Canonical Ltd., the sponsor of Ubuntu, and Linspire Inc. the developer of Linspire and Freespire, on February 8 announced a technology partnership to integrate with each other's Linux distributions. Linspire/Freespire will be based on Ubuntu, rather than Debian, and Ubuntu will integrate with Linspire's CNR package installer/updater.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-12
But somehow I feel ... dirty ... reading it
Indeed, it all does seem a bit incestuous. But look at it from this perspective, finally there is a glimmer of hope that the myriad of distros is counter to a cohesive development of Linux, not just in the traditional "coding" development but in market development, tools, drivers, applications, the list goes on.
Someone on here recently made a very insightful remark that "A distro a day keeps adoption at bay" or something like that. Well, here's some good news that speaks to that bit of wisdowm.
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2005-11-05
What does Canonical get out of this? On the surface, it seems that it is only Linspire that profits from the association.
Canonical get a fast-track to one-click installation of proprietary and/or pay-for apps on the Linux desktop. This is in line with Mark Shuttleworth's aim of making the next version of Ubuntu really multimedia-savvy, and it further solidifies Ubuntu's rep as the desktop Linux of choice for non-tech types and those arriving from Windows. Canonical also get to add the Linspire outfit to their growing portfolio of derivative distros, perhaps bound to Canonical's proprietary Launchpad bug-tracker.
So I'd say Canonical get quite a lot from this, aside from whatever financial details may be involved. As always, though, one might ask whether what is good for Ubuntu is necessarily good for everyone else. We've yet to hear any reaction from Debian, for example, or from competitors to Ubuntu like OpenSuSE.
Member since:
2005-07-08
basing a distro on a distro that is based on another distro seems absurd to me. On the other hand, does this mean that *buntu will get legal codecs ootb now? The chance to purchase legal DVD playback? I couldn't quite tell form the article. If so, this could be a serious boon to the already thriving *buntu community, as well as a means to bring a lot more people into the fold.
I guess it also remains to be seen how this "integration" takes place. Will it be an ugly hack with "GIVE US YOUR MONEY" written all over it, or will it be done tastefully?
Edited 2007-02-08 21:23
Member since:2005-07-07
Yes the deal will give Ubuntu access to CNR, which will allow Ubuntu users to buy legal codecs, which I believe does offer legal DVD playback.
For the Most part Linspire(and more Freespire) has been well done, so I expect the next version to be good too, thought there is less polishing to do when basing of Ubuntu rather than vanilla Debian.
Member since:2005-07-05
Member since:2006-06-21
basing a distro on a distro that is based on another distro seems absurd to me.
You must have not been around Linux for very long, then. 
Seriously, it's all part of how Linux distro's evolve. It's natural evolution, like with all free software. It casually morphs into more and more interesting forms, as long as there are people willing to work on them.
Member since:2005-07-08
Years, actually. I can't think of any other instance where people were basing a distro on another distro that is currently based on a still-being-developed distro. Simply Mepis did the same thing.
Debian > Ubuntu > other distro
This has never happened that I can think of. Sure, there have been forks, but that's a lot different than being twice removed from the source.
Member since:2006-01-03
Well, maybe it's easier to do now, because the infrastructure has evolved. And each level adds value that's not present (or is less present) in the lower level.
FLOSS community: Thousands of free programs of various qualities for you to download and compile (together with their dependencies).
Debian: Humongous repository of free software with dependencies and compilation solved, and with great infrastructure for automated updates. Restrictions on non-Debian-philosophy packages (either non-free or disliked licenses). Lacking user-level polish (installation, desktop cutification, administration tool integration).
Ubuntu = Debian - philosopy quarrels + predictable, fast cycle + desktop cutification + admin tool integration + opt-in proprietary drivers.
Linspire = Ubuntu + Windowized KDE + built-in proprietary drivers, codecs and fonts + CNR access commercial software + preinstallation in cheap PC's
You can't help to notice that the added value decreases every step up, but it is there, nonetheless. I could add yet another level by creating my "Inspiral" company and doing Linspire deployments, custom software and support for my customers.
Member since:2006-01-16
Member since:2005-09-03
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-10-02
RE[4]: On the one hand
Member since:2005-07-08
basing a distro on a distro that is based on another distro seems absurd to me.
