back to article Shuttleworth on Ubuntu: It ain't about the money

In the wake of the launch of Ubuntu 8.10, Mark Shuttleworth - the founder of the Ubuntu project and the chief executive officer of Canonical, the commercial entity behind Ubuntu - hosted a conference call with the press and analyst community. And in that call, Shuttleworth, who is not afraid to shell out money for a good cause …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Happy

More expected freetardism

"You can install Firefox IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY on Linux."

Bullshit. Seems like you haven't actually tried it. Try it. It doesn't have to be in a 2000's distribution. Try Ubuntu Dapper from 2006. Good luck.

"your implication that Linux isn't on 99% of desktops would be incorrect in any case."

0.91% actually. Eat some facts:

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

Yeah, the year of the linux desktop is coming. Again.

One more thing for the freetard who claimed Windows 2000 was released in 1997. LOL! That was a good one. Get your facts straight. Oh, right, if you cared about facts you wouldn't be a freetard. But it's ok. No one expects better from you.

0
0
Gold badge

FOSS comments

"Ironically, the biggest fans of FOSS are those who profess to be IT professionals."

No irony there. IT professionals can either (more or less)

1) Plug together proprietary software. It costs real money, and if something goes wrong, it's up to the company essentially to document the problem, with a possibility of some web support. Documentation can vary from great to horrible. Some companies are good with bugs, some are awful and essentially "fix" bugs by saying "don't do this" in the documentation.

2) Plug together FOSS software. It costs 0, unless they get a support contract. If something goes wrong, the support contract will be paying for people who probably helped write the software in question, and there's usually strong web support. Documentation can still vary from great to horrible. All those "hobbyists" etc mean the software is used on a variety of platforms, etc., and bugs are ironed out faster than most proprietary software.

Yeah IT guys will use FOSS and like it. It saves money, it's usually got better support (paid and free). And it's NOT putting them out of a job.

"Oh yeah, don't try that "the money is in the support" arguement (although it does help explain why Linux *needs* so much support). Why not simply pay the programmers for thier work, and leave the Amway marketing model alone!"

I don't think it explains why Linux "needs" so much support. Really.. And, like it or not, if you're trying to write up some custom app, it's MUCH faster to use some open source libs etc. than write EVERYTHING from scratch. Your paid programmers are going to use open source unless you forbid it, and if you do forbid it, it'll take them much longer to get their work done.

"Not on my desktop. It's not on the desktop of 99% of computing world, actually. And the rest are zealots and religious nuts who hate Microsoft so much they simply can't see how shitty and useless desktop Linux is."

There's free software on WAY WAY more than 1% of the computing world. Servers? Tons of Linux boxes. Macs are loaded up with free software. Even if they run Windows, a LOT of people have OpenOffice, or free CD burning software, 7zip, etc. I'm not going to get into Linux on the desktop, I think it's used a lot but I don't have hard numbers. I don't like to call people out but I'm going to say you are a Wintard. A nice Linux distro is faster, easier to use, more flexible, and all around better than Windows (XP, let alone Vista!), unless you REALLY spend all day running Windows-specific apps (I did a little IT at an insurance co, I would FOR SURE not suggest Linux for them, that'd be freetarded... they ran a different Windows (or a few DOS!) app for every insurance co they dealt with.)

And, people hate Microsoft because they are a convicted monopolist. For *years* they have pushed companies into shipping ONLY Windows machines*, tried to force businesses and schools into some $X/computer site license (flat rate, including Macs, so they could say they sold Windows licenses to machines that can't even run Windows...).. pulled plenty of dirty tricks to drive competitors out of business.

*Usual techinque was "You pay $X a machine for *all* computers shipped. Oh, you plan to ship a lot of blank or other OS machines? Well, we might have to renegotiate, that $X rate might have to go up a lot."

----

I think it's great that Shuttlesworth is spending cash on Ubuntu. Debian has always been pretty nice, and he's helping make it a better desktop and an easier to admin server. He's NOT throwing money away, Microsoft certainly spent some cash on Windows and Office. I think with the economic downturn, distros like Ubuntu will pick up in popularity as some people realize they can save licensing fees, and take advantage of Linux's efficience. They can put off upgrades a bit, and for clusters and large servers, get the same done with somewhat less server. (And, for machines that power save well, save power too.)

