Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Oct 2012 22:37 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Donating to software projects - or, more accurately, open source projects. It's hardly new, it's hardly rare, and I'm sure most of us have donated at some point. That's probably why Canonical has opened Ubuntu up for donations - but with a twist.
Thread beginning with comment 538213
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by joekiser
by joekiser on Wed 10th Oct 2012 23:10 UTC
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

Interesting strategy. Since Canonical is a private company, there is currently no way for Ubuntu stakeholders (users) to control the path of their operating system. Currently, people who have strong relationships with Ubuntu as a product have only two options: 1) rant/rave about changes to the OS in blogs or forums or 2) fork Ubuntu. The problem with the first choice is that it is passive-aggressive; it does not have enough sway to ultimately change the OS in one way or the other, and there is no way to differentiate between genuine user concerns and Ubuntu-hating trolls. The problem with the second choice (forking) is that it is very resource-intensive (actually duplicates resources), and does not guarantee that the entire user base will follow suit (see: Linux Mint). Accepting donations and allowing the users to funnel them into different projects allows Canonical to objectively see what users really want the end product to look like. I think it's a brilliant strategy.

The FreeBSD foundation does something similar, although it is more along the lines of "give us suggestions" rather than "this is where your money is going to go". When I donated two years ago, I wanted to see the money go to the KMS project, for example, but I have no idea if that really happened that way or if the $$$ just went into a general fund.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by joekiser
by woegjiub on Wed 10th Oct 2012 23:27 in reply to "Comment by joekiser"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

I feel that it is very much a good thing that users do not have a direct say in what canonical does, as if they did, they would probably still be running gmome2 or cinnamon, and I *despised* gnome2.

Unity is what made me finally swap to Linux, after years of going back and forth, drooling over KDE features.Nowadays, I refuse to use a desktop without searchable menus instead of the old heirachical model.

Point is, those who yell the loudest are not necessarily always representative of every user, and if they had their say, I wouldn't be using this lovely, keyboard-based UI, but would be stuck waving a dammed mouse around every time I wanted to open a file or application, or access a non-hotkeyed menu item, like opening a VPN connection.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by joekiser
by Clinton on Thu 11th Oct 2012 07:18 in reply to "RE: Comment by joekiser"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

That's interesting. Unity is what made me stop using Ubuntu. To each their own.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by joekiser
by kurkosdr on Thu 11th Oct 2012 09:24 in reply to "RE: Comment by joekiser"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

I actually like Unity too. It has some flaws, like the faux-OS X "global menubar" and the close icon being on the left, but the alternative is Gnome 3, Gnome 2 and "3 guys hacking" (cinnamon). Gnome 2 and Cinnamon feel a bit dated for my taste. And KDE lost it's way long ago IMO.

Canonical could play their cards right (for example, be carefull with X.org upgrades) and take advantage of the radical shift Windows 8 is doing to grab some marketshare.

Edited 2012-10-11 09:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2