Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Thu 24th Jul 2008 04:32 UTC, submitted by snydeq
Mark Shuttleworth today urged development of Linux models to rival what Apple has done on the desktop and mobile devices. Certainly on the desktop experience, we need to shoot beyond the Mac, but I think it's equally relevant [in] the mobile space, Shuttleworth said, outlining the challenge as figuring out how to deliver a 'crisp and clean' experience, without sacrificing the community process. Key to this will be services-based mechanisms for creating revenue for free software that go beyond advertising, Shuttleworth said, adding that cadence in free software releases spurs innovation, and that a regular release schedule, as well as meaningful ties to Windows, will be essential to fulfilling the vision.
Permalink for comment 324332
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-17
it's about funding not profits. Part of the reason Microsoft can bludgeon everybody else is that they get pre-sales from OEMs for those 180 MILLION* copies at $50 a pop that's money to do whatever they want, whenever and answer to nobody. Ubuntu needs to target OEMs to get them to see that for say $5 per unit they could use real Ubuntu and let Canonical take care of support and updates rather than each OEM copying it (badly, like gOS or eeePC) In a way it's "service", but it needs to be to OEMs that will value it and can pay, the only work needed from the OEM will be to send along patches for the latest hardware (much easier to NDA Canonical than random dev)... and maybe something to hook their proprietary bits for multimedia that can't be shipped without licensing.
Ubuntu wants to be a "hub" for development rather than run the whole show. That's what makes them different from Apple or Microsoft. They do need a way to point the projects in a unified direction rather than just "keeping up". They'd take part of that money and put it up as bounty to get developers to fix things (get paid for boring, bu needed, stuff!) but the stuff would still be other people's and everybody would benefit. Again, they don't want to be Red Hat or Suse putting all the "famous" people on the payroll so they don't quit projects, and many devs simply don't want to work for the "man" anyway, so they want to find a third way of doing things.