Because the Ubuntu OS is free software (see, now I can’t just call “Ubuntu” free software), I own it. Ubuntu is mine. I can take it, and the code, and do whatever I want with it. And when I contribute to the project, I am Ubuntu.

The only exception to my complete ownership, is in the copyrighted images and names in the software, such as the Firefox logo, and the Ubuntu logo, and the ownership of those trademarks. Now, I honestly have no problem with Mozilla and Canonical being custodians of those copyrighted images, as I understand the importance of branding, and in protecting a brand, and I trust the legal custodians to uphold the meaning of the brand.

The problem is that Canonical is now producing a product which I do not and can not own, and still calling it the same thing. This undermines the meaning and value of the name “Ubuntu”, and changes what it means to be part of the “Ubuntu” project, as I can no longer call Ubuntu, in it’s entirety, my own.

The issue isn’t whether or not you care if I own Ubuntu or not – the issue is that the naming of this Canonical product has changed the definition of Ubuntu.

I’m personally not up in arms about this. While I do care a lot about the Ubuntu operating system and the Ubuntu project, I trust that those in power will work this out. They’ve done a great job so far. Thanks!

I don’t see that. Red Hat unlike Canonical is running a growing profitable business and pools in a lot of money on funding Free software projects. Red Hat doesn’t have a single proprietary product at all.

https://fedoraproject.org
/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions

Fedora unlike Ubuntu is completely Free software and doesn’t get tied to proprietary software.

“We have yet to see a serious attempt at a Linux desktop that involves something more than just window-dressing on the same old stale open source projects.”

You are right that nobody has figured out a successful business model around consumer desktops around linux but I wouldn’t bet on Canonical to deliver anything here. It is much more likely Red Hat will, considering their solid investments including on the desktop level.

Canonical had the opportunity to fund development on the worst problems facing the Linux desktop. Instead, they built a community on the PROMISE of a usable Linux desktop. Then, when they realized they couldn’t make any money that way, they turned their focus to servers and the enterprise: the one place where Linux was always a competitor. So, as far as I’m concerned, Canonical is just another Red Hat, and Ubuntu is just another Fedora.

We have yet to see a serious attempt at a Linux desktop that involves something more than just window-dressing on the same old stale open source projects.

You may not like talking about TCO, but it’s an important consideration for those of us in the business of making decisions about which technologies to adopt and which to avoid.

Canonical is not involved much in Xorg or PulseAudio or anything much in way of upstream projects. How the heck are going to fix any of the issues? They mostly engage themselves in packaging code written by other communities. I must say, your expectations don’t match the community you are involved with.

Landscape can very well be compared to Ubuntu One. Both have open source clients tied to proprietary services.

The talk of “TCO” reminds me of Microsoft “get the facts” campaign. If you care only about what is cheap vs what is sustainable in the longer run, I suppose we do defer in our ideas.

However, the “client” piece of software for Ubuntu One is open source, meaning anyone can code a client for any platform to mimmick the functionality of the UO client.

THe “closed source” piece is the server-side software that Canonical uses to provide and run their cloud based services. It is not designed to be duplicated and installed places (unlike end user software) and is entirely designed to allow Canonical to do their private jobs.

Canonical has decided (foolishly, apparently in the eyes of some people) to produce only a client for Ubuntu and also to not bother releasing their private code which isn’t for public use anyways. Should Canonical begin producing packages for SUSE, Windows and Fedora in an attempt to diversify? I think that is the responsibility of the users/maintainers of those respective platforms. The client is open, so can be studied, adapted and duplicated.

I don’t see what the problem is. I guess I see open source software as a generous gift rather than a right. I appreciate it, but I use “closed source” and “protected IPs” throughout the software world every time I play video games, listen to music etc etc. Provided those things do not become cumbersome or designed to extract ever increasing amounts of money from me after roping me into a product (as they have, for example, with music & video DRM) I think it is something that is up to the discretion of the provider.