In addition to the other comments, this layered release management model closely resembles the model for building software systems. Each software component imports an abstraction layer from its dependencies and exports an abstraction layer to its dependents. Analogously, Ubuntu takes the upstream Debian repositories (and the associated release management model) and provides an enhanced set of repositories (and an improved release cycle) to downstream projects like MEPIS and Linspire. It makes sense to software developers.
Each project can focus on what they bring to the table. Debian brings its massive repositories and huge development community, Ubuntu brings its dependable release cycles and sprawling user base, and Linspire brings all of the proprietary junk that users want but OSS developers hate. Each link in the chain complies with the age-old UNIX philosophy: "do one thing and do it well."
The Debian folk continue to be uneasy about the evolving nature of their project, which has been exacerbated by Ubuntu. People who need complete flexibility and stable packages will continue to depend on Debian's stable releases, and downstream distributors will continue to pull package sets from unstable out-of-sync with the Debian release cycle.
However, downstream distributors really owe it to Debian (but are not legally obligated) to deliver patches re-based against the packages' current versions in unstable. Now they are delivering patches against the versions in their frozen repositories, leaving Debian the chore of re-basing the patches against their more current versions.
In addition, Ubuntu (or rather Canonical) has slapped the Debian community in the face (figuratively speaking) by offering their cross-distribution issue-tracking collaboration tool, Launchpad, under a proprietary license. Canonical knows damn well that Debian's governance policy forbids them from using proprietary tools in their project infrastructure, and Debian needs a way to collaborate with Ubuntu developers more than any other project. This is wrong. More wrong than "open" CNR (not the server), but not quite as wrong as the Novell/Microsoft patent covenant.
Member since:2006-09-08
"
In addition, Ubuntu (or rather Canonical) has slapped the Debian community in the face (figuratively speaking) by offering their cross-distribution issue-tracking collaboration tool, Launchpad, under a proprietary license. Canonical knows damn well that Debian's governance policy forbids them from using proprietary tools in their project infrastructure, and Debian needs a way to collaborate with Ubuntu developers more than any other project. This is wrong. More wrong than "open" CNR (not the server), but not quite as wrong as the Novell/Microsoft patent covenant.
"
I think a large part of Canonical's future business model will build around Launchpad (and also how many apps in Ubuntu are linked to liblaunchpad-integration0), so I'm really happy that Debian won't use it. It would be another Bitkeeper if they did.
Member since:2005-07-08
You'd think that, and you're probably right. But I don't think it will work. First, uptake will be limited because it's proprietary. I've said over and over that I have no problem with proprietary software in Linux distributions, but I do have a problem with proprietary project management and development tools targeted at free software projects. Fortunately, this isn't something that will happen in spite of the downsides. When faced with the choice of no collaboration tool or a proprietary one, the vast majority of free software projects will opt out.
Next, if there is real demand for a cross-project issue tracker, which I believe there is, a free software implementation will eventually surface. When this happens, it will suck the life out of the Launchpad ecosystem. This isn't a terribly difficult problem like package management, for example. This is a Google Summer of Code type project that a bunch of college kids could hack together and probably do a very good job. Screw Canonical's needlessly proprietary system, we can build our own.
Finally, it's really hard for a Linux distributor to make money selling proprietary software. I don't know if any Linux distributor is driving net profits from this business. By and large, commercial Linux vendors' bread-and-butter is in services. Launchpad isn't going to drive revenue for Canonical. The best case scenario is leveraging it to gain mindshare (improbable). The only other way I see OSS companies making money is by selling GPL exceptions (dual licenses) for software developed entirely in-house. For example, Trolltech operates like this. So if Canonical wants to dual-license Launchpad under the GPL and a commercial license, I'm sure free software projects will pick it up, and they'll make money selling it to commercial vendors (who often use crappy issue trackers).
Member since:
2005-07-06
Having used both Distros, I have to say I like the partnership. People complain about how "hard" it is to install a Linux application. With CNR, a single click is all that's needed. People really do like that. On the other hand, Linspire always tended to be a little behind in its program selections. Ubuntu does a better job of balancing up-to-date packages with stability.
As a side note, Mepis is also based on Ubuntu. Who knows, maybe Ubuntu will be that "one ring to rule them all". The fact that Ubuntu itself is based on Debian is a plus to me. We don't have to worry about the world getting too "Ubunutuized", since there is a solid, free (libre) bedrock upon which Ubuntu rests. Having a lot of experience with Debian, I would say Ubuntu is the polished, real-world implementation of the idealistic Debian platform.
