Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Tue 1st Mar 2011 18:32 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu "The conflict between Banshee and Canonical over what should be done with Banshee's Amazon Store revenue stream, while it was finally resolved, was not Ubuntu's most shining moment. At the matter's conclusion, Banshee developers were not happy with the results. This is not how open-source communities should work together and no one knows that better than Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical, Ubuntu's parent company, who wrote, "We made some mistakes in our handling of the discussion around revenue share with the Banshee team.""
Thread beginning with comment 464549
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What is Fedora, then?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 17:44 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

By contrast, every other commercial Linux desktop is a licensed product–you can’t legally use it for free, the terms for binaries are similar to those for Windows or the Mac OS. They’re entitled to do it their way, we think it’s good in the world that we choose to do it our way too.


I have no idea what the "commercial Linux Desktop" means. What is Fedora? Is it Commercial or not? It doesn't charge any money and the software is free to use. Many developers are paid by RedHat, and its used as a basis for an OS that requires a support contract to use and receive updates for ( RHEL).

It seems to me that you'd have to craft the definition of "commercial Linux Desktop" in order to include Ubuntu but exclude Fedora in order for that to be a true statement by Shuttleworth. It would seem to be a very convenient definition, contrived only to make Ubuntu look good and deflect the criticism over this issue.

I understand he's personally invested a lot of money into Ubuntu and would like to see it become self funding. But, the self funding can only come about because of all of the other free contributions by thousands of other people ( and some company sponsors) which also need to recoup some revenue.

You can't talk about what you've given, without recognizing what you've received. Unless you want to sound like an a**hole.

Reply Score: 4

RE: What is Fedora, then?
by ruinevil on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 22:19 in reply to "What is Fedora, then? "
ruinevil Member since:
2009-01-08

CentOS is RHEL-the-free-version, binary identical. RHEL is free-software and open-source, except for trademarks of some software; it just doesn't let you use its repository servers.

Canonical doesn't really make sense with the comparisons it makes with commercial Linux distributions. RHEL is really the only one that has any measure of success. SuSE is dying slowly. Probably the most popular commercial distribution is Debian, due to the myriad support services for it.

If you are going to pay for support, you might as well run Debian. You will have more choices among support services over running Ubuntu, which is not as rock hard stable as Debian anyways (though it updates itself 4x as quick).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: What is Fedora, then?
by perlid on Wed 2nd Mar 2011 23:36 in reply to "What is Fedora, then? "
perlid Member since:
2010-12-21

I have no idea what the "commercial Linux Desktop" means. What is Fedora? Is it Commercial or not? It doesn't charge any money and the software is free to use. Many developers are paid by RedHat, and its used as a basis for an OS that requires a support contract to use and receive updates for ( RHEL).


By "commercial Linux desktop" I'm sure he is primarily referring to SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop and Redhat Enterprise Linux Desktop, which unlike Ubuntu Desktop Edition are not available free of charge.

Redhat's commercial desktop offering is quite different from Fedora from a test/quality/stability/maintenance point of view. Sure, their commercial releases are initially based on subset of Fedora, but what you pay for is the extra level of testing and the long term maintenance, which Fedora users don't receive. In the case of Ubuntu you will, free of change, get the exact same bits and maintenance updates as the commercial Ubuntu customers get. That's what sets Ubuntu apart and I'd think that is the point Shuttleworth is trying to make.

You can't talk about what you've given, without recognizing what you've received. Unless you want to sound like an a**hole.


Very true, which is why I find it hypocritical when people release their code under a F/OSS license and then come crying about how "unethical" someone is because they are enjoying (e.g. making money from) their work. What these people tend to forget is that they are themselves enjoying tons of software (e.g. a Linux distribution) other people wrote and gave away without asking them for anything in return.

In other words, people tend to overestimate their own contributions and underestimating other's.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You are defining it in one of two ways which I can't tell form your post.

Definition #1 : A commercial Linux desktop is one that can be paid for.

So to become a commercial Linux desktop just like Ubuntu, Someone just needs to sell fedora?

Or

Definition #2: A commercial Linux desktop is one that has had an "extra level of testing".

So if Fedora is not a commercial Linux desktop ( because the lack of testing), then it has more bugs than Ubuntu? That could be quantitatively measured. I don't think you would find a statistically significant difference.

I still maintain that its a silly, ill defined statement that he made to try and earn good will in listeners.

Reply Parent Score: 2