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Gordon; meh, silly boy. @ Shuttleworth; Nice work fella.

M$ have put plenty of shekels my way over the years, mostly in the realms of support and security consultancy, so I'm not overly bummed with them. If i need a nice office package I reach for MS Office, if I want to play big vendor video games likewise. Windows will be with us for a few years yet I warrant.

However, just because you feel safe with an OS that pretends (it doesn't, just type ‘winver’ into a command prompt...)* has to have stable incarnations, doesn’t mean you should marry its creators. Weaklings have a vested interest in fearing change.

IMHO a person that would like to understand how stuff works really has to explore all the options. I have and from personal experience most of a Windows OS stack seems to me to be made of stuff to keep a Windows OS stack happy, healthy and profitable. In view of this if performance and transparency is required then I'll take just about any flavour of *nix over a M$ offering. Windows if fine at present for a number of tasks.

Bottom line is while you should never hitch your start to anyone Evil Vendor or Crazed OSS Hippies, and expect them to provide you with free delicious hot scoffs for no input of money or effort, Shuttleworth is both a nice chap and a represents a really necessary alternative to becoming cows on someone else’s farm. Look at the size of that scentence!:P

Your future is what you make it Tough Guy!

*That's mockery BTW Gordon...*

* Merciless mockery.*

* …yeah…

0
0
Happy

A bit more troll fodder for Gordon

I've never had to install firefox, because it ships with seemingly every distribution I've used. But, if I had to...

sudo apt-get install firefox

... 0 clicks required.

0
0
Go

Attack of the freetards

"I've never had to install firefox, because it ships with seemingly every distribution I've used. But, if I had to...

sudo apt-get install firefox"

LOL. Like I said, you've no idea what you are talking about. But it's so easy to make fun of your lies and your freetarded ways. As easy as this:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=847484&page=3

---------------

How to Run Firefox 3 on Ubuntu Edgy, Feisty or Dapper

It works. Here's the versions of the libraries I used (in the correct order):

glib-2.18.1

pixman-0.12.0 (May screws up the environmental varables ... not sure)

cairo-1.8.0

pango-1.20.5

atk-1.22.0

gtk+-2.12.12 (2.14.3 would not build)

Pixman and GTK+ gave me some problems.

Code:

mkdir -p ~/firefox/src

export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/firefox/lib

export LDFLAGS=-L${HOME}/firefox/lib

export CPPFLAGS=-I${HOME}/firefox/include

export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=${HOME}/firefox/lib/pkgconfig/

export CFLAGS=-I${HOME}/firefox/include

cd ~/firefox

tar xvjf ~/firefox-3.0.3.tar.bz2

cd ~/firefox/src

cd (package dir)

./configure --prefix=$HOME/firefox

make

make install

LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/firefox/lib ~/firefox/firefox/firefox

------

Really easy! That's Linux for human beings, mind you. For freetarded human beings.

But hey, keep trying. I'm having fun... and unlike you, I'm not telling lies. I repeat again: try it yourselves.

0
0

@Christopher Martin

Sorry, Christopher, slight disagreement.

You'd have to click the "terminal" icon, unless you're a an alt-F2 fan. Then click to close it again, unless you remember "exit" does it for ya. Bit less fingerwork, though. ;-)

(Oh, and Gordon appears to be a left-handed-website viewer. One stupid paytard bunny).

0
0

0.91% (apparently that wasn't a title)

How does that site prove shit?

An EU site for schools shows 63% Windows, the rest "other".

Swallow that man-custard before answering though.

0
0
Happy

@Andus McCoatover

I actually did this before I posted to make sure that "firefox" was the package name, and did not touch my mouse.

- Launched Terminal with gnome-do (<home>+<space>, t, <enter>)

- sudo apt-get in<tab>firefox<tab><tab>

- Closed Terminal with alt+f4.

