Ubuntu that hasn't happened yet).

I think the simplistic view of Canonicals business model is the problem with the article.

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#44

Post by AnthonBerg »

If you have spent a reasonable amount of time with Ubuntu, try installing Debian and playing around with it. Sadly, you will probably notice how Ubuntu have unnecessarily broken things that are working fine in Debian. Core things.

Let me propose you give money to Debian instead.

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#45

Post by RobAley »

jballanc wrote: post #42

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the obvious solution: go with the Apple model and build Ubuntu machines. Sure, Apple made some money from selling OS X at $129. It's making less now. But new OS sales were never the reason for Apple to remain closed source. That had more to do with branding/marketing. Not many people remember that one of the reasons Steve killed the affiliate program is that the Mac affiliates…

The trouble is Canonical is and has always been a software company, and Apple is a hardware company (or at least its roots were).

To make Canonical in a hardware direction under the Canonical brand, at a level to compete with existing hardware manufacturers, would take a fantastic amount of investment.

They are making steps in partnering with hardware manufacturers, see the recent Dell linux laptop, and the OEM engineering services they provide for e.g. set top box manufacturers.

But I think it's unlikely you will see Ubuntu brand hardware any time soon.

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#46

Post by ctdonath »

jballanc wrote: post #42

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the obvious solution: go with the Apple model and build Ubuntu machines. Sure, Apple made some money from selling OS X at $129. It's making less now. But new OS sales were never the reason for Apple to remain closed source. That had more to do with branding/marketing. Not many people remember that one of the reasons Steve killed the affiliate program is that the Mac affiliates…

Just as Apple's goal was to be a hardware company, which sold an operating system to help sell hardware, Canonical would do well to sell a, er, canonical hardware configuration for the purpose of selling the OS. One of the debilitating downfalls of OSS OSes is the lack of reliable/assured compatible hardware (video drivers being a notorious examples). Arrange for manufacture of a "reference design" system with a "it just works" Ubuntu distro thereon for those willing to forgo hardware options to assure a functioning, no geeking-tweaking, Linux platform.

Great idea. Hey, this is Y-Combinator - somebody get on it!

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#47

Post by pedrocr »

mapleoin wrote: post #40
pedrocr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that what Ubuntu does is just some light packaging is pretty demeaning to their true value. Ubuntu really pushed the state of the art in terms of polish for Linux distributions. You can argue how much of the total product value that is but I don't think it's at all reasonable to say "Ubuntu isn't a product" and that it's just a "nice community layer with some high level project management". I'm also curious…

RedHat charges for RHEL support , not for the software, they give that for free (see CentOS). Canonical also charges for Ubuntu support .

The fact that you need to strip all the references to Redhat and recompile all packages from source (aka CentOS) and can't actually just get the install image from Redhat like you can with Ubuntu means they don't give RHEL away for free.

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#48

Post by anonymfus »

RobAley wrote: post #43
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it shows a clear understanding of business models. In an ad-supported service, the advertiser is the customer and the user is the product being sold.

But its more nuanced than that. Ubunut (or rather Canonical) is not just an ad-supported service. It has "real" enterprise support customers, it has OEM engineering services, certification services and other things that puts Ubuntu as at least part of the product, if not front and centre. In a multivariate business model like this, the pulls in each direction tend to even out for the betterment of the product as a wh…

Yes, for OEMs and enterprises enthusiasts are not product. They are testers. For Fedora it's almost official.

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#49

Post by pedrocr »

brusch wrote: post #39
pedrocr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This idea that what Ubuntu does is just some light packaging is pretty demeaning to their true value. Ubuntu really pushed the state of the art in terms of polish for Linux distributions. You can argue how much of the total product value that is but I don't think it's at all reasonable to say "Ubuntu isn't a product" and that it's just a "nice community layer with some high level project management". I'm also curious…

I think Ubuntu moved away from "polish for Linux distributions" some versions ago. This was the time they've started making their own user interface with Unity, they're own shop with I-don't-know-what-it's-called (App center ?) and their own online storage with Ubuntu one. They make decisions you may like or may not like (moving the window controls to the left..) - but at least for me it was time to go - and I don't…

The fact that that has happened only gives more weight to the idea that they are in fact producing their own product instead of being a light packaging layer over what everyone else does.

Re: Dear Canonical: please let me pay for Ubuntu

#50

Post by jackbravo »

RobAley wrote: post #45
jballanc wrote: post #42

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned the obvious solution: go with the Apple model and build Ubuntu machines. Sure, Apple made some money from selling OS X at $129. It's making less now. But new OS sales were never the reason for Apple to remain closed source. That had more to do with branding/marketing. Not many people remember that one of the reasons Steve killed the affiliate program is that the Mac affiliates…

The trouble is Canonical is and has always been a software company, and Apple is a hardware company (or at least its roots were). To make Canonical in a hardware direction under the Canonical brand, at a level to compete with existing hardware manufacturers, would take a fantastic amount of investment. They are making steps in partnering with hardware manufacturers, see the recent Dell linux laptop, and the OEM engin…

Nowdays I think Chinese manufactures make it pretty easy to grab one of those unbranded computers and just sell it with your own brand. Is this not the case?
Post reply on HN