Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Sep 2012 22:07 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Ubuntu 12.10 will include advertisements for products on Amazon. It will look like this - if you search, product suggestions will pop up. This seems like a rather slippery slope to me, and I certainly wouldn't want this on my desktop, laptop, smartphone, tablet, or anywhere else. On the web - fine, I'm on your site, not mine - but my desktop is mine, and mine alone. Not that it matters - open source, someone will disable them. Biggest concern: does this mean my search queries get sent across the web?
Thread beginning with comment 536096
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: It's just a lens
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: It's just a lens"
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I have to say I find the whole thing fascinating myself. I mean here is the company that the community gushed over, now when they are bleeding to death and trying to keep the lights on its "ZOMG they are trying to make money! How dare they not do everything for free, i'll switch OSes first!" Wharrgarbl!

I have to admit, I never did get the big deal with Ubuntu back in those days. I kept trying it, version after version, trying to figure out what the big deal was with no success. And later on, for a while they started to do the right things, so it was interesting--but it was still just Debian, only with an installable live CD, more up-to-date applications, a custom theme, less stability, and the commercial backing of a billionaire.

I despised advertising back then, and I despise advertising now. For me, nothing's changed. Hell, I only used Ubuntu for a brief time, mostly back in 2008. Back when it really was starting to get good. Before and shortly after then, as well as now, I was and have been using something else.

How many "Ubuntu derived" distros are there, enjoying the fruits of Canonical labor without throwing them even a beer? I rest my case.

You make that seem like a bad thing, but Canonical itself seems to be enjoying it. Most recent example: Lubuntu.

The big mistake Shuttleworth made was using Linux in the first place, if he'd have used BSD as Jobs did he could have kept his work, charged $20 a pop once the buzz built up and would now have the money to not only continue but actually improve the system.

Yes, because we all want another god damn proprietary operating system.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: It's just a lens
by Gullible Jones on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 04:20 in reply to "RE[3]: It's just a lens"
Gullible Jones Member since:
2006-05-23

Yes, because we all want another god damn proprietary operating system.

Why the hell not? It would help create some bona fide competition on the desktop market, which IMO Apple and Microsoft badly need, both being effective monopolies in their respective niches.

Anyway, the problem with OSes isn't that they have proprietary licenses, it's that they have unfriendly licenses. Take Windows for example... You pay $100+ for a physical medium that's licensed to maybe 3 computers, no exception for VMs, have to buy a new license when installing on a new computer, etc. This is not a user-friendly state of affairs, but MS can afford to keep things this way because they have the market cornered. Having alternative, proprietary desktop OSes available might force them to price and license their OS more competitively.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: It's just a lens
by UltraZelda64 on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 04:48 in reply to "RE[4]: It's just a lens"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I don't see how adding another proprietary operating system to the mix will help anything.

As you said, the license is the real problem for most proprietary software including both Microsoft's and Apple's, and not just for operating systems. The problem is, the licenses are practically always a problem and I don't imagine that magically changing out of nowhere. Companies know people don't care, they'll just buy the software anyway, not even reading the license.

The companies know they have their customers by the balls because they don't even get to *read* the license until after they tear away the shrink-wrap and put the disc in the drive, and by that time it's too late: the store won't take it back for a refund, because you've already opened it, and they suspect you to have copied the disc and registration key, you dirty thief!

I would be surprised if any company would ever come up with a license for their proprietary software product that I could truly agree with, and actually mean it when I am forced to click "I agree" to proceed with the installation. Sorry, but I just don't see it happening.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: It's just a lens
by lucas_maximus on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 13:43 in reply to "RE[4]: It's just a lens"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

$100 dollars for a license that never runs out, is supported for 10 years (works out at about $10 a year ... and you call that expensive).

The cost argument is negligible given the amount of time, you have support.

I still have my original XP and 2000 licenses and they still work and install fine. $100 is a pittance.

Edited 2012-09-23 13:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: It's just a lens
by darknexus on Sun 23rd Sep 2012 13:45 in reply to "RE[3]: It's just a lens"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Yes, because we all want another god damn proprietary operating system.

I don't necessarily want another proprietary operating system, but I'm enough of a realist to know that software doesn't get developed up to a high standard of quality unless the developers are getting paid, and the easiest way to make a return on ones investment is to sell the product at a fair price. The trouble with open source operating systems is that, when push comes to shove, there's very little money to be made from one on the home desktop. It works fine in a professional setting because most companies are willing to pay for support contracts and other services, so companies like Red Hat can make their money that way and give the operating system itself out at no cost. Home users, however, won't typically go in for such a plan and so the easiest way to make a high quality product they will want is to sell it and, where something like GNU/Linux is concerned, selling to home users is impractical as they can just get it for free anyway. This is one of the reasons why Linux on the average home desktop doesn't work: Most companies are concentrating on the corporate workstation and server since those markets are the cash cows and so home users are considered last if at all. I see no real way to avoid this except to sell a proprietary system and, unlike a lot of people here, I don't dislike the idea of proprietary software. A group of people create something and, if it's successful, they have the right to proffit from their good work. I don't much care for the licenses of most proprietary software, but that's a problem with lawyers not with the idea of closed software in and of itself.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: It's just a lens
by bhtooefr on Mon 24th Sep 2012 09:48 in reply to "RE[4]: It's just a lens"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

The other thing is, what about a split open OS/proprietary applications model, and use the app store model to make money?

Basically, loss leader the OS to sell apps.

Reply Parent Score: 2