A grand total of 31 keystrokes (plus the length of my password if I were to press enter and do the install). I bet an install on Win2k would take more *clicks* than that to open IE, download the executable, launch it, run through the installer...

0
0

@Gordon the retard

Quote from you: "and unlike you, I'm not telling lies" yet you've already stated that you have no open source on your desktop. Firefox is open source - therefore you are a liar.

Also will you just shut up, you're making me very embarrassed to be a Windows user.

0
0
Thumb Up

Ah, I found my people!

http://www.happyassassin.net/2008/10/28/why-i-dont-like-canonical/

0
0
Linux

@ argumentative children

Being a fairly balanced user of both Windows and Linux, for public benefit I first removed and installed Firefox from Ubuntu.

Open terminal.

sudo apt-get install firefox.

Return.

Easy as. Take this post as experimental evidence it works. And so what if linux gets more complicated sometimes, sometimes Windows can be even more frustrating as you can't get under the bonnet when it goes tits up.

0
0
Happy

Amazing guys

"I bet an install on Win2k would take more *clicks* than that to open IE, download the executable, launch it, run through the installer..."

Maybe. But is your distribution eight years old? :-)

You feetards are soooo funny. You have an amazing ability to miss the point , change the subject and ignore the facts. It is truly worth of psychological study.

0
0
Thumb Up

@Gordon (ad nauseum)

Facts? There is only one fact that needs to be considered, are you using the best of breed?

With a given task, which piece of software (hardware or whatever) looks good?

Is it compatible?

Yes - keep it in consideration

No - Argue to change platform or go for next choice

Can you afford it?

Yes - keep it in consideration

No - argue for more money of go for next choice

Can you get support for it (assuming you need that)

Yes - keep it in consideration

No - argue for more money of go for next choice

And so on until you have a list of candidates, scrutinise that list, generate prototypes and pick the one you find works best. *THEN* worry about if it's Open or Closed Source. If you make that decision at that start, you may well cut out the best of breed and return a sub-standard solution to your stakeholders.

I work with a lot of Closed and Open Source tools. If doing the best job I can with the best tools I can find makes me a "freetard", then I guess I am a "freetard"; although I prefer the term "diligent professional".

0
0

@Chris and Gordon

@Chris - yep, pretty easy. Stand corrected. There's more than one way to skin a rabbit. (or a penguin! ;-)

@Gordon - Why don't ya just effing TRY IT???!!! Cost you a CD, then have a crack. Then, you won't be talking _out_ of your crack. Oh, installing Firefox? (You don't need to, of course - comes in the tin, but...)

See https://help.ubuntu.com/8.04/add-applications/C/gnome-app-install.html. Works easy.

Sigh.

0
0

@Gordon

Is your Win2K unpatched?

No?

Then it aint 8 years old.

PS Yes, yes I can install on an 8 year old installation.

0
0

But...

...will it run on my iPhone?

Regarding Firefox I decided to try out the beta of 3.1 earlier. I downloaded the .bz2 archive, extracted it, and clicked on Firefox. Lo and behold it launched.

Terribly complicated for someone like Gordon though admittedly.

0
0

Keep up the fun.

"Terribly complicated for someone like Gordon though admittedly."

It looked quite complicated for Ubuntu Dappers too. Maybe you could enlighten them, freetard. Keep distorting the truth and denying reality. It has worked so well for you in the past that the world is now using Ubuntu. Oh, wait.

0
0

Gordon is a moron

Anyone got a copy of that song?

0
0
Go

Thanks Mark!

I've been on Mandriva/Mandrake for several years now, but from the occasions I've used Ubuntu, it's performed perfectly well for everything I've had to do (Java/C, office stuff and presentations for work, and the usual internet duties).

It's good to see Mark (and others) supporting a free OS - I can't care too much about "distorting" of the market (free markets mean he can do pretty much wtf he wants with his money), and even if Linux was only ever sustained by evening/weekend coders it still means no-one need now *pay* for an actual OS.

Is it really bad that it may someday be impossible to get a job doing things people will happily do for free? - seems like something to celebrate, given that there will always be a demand for specialist software that no-one is doing for "fun".