If your primary motivation is in pushing open source licensing, then of course you’d be upset. ANY non-GPL license would likely be upsetting to you. But my priority isn’t open source licensing, it’s a reliable, stable system at a lower TCO than Windows.

@”Unamed”: I use open source software when it works and I don’t use it when it doesn’t. I don’t care much about price (provided that it’s reasonable), nor do I care about being able to debug proprietary code (that would be a waste of my time). I just don’t care. I want to write documents, edit spreadsheets, browse the web, listen to music, watch movies, download porn, play games, etc., etc.

You think I’m out for a “free lunch?” Geez. I can have Linux for free and I don’t want it, nor do I use it anymore because it just doesn’t do what I need it to. I own two Macs (hows that for pricey?) and a desktop gaming PC that dual-boots Ubuntu. I don’t care about price. I’d pay for Linux if it were worth anything to me. I only follow Linux and Ubuntu because of its promise… a promise that I THOUGHT Canonical would be able to bankroll (such as finally fixing X’s sore points, the mess that is the Linux audio stack, and creating partnerships with third-party vendors like HP and Logitech for better support for peripherals).

And, yes, “industry analysts” is a real term for us grown ups who read about technology every day. Google for the VAR Guy, Redmonk, Technologizer, and the Register. That’s a decent start.

And, while you’re at it, check Wikipedia for “Value added.”

Red Hat is a completely Free software company deeply involved in many core upstream projects and the largest contributor to Linux kernel and many many desktop components. The only piece that was proprietary was open sourced a while back

http://www.redhat.com/spacewalk/

Spacewalk has nothing really comparable in the free software world yet Red Hat was committed enough to free it. Meanwhile Canonical refused to fully open source Launchpad and is busy launching more proprietary services like landscape and ubuntuone.

UbuntuOne also is riding on the popularity of Ubuntu and is going back on the Canonical promise to keep Ubuntu as a separate free software only brand.

Fedora has grown nicely as a community oriented distribution and Red Hat remains profitable and growing every year. Meanwhile Canonical has yet to make a profit or even meet even. What does that tell you about which strategy to adopt?

Contradictions
Why use open source software?

Because it’s open source?
Then, why create close source products?

Because open source software is better?
Then, why create close source software when you know that it’ll create worse products?

Because it’s free (zero cost, gratis)?
Then I see your point.

“industry analyst” and “value added” are meaningless expressions that people that can’t think for themselves use.

Calling your critics and detractors “purists” with the intention to offend is the most overused word between those, may I say, low integrity individuals that have attached themselves to open source because it’s “zero cost”. The ultimate “free lunch”!

You cannot dismiss them so easily because unlike yourself they have integrity.

If you cared to read the philosophy behind both “Free Software” and “Open Source” you would see that their foundations are indeed practical. It was not a “pie in sky dream”. So much so that the creation, development, usage and investment in open source has increased steadily in last 10 years.

And yes, Mark Shuttleworth, has indeed wasted millions of his money to feed his ego. No business plan whatsoever, no understanding of what is need to create an open source business, that is why he needs to create close source products. Great differentiator. Great “valued added”.

What’s so different between this “Ubuntu One” from Canonical product and “Live Mesh” from Microsoft. Lets see:

Ubuntu One
Locked in Ubuntu
Closed Source
2GB free/10 GB for $10 (It isn’t even competitive with Dropbox)

Live Mesh
Locked in Windows
Closed Source
5GB free (for synchronization)
25GB free (for storage)

Valued added!!?? What a joke!

Again Mr. Shuttleworth and you “Josh” don’t understand business or community or value or end users.

Value
In principles (don’t betray them)
In Trust (don’t break it)
In Quality (the best differentiator)

The “Ubuntu Generation” has a great prophet, they deserve each other…

Writing this from a Windows computer so your “purist” is wasted. I just can’t stand hypocrites!