Member since:2005-09-03
Member since:2006-02-27
Member since:2005-09-15
Voidlogic, CNR is more than just a "single click". It provides a complete description for the app as well. Take a look at the CNR part of Linspire's site and you'll see what I mean.
Oh and to install codecs, mplayer, dvd-backup programs, dvdcss and others takes far far more than a "single click" with synaptic.
CNR is just one more way to be able to install parts of the software in your distro. Will it be the only one? Doubtful, because the CNR repository as it is now has fairly dated packages, but if it uses the same repository that Ubuntu uses then that problem goes away immediately.
Member since:2005-07-30
Member since:2005-11-10
Synaptec can not do one click install of every application you have ever installed though. And that is one thing I LOVE about CNR.
I can build a new machine and in one click install everything I have ever installed without hunting for the apps or what the names might be or what the names may have changed to.
Member since:
2006-01-28
So what will happen with Kubuntu now?
Linspire used to be based on KDE not Gnome. Will Kubuntu become Linsipire's default desktop? Will Linspire developers join Kubuntu's to make an even better kde desktop?
If both distributions do join their development teams, that could be wonderful news for KDE, as Kubutu has consistently received less attention than Ubuntu.
Member since:2005-07-13
Linspire used to be based on KDE not Gnome. Will Kubuntu become Linsipire's default desktop? Will Linspire developers join Kubuntu's to make an even better kde desktop?
KDE will remain as Linspire/Freespire's desktop. According to Jonathan Riddell, Linspire will technically be considered a Kubuntu-derivative since it will be aligning itself primarily with KDE and KDE development.
If both distributions do join their development teams, that could be wonderful news for KDE, as Kubutu has consistently received less attention than Ubuntu.
Well, I'm not sure it changes much for KDE in general but I would think it's good news for Kubuntu. Despite Shuttleworth's proclamations about making Kubuntu 1st class, Jonathan is still, to the best of my knowledge anyways, the only paid KDE contributing developer on the Canonical side. Linspire has contributing KDE developers on their team so some co-operative development should hopefully trickle down to the *buntu-verse for the benefit of Kubuntu users, and vice versa.
Member since:
2006-11-27
Member since:
2005-11-14
I like this. I remember reading about CNR becoming available on Ubuntu about a year ago. It appears that they have decided to partner up a bit more than just having CNR available. I think this is a win for the Linux community, and especially those who run Ubuntu. Having the ability to legally play DVD's and other CODECS in the US on Ubuntu is a great news.
Member since:2005-11-20
Oh, for the love of Mike! Fluendo just offered a complete set of codecs for purchase that INCLUDES the newer wma10 items, that the Lindows people do not have (they got access to the wmp9 codecs from WinCE as part of the USD 20 million buyout for four years, which expires next year). Will they purchase and make available the updated Fluendo package? Insofar as DVD playing goes, a valid point, since Fluendo missed target on THEIR DVD player.
Member since:
2005-07-18
The diagram shows this relationship:
Linux -> Debian -> Ubuntu -> Freespire -> Linspire
It's obviously a simplification, but the whole GNU world has been lumped in with "Linux".
I know some might enjoy tweaking Richard Stallman and the FSF, but I think a diagram like that should give proper credit where it's due. Each distro is firmly supported by a strong GNU base, so the foundation of the diagram should be "GNU" pointing up to Linux.
Member since:2006-01-03
OK, I'll bite the hook (and the sinker):
We really need to give credit where it's due. But, fortunately, it does not stop at GNU, so it really should be
GNU-Xorg-BSD-Trolltech-Sun-IBM-HP-etc/Linux
Whoa! Quite a mouthful ... and still, we're being unfair to many important contributors, so, since the system truly rests on the work of so many organizations and individuals, from now on let's call it (drum roll ...)
etc/Linux
But then, Linux is only the kernel, and it could very well be replaced with Solaris, or BSD or Hurd (ha!). So the name I propose is
etc/Kernel
Or, to give all equal credit and not let the kernel overshadow the rest, how about ...
etc
That would really end all discussion on the subject. I'm starting right now!
Member since:
2006-07-19
This partnership may be interesting from a Haskell-user's point of view.