The denigrations of Linux seem increasingly shrill (easy enough to be blithe about the +ve pro-Linux shrillness) and desperate as time goes on - I personally haven't encountered any show-stopping incompatibilities in ~5 years, which was certainly not true of WinXP in ~2003. *

Yes, there are still people I know who struggle with Linux - but also those who have to be walked through something as simple as deleting a corrupted registry entry - numbers of each being about equal in my experience.

So much praise to Mark Shuttleworth, he's planning on making a good OS better, and if people can get satisfaction of doing what they need/want to do without paying the Redmond tithe on each box, then it's no great hardship to read the superfluous splutterings of assorted "paytards".

I'll probably be installing it on my Eee soon and see if it seems like a good idea for my server and desktop instead of Mandriva.

Wish it didn't remind me so much of the "Umballa!, Umballa!" joke though...

* One of many - regularly bluescreening and deactivating all USB ports until I not only rebooted, but had to log into Windows again. WTFF. Still don't know what I'd have done without pulling an old PS2 keyboard out a drawer.

0
0
Thumb Down

@Gordon

The world may not be using Ubuntu, but it most certainly using Linux (or Unix) and Open Source.

See that TV set-top box? That's probably a *nix OS that is.

See that router? That's probably a *nix OS that is.

See that web server? That's probably running Apache that is.

See that web application? That's probably using log4j (or commons, or...) that is.

The list goes on and web user stats only capture a very small slice of the picture (you must also consider the possiblity that the browser is spoofing IE/Windows OS).

I am a developer. I work in a Closed Source shop. We simply could *not* release our products without Open Source. Seriously. It is vital to us. We use TFS for source control, but we build (and this inlcudes dotNet stuff) using Apache Ant. We create logs (again from dotNet) using log4net, Chainsaw to analyse those logs. Basically just about every part of the system is supported (or only possible) using Open Source tech. I can bet we are not usual in this respect.

Like I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), you pick the best of breed and then worry about where it comes from.

0
0
Thumb Down

too bad he won't consider an application store

having traditional software developers compete with free software is fine, forcing them to drop their jobs or be fired to go into service isn't. Why not add an application store like Apple's (whose black box systems I hate) or Google's Android? Let the end-user decide what is worth a buck and what isn't.

Otherwise, to just bundle Ubuntu with free software and make it practically impossible for other developers to sell theirs is no different a dirty trick than is Microsoft's monopoly elbowing.

0
0

@AC

WTF are you on?

That's the sort of thinking that cause the spinning jennys to be broken and burnt by the luddites.

If you can't compete with FOSS then join them. If you can't join them, show how someone needs to PAY YOU for your work. If you can't, then go the way of the sweatshop seamstress of the early victorian era.

0
0
Flame

Changing subjects again?

"The world may not be using Ubuntu, but it most certainly using Linux (or Unix) and Open Source."

I know that. But we are not discussing supercomputers, servers, or embedded systems here, are we?

As a said, an amazing ability to distort and change subjects.

0
0
Stop

Ubuntu *does* have call-home features

"Ubuntu does not have any call-home features to help Canonical count installations"

... except that it forcibly installs a package called "popularity-contest", which calls home every week with details of your installed packages. You can't remove it, because it is a required dependency of the "ubuntu-standard" metapackage.

It may or may not be disabled by default; I wasn't sure, so I stuck an "exit 0" at the top of /etc/cron.weekly/popularity-contest to make sure it's neutered. But if it is disabled by default, why on earth is it a mandatory dependency??

$ dpkg-query --status popularity-contest

...

Description: Vote for your favourite packages automatically. The popularity-contest package sets up a cron job that will periodically anonymously submit to the Ubuntu developers statistics about the most used Ubuntu packages on this system.

This information helps us making decisions such as which packages should go on the first CD. It also lets us improve future versions of Ubuntu so that the most popular packages are the ones which are installed automatically for new users.

(Aside: their definition of "anonymous" is using sendmail to send outgoing mail, which means at very least they will have your hostname in the headers)

0
0

And you avoid anything Gordon

Anything that you don't want to hear.

