From the get-go, the company behind the popular Linux distribution Ubuntu - Canonical - has backed Ubuntu with Mark Shuttleworth's money. The big question has always been if Canonical is actually making any money. We have a rather clear and definitive answer to that one now.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2005-07-06
It's not Ubuntu hate, we are finally getting some Ubuntu realism after all the fanboy hype and the brown stuff is finally starting to hit the fan.
Canonical simply doesn't contribute to a wide cross-section of open source software as a lot of other companies and organisations do, and without that I'm not entirely sure how any services that they sell can be taken seriously. You pay for expertise with a service contract.
Member since:2005-07-06
If you want paid support, get it from a company that isn't just a freeloader, but actively supports Free Software -- like Red Hat, Mandriva or Novell.
Sorry, these companies may have contributed code, but they didn't do one damn thing about marketing. Canonical has put Linux on the Desktop, where Red Hat said to people to go use Windows. Canonical may not have contributed millions of lines of code (yet), but it did put a face on Linux for average users. That in itself is a significant contribution.
Member since:2005-07-06
Ubuntu hasn't put anything on the desktop, that's the point. Ubuntu have attracted a bunch of fanboys together who think that they represent something significant. They don't. Ubuntu's usage has not increased beyond a bunch of whiners, developers aren't writing software for Ubuntu, Ubuntu's usage isn't increasing, OEMs are not attracted to putting Ubuntu on their machines as a result (nothing done about the chicken and egg scenario), Canonical can't make money off the back of it and Shuttleworth has admitted defeat because he now doesn't know what to do.
Canonical have probably got about two years, perhaps slightly more if they're lucky, and they will be just another Linux start up that went the way of the dodo that lasted longer merely because someone had deeper pockets.
Member since:2007-01-22
Canonical has put Linux on the Desktop
great but people won't pay you for marketing your product (especially when the users are doing a lot of the marketing for you). They pay for service.
The whole service economy is pretty hollow to begin with but at least you are still rewarding intelligence and effort.
Member since:2005-07-06
What you wrote reminded me of a recent Apple ad: http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple_getamac_beanc...
OK, the comparison is not 100% correct, but if I had a company, I'd go to someone with technical expertise, not someone who sacrifices it for marketing.
Member since:2006-01-01
I agree that Canonical/Ubuntu clearly know how to market their product very efficiently. Kenyon's and Shuttleworth's comments (in this "news story") are a part of their current marketing campaign for the upcoming new Ubuntu release.
The fact that Canonical estimates Ubuntu has 8 million plus user base of active users isn't really worthy of news -- they've told us that already many times before. The fact that Ubuntu isn't yet profitable isn't really news (if they suddenly become profitable, that would be news). The fact that Canonical plans to give software away without payment and charge for services isn't news -- they've done that since they started.
Even the fact that Ubuntu is soon going to release a six month's worth of updates isn't really any big news -- six months is a short time and there's not that much radically new stuff in those updates.
So why are there so many articles about Ubuntu just before their new release even though it's a pretty boring release and not really news worthy at all? Well, that's just because Canonical/Ubuntu are very good at marketing their product.
But even if Shuttleworth had never started Ubuntu, I'd think GNU/Linux would still have just about as many (or, as few) users as it currently has. The Canonical/Ubuntu marketing department and the numerous Ubuntu advocates would like us to think that Ubuntu is the only modern and easy-to-use distro while all the other distros are difficult and outdated, and that Ubuntu has brought many new users to GNU/Linux. But I think that's BS. There are several good newbie-friendly distros out there. And, if we're honest, we should admit that the single biggest attractor that has brought new users to GNU/Linux recently is not Ubuntu, it's Windows Vista.
Member since:2005-08-07
Ubuntu hasn't spent money on marketing... all their marketing consisted of word of mouth... that isn't something that they should benefit from, that isn't something that is meaningful.
Novell and RedHat have both spent more on marketing, they just don't market to the home user currently.
Member since:
2005-07-06
If you want paid support, get it from a company that isn't just a freeloader, but actively supports Free Software -- like Red Hat, Mandriva or Novell. Each on these three companies employ many FOSS developers (several hundreds in case of Red Hat and Novell, a little under 100 in case of Mandriva -- numbers according to Wikipedia).
There are also Debian consultants who donate a share of their income to The Debian Project. Check http://www.debian.org/consultants/