IIRC, Linspire/Freespire now use Haskell to create their packages. So, given the high-profile announcement of that a while ago, it'll be interesting to see if this move increases the use of Haskell in distros. Interesting times..... :-)
Member since:
2006-01-09
This seems like a potential tipping point to me. Ubuntu is really easy to install and use. I have several non-geek friends now choosing it over Windows without any encouragement.
Add to that the option to have the users ""essential"" commercial applications (even many Windows ones) installed as easily as an "ActiveX control" is a potent practicality. Even with a price tag for the CNR parts this will be an attractive proposition for many people.
There is a gag reflex kicking in with Microsoft products - and Vista is (in some quarters) not being given the chance to prove itself. If this shows itself to be a viable alternative: many will take it especially with low upfront costs.
My concern is that like many technical people .... Shuttleworth and crew will forget to market it properly until it is too late. MS and Apple are two companies with potent marketing departments that are understood to be integral to the organisations survival and success.
Edited 2007-02-08 22:06
Member since:
2006-05-11
Member since:
2006-09-15
Many winge about there being to many differing implementations of Linux. With 4 distro's working together and pooling their resources as well as standardising their underlying OS structures, well the results will speak for themselves.
I for one have been a long time Linux dabbler, toe in the water but up until now never very committed as a user. With Ubuntu Feisty 64, I am sold. This has to be the nicest distro I have had to deal with based on a very good core Debian. Throwing Beryl into the mix and soon with some solid releases of Audio software I will be looking to use Linux as my personal OS full time.
Tis a good time for Linux OS's and the accomplishments that have been achieved over the last couple years has been staggering.
As for marketing, that's a doubled edged sword. Apple get marketing right where the marketing sells the company image well but it doesn't actually sell their OS. Their marketing is based on bashing the competition but at least their marketing department doesn't seem to dictate their OS engineering, just the hardware package. MS sells the OS but the marketing department seems to dictate the direction the OS development goes which seems a bad thing. Linux needs to have the OS sold with a strong focus on its attributes and what they entail without the "Apple" marketing style slagg fest.
Marketing focus needs to be on interoperability, stability, low maintenance, open standards and DRM free. There is a need to educate the lemmings that these are issues that will directly effect them in the short to long term future and that Linux is there as a beacon to stand for their rights and choice without getting in to too much diatribe about Corporate greed/OS bashing. That is what will keep them interested.
People seem to respond better to small chunks of information that get their minds ticking, not Bible bashing which shuts their minds off and generates resentment.
Here's to a bright computing future, one where the end user is in control.
Member since:
2007-02-07
Member since:2005-07-18
Bringing up the packaging format is a very good point. I divide the whole GNU/Linux landscape into three camps: RPM, Debian, and other. And I thoroughly prefer RPMs.
I have celebrated the rise of both Ubuntu and Linspire (including Freespire) because any Linux progress is good progress. But OTOH, I feel uncomfortable with all that deb packaging.
Member since:2005-07-27
Member since:2006-09-24
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2006-09-24
No problem.
1) RPM uses pristine sources with added patches in it's SPEC file rather than some random tarball that who knows what the previous packager has added.
2) RPM depends on particular files rather than package names. Depending on package names leads to having multiple packages in the repo that are nearly the same but not quite. For example, do an 'apt-cache search firefox' and you'll get something like this.
mozilla-firefox - Firefox web browser
firefox - Firefox web browser
web-browser - Meta package that points to firefox web browser
firefox-adblock - adblock extension for firefox web browser that's dependencies will pull in one of either firefox or web-browser
Please tell me which of these is the f--king package that will just give me firefox and not be broken/missing at my next upgrade.
I can give you far more if necessary but I think my point has been made.
EDIT: In addition to what I said before about depending on package names, this is also why it's possible to have 32bit and 64bit packages handled in a repo on an RPM system but not on a deb based system.
Edited 2007-02-09 14:39
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2006-09-24
Member since:
2006-04-21
Member since:
2006-01-23
Mark my words: as more and more distros start to throw their weight behind Ubuntu, Debian will become a smaller entity in the Ubuntu ecosystem.
Mark Shuttlesworth has the resources to expand and support the whole universe of Debian code if necessary.
I believe that as more distros standardize on Ubuntu, Ubuntu itself will become the standard and Debian will start to decline.
Time will tell...
Edited 2007-02-09 03:04
Member since:2006-06-26
Certainly not. Ubuntu does not have the resources to come anywhere close to what Debian does right now. And MS has clearly stated that he doe not want to be in that position (he'd be insane if he thought that's possible).