TROLL!

0
0
Thumb Down

@Gordon

I have been talking about Open Source in general the entire time, I am the one advocating best of breed" regardless of source.

I tire of your troll game (this is where you falsely claim "Victory is mine!") as you clearly have very little idea what you are talking about. Ferraris only have a small market penetration, does that make them worse the Fords? All depends on whether you want to go fast or take 4 people to the shop.

"Best of breed" for the given task. You, my good troll, are limiting yourself to Fords wherever and whatever you try to do.

0
0
Happy

More laughs

"I have been talking about Open Source in general the entire time, I am the one advocating best of breed" regardless of source."

I do that too. Linux is ok for servers and other markets. Have I ever denied that? But we're talking about desktop Linux here. We're talking about Ubuntu. We're talking about a guy who admits he has not the slightest clue about how to make money with desktop Linux. THAT is reality. Face it if you want.

"Ferraris only have a small market penetration, does that make them worse the Fords? "

That's a common freetarded argument. Do you know a number I can call to have my new shiny Ferrary sent home for free? I thought not.

0
0
Flame

Troll Food

Hi Just Another AC, I can't decide if you are being ironic or you actually believe what you are spouting, so I will bite.

>> Need I remind you, "purchased" is keeping you and your colleagues in employment. It's a race

>> to the bottom, and Shuttleworth proudly boasts that he makes no money, doesn't see any

>> scenario where desktop Linux will ever make money, and will "happily" do this for many more

>> years.

Guess what AC, every single IT professional who works for Canonical, is paid - whether by their customers or by Shuttleworth they are paid. Every company that chooses Ubuntu over MS has more in their IT buget to pay their IT professionals.

Tell me, when you hand over (say) 30% (more like 70%) of your IT budget over to Microsoft so that Bill can add it to his pile of cash (and maybe donate a few proprietary aids drugs to the Third World) - which IT professionals benefit from that?

>> Thank goodness I moved out of programming about a decade ago. It seems that is rapidly

>> becoming an un-paid hobby.

>>

>> Ironically, the biggest fans of FOSS are those who profess to be IT professionals.

That's ironic because if you had actually remained in software development you understand why so many IT professionals, especially developers appreciate FOSS. I suspect most bespoke software developers would struggle much more without the FOSS tools they rely on and contribute to. Sure there is some loss when (say) you develop a PERL module and release it free of charge to CPAN because you don't make any money from it directly, however free access to all the other modules (and their source) more than makes up for it - and besides you would have needed to code it anyway and you probably wouldn't have been able to sell the module on its own.

0
0

Ubuntu making money

It doesn't have to make money.

People don't berate Bill Gates for saying that he'll have donated all his billions to charity before he dies.

Mark Shuttleworth is giving money to a worthy cause (from his POV, same as Bill's) as his "business". If it makes money, so much the better, it will live on beyond him in that case. But it's hardly a goal. He'll still be unable to spend a dime when he's dead.

0
0
Linux

Don't waste money.

Oh noes, don't make good software! Then we'll be out of work because we can't get paid to fix it for you!

Yeah, it's called the world saving money so they have more to spend on other things, which increases the quality of life for everyone.

Go read about the Broken Window Fallacy sometime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

0
0
Thumb Up

@Adam Williamson

Excellent post !

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Seventy Five Mil is peanuts for startup financing

I suppose that most Reg readers must by UK based (figures....) so they're probably not used to the way startup financing works. Mr. Shuttleworth may be just a misguided philanthropist but I think there may be a business plan lurking somewhere. If nothing else his hare-brained scheme is probably the driving force behind Windows 7 -- Ubuntu is a competitive operating system for end users, "it just works" and its easily good enough to give Microsoft pause for thought. (I'd guess there must be at least a handful of Microsofties who remember how their company got its start because IBM thought they were so big they just had to snap their fingers and the market jumped.)

Windows is not just bloated software but its a symptom of company bloat. Too many people making too much money out of what I call 'engineered confusion'.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums