Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 26th Apr 2007 01:19 UTC, submitted by muszek
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Ubuntu Open Week is a series of IRC meetings of people behind the distribution and the community. Mark Shuttleworth answered various questions on Tuesday and Wednesday. The interview covers many issues, including: GPL v3, proprietary software, Microsoft's $3 project, Launchpad, non-free stuff in Ubuntu, April 19th siege of, Canonical vs. Ubuntu Foundation, becoming F/OSS contributor. Full logs are available on Ubuntu wiki. Ubuntu News has a digest with the most interesting pieces. Also, another interview with Mark is here and four interesting Ubuntu articles are here, here, here and here.
Thread beginning with comment 234083
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by butters on Thu 26th Apr 2007 07:51 UTC
Member since:

i think the free software community should assume that we are going to have to build our own leaders in each of the major software categories. because, unless something changes and linux users start to be willing to pay for apps, the ISV's are unlikely to port

Right. I also think we need to realize that these proprietary applications aren't great fits for the free software desktop anyway. Our approach is about modularity, integration, and code reuse amongst applications. Their's is about selling a self-sufficient monolith whose underlying framework usually isn't useful for or reusable by any other application. This is the same reason why OpenOffice and Firefox aren't outstanding citizens of the free software desktop.

the kubuntu team will expand, but i think kubuntu will always be more independent of canonical, which is in many was a good thing. somethings happen first in ubuntu, because that's where we focus our resources for new releases,

What about when KDE4 hits its stride, leaving GNOME in a not-so-competitive position? I believe that Ubuntu chose GNOME because it was more usable at the time. Are they open to change, or are they committed to GNOME for the long haul?

if there were multiple LP's, people would have to do that work multiple times.

We don't want multiple Launchpads, but that doesn't mean the code has to be proprietary, and that doesn't mean that Canonical is the best entity within the free software community to be its steward. Any licensing model that prevents the proliferation of Launchpad servers also prevents the free software community from taking back control of the Launchpad if/when Canonical misbehaves or stops running the server. We should all be able to contribute to the development of Launchpad as a free software project. This is one of those situations where we just need to agree on an entity to steward the production server and agree on a replacement steward if the need should arise. The FSF would be a reasonable choice.

right now we have the luxury of having plenty of funding and a long-term mandate to change the economics of the software industry in a profound, philanthropic and commercial way.

This is why, despite its flaws compared to some other distributions, I support the Ubuntu Project and hope that Canonical will become a great success. They represent, from a philosophical standpoint, the best thing to happen to the free software community since Debian was founded. They really want to change the software industry the right way, on our own terms, not like that other Linux vendor whose intentions scare the crap out of us.

next week you will see two big announcements, one of which will probably dominate the media, but both are really nice steps towards sustainability for the project.

I can only speculate that Jonathan Schwartz knows all about the bigger one. I correctly guessed what they had in mind when hiring Ian Murdock, so let's see if I'm on target as to the timeline and the distribution partner.

Edited 2007-04-26 07:52

Reply Score: 5

RE: comments
by yak8998 on Thu 26th Apr 2007 12:34 in reply to "comments"
yak8998 Member since:

I've really never understood his comments regarding launchpad - they all sound like BS to me. This time it didn't even make much sense with regards to the "multiple solutions." Anyone clarify what he means?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: comments
by butters on Thu 26th Apr 2007 13:11 in reply to "RE: comments"
butters Member since:

Launchpad is intended to consolidate bugs from many free software projects into one shared tracker so that projects can collaborate on bugs that affect multiple projects. If there's one Launchpad server in the entire universe, then projects either use it or they don't. If there's more than one, then they compete for projects, and the data might not be easily shared between projects that use different Launchpads.

Canonical wants to run the world's one and only Launchpad. We only want one Launchpad, but eventually someone is going to come up with a better Launchpad and projects are going to want to switch. Making Launchpad proprietary won't prevent competition in the cross-project issue tracker space. It will just slow down innovation, and the eventual competitors will be less interoperable with Launchpad than if they were derivative works.

Reply Parent Score: 2