Ubuntu is the marketed desktop of Debian. But Debian is the core behind it, the - well, in the case of Ubuntu, since it's based on unstable: rather solid foundation. The rock solid foundation is Debian, and it's for the server.
Member since:2006-01-23
I beg to differ.
Debian could fold up and go away tomorrow and as Steven Vaughn-Nichols has pointed out at Desktop Linux, the code would still be there. And with the issues that Debian is having from the highly political decisions to consistently late releases, its future is not necessarily guaranteed.
Mark Shuttlesworth does have the resources and if Debian folded I am sure he would do whatever it would take to keep the code and Ubuntu alive. He could do this with or without Debian's help.
Edited 2007-02-09 17:37
Member since:2006-01-01
Steven Vaughn-Nichols is an uninformed git. The code gets old and obsolete very quickly if you don't maintain it. Ubuntu users have fairly up-to-date Universe because it comes from Debian unstable where the packages are constantly updated and maintained. And even Ubuntu's Main archive is based on a fresh snapshot of Debian code every time that Ubuntu starts a new release cycle. Don't underestimate the impact that a thousand dedicated Debian developers have in keeping Ubuntu up-to-date and in good shape.
But you don't need to worry about Debian's future. You should be more worried about Ubuntu's future. Sooner or later Mark Shuttleworth's moneybag runs empty and that will be the end of Ubuntu. It may take five years or maybe ten years but it will eventually happen if MS doesn't come up with an actually profitable business plan.
Apparently Kevin Carmony has promised MS a share of the CNR revenue. Every time you'll purchase commercial software via CNR, Carmony's greedy hand will visit your pocket and Shuttleworth's hand will slip into your other pocket. But I don't believe that they'll be able to make much money this way. When these two business players have closed down their Linux shop and moved on to other enterprises, you'll still have the community-based non-profit Debian GNU/Linux to fall back on.
Member since:2006-01-23
"When these two business players have closed down their Linux shop and moved on to other enterprises, you'll still have the community-based non-profit Debian GNU/Linux to fall back on..."
I wouldn't be so sure. Either you do not know of the tension between Debian developers or do know and have played it down.
Recently, several high-profile devs went to Ubuntu.
There is no guarantee that Debian will be there when and if Ubuntu and Canonical folds. This is pure speculation. If the current conditions are any indication Debian had better get its act together or else it will become obsolete.
As Ubuntu grows I sincerely believe that Mark Shuttlesworth will do any and everything he can to keep the code alive in the event Debian folded.
Remember, I originally stated that Shuttlesworth has the means to expand should the need arise. And with other distros using Ubuntu as a base, Canonical would have no problem getting devs to work on packages left over from a Debian fall-out. (I mean, after all, where do you think the devs who leave Debian are going??)
Member since:
2005-07-14
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-10-10
Wasn't there a previous article that said there are NO legal DVD players for Linux? I took that as meaning "any" distros.
I guess I'm impartial over the merge. I hope they keep the resulting distro more "Ubuntu" than Linspire. I do think this is a step in the right direction for distros.
Member since:
2005-08-03
This will be good for linspire and freespire. Average Windows Joe has a much better chance of buying a linspire PC from WalMart than he does installing Ubuntu on his own machine. Ubuntu provides a lot of added ease and usability that will make a linspire and freespire a better distro and better experience for their target audiences. Ubuntu doesn't seem to gain as much from the deal as linspire does, although eas(ier) to install codecs and additional easier access to proprietary software is pretty cool. Proprietary vendors will be able to distribute their software more easily as well, so maybe Linux will gain some creedance in the marketplace. The only thing about this thing that gives me the jitters is not the politics of it, but the technical aspects. Do we really want 2 package managers in the same distro? And not just one distro, but freespire, linspire, Ubuntu, and all of their derivatives! I haven't used CNR yet, but since it was designed for a Debian based distro I'm sure it integrates with APT on some level, but I'm sure their are some problems too. I've never had good experiences with systems with more than one package manager. But even if there are no compatibility problems there are still usability issues. New users, have to learn to use two pieces of software for the same task instead of one, and they have to know which one to use and why. Thats just ugly. If however CNR and synaptic (or the KDE equivalent) can be integrated seamlessly, this should prove to be big stuff for Linux all around.
Member since:
2005-08-09