Ubuntu developers and other interested parties from all over the world have swarmed to Google’s offices in Mountain View this week for the Ubuntu Developer Summit to plan out the next release of Ubuntu. In total, about 140 people have registered for the summit. According to Jane Silber, Canonical’s COO, only 30 of the attendees are actually employed by Canonical, the company that sponsors Ubuntu. The remainder of the participants include members of the Ubuntu community, representatives of upstream projects, and other parties who have an interest in how Ubuntu is developed.
Could it, would it, should it happen?
Do you mean acquire Canonical? They can’t really buy Ubuntu the distribution, since it is completely Free. They can, however, buy Canonical which owns the Ubuntu trademark, etc. I don’t see it fitting into their business model, however.
i hope not, i don’t want ads in my ubuntu
I also hope google does not buy ubuntu, for the fear of google wanting for whatever reason to join microsoft like novell/suse did.
Did you see Gmail fitting into their business model before it came out? What about Google Calendar? Writely? etc
Although, I don’t think Google will be buying out a Linux distro at the moment.
Did you see Gmail fitting into their business model before it came out? What about Google Calendar? Writely? etc
Every one of those applications fits into Google’s model of browser-based web services. As far as Google is concerned, a desktop OS is simply a platform for supporting a web browser.
While I can see the logic from investing in supporting linux for their applications and services to ensure desktop agnosticity (which they seem to be doing slowly but surely), I don’t see how it would make sense to invest in a particular desktop. Runs counter to their entire business model up until now, which sort of relies on not playing favorites.
Oh yeah, now that they have an entire market of browser-based web services, But what about back in the day when they only had basically web search and Google Groups? Gmail didn’t fit into their business model at all. They’re expanding constantly. I think teventually they’ll want to compete with Microsoft everywhere. They’re already attacking IE, Office, a lot of MSN (and Windows Live), etc… its only a matter of time before they go after Windows.
Yeah, I meant the entity that owned Ubuntu…or however “owning” works in a FOSS business.
I don’t know about the whole comment about an OS not fitting into Google’s business model. They’re pretty reliant on Linux servers for their datacenters, and they supposedly hired some OS designers, or software engineers or something a while back. And I would think they all want Windows (Microsoft) to be made extinct.
Google’s all about the Web 2.0 and I doubt if they’re going to rely on Windows, or Mac OS and *nix for that matter, to be the springboard to their apps for very long. Especially if they can tailor-make an OS to basically be a web browser.
All that said, given Ubuntu’s following, I don’t think Google would want to take it (Canonical, apparently) over. I’d guess if they did go after a distro, they would take some obscure one over so as not to piss off a rather large established community of potential users, like say….Slackware, for example.
But I could be wrong….it’s happened before, and it’ll happen again.
It’s good to hear that Ubuntu has ease of use as it’s main priority. Inclusion of binary drivers and easy access to multimedia codecs is a good thing and will possibly make Linux finally desktop-ready while still being free.
Inclusion of binary blobs in the kernel, inclusion of closed drivers for video cards by default, and you say “while still being free?” No, this is yet another LONG slide down the slippery slope. And what a message it sends to the hundreds of thousands who use the distro.
That’s why I use it, cause the blob and binary drivers.
Just cant handle freedom, need someone to exert a little controland put you in your place huh. Not me. Nvidia doesn’t own my machine.
Closed/proprietary drivers are worst than closed/proprietary software!
So what is ‘worse’, given that you actually have work that needs to get done on your machine. Closed drivers on an Open OS or Closed drivers on a Closed OS?
So what is ‘worse’, given that you actually have work that needs to get done on your machine. Closed drivers on an Open OS or Closed drivers on a Closed OS?
closed drivers on an open OS, of course
So what you’re saying is that anybody who needs any sort of graphics performance should use windows for ideological reasons, despite the fact that Linux might work better for them.
Mitarai:That’s why I use it [Ubuntu], cause the blob and binary drivers.
Wow, this is an amazing statement. So, you use Ubuntu because of blobs and binary drivers? I might be mistaken, not trying to double-guess you here, but isn’t it more like you use Ubuntu because it has a been good userexperience for you? “Good userexperience for you” here obviously means your hardware works with all expected features and is easy to setup, is that right?
If that’s the case, let me break the ugly truth to you: blobs and binary drivers make it harder to setup hardware under GNU/Linux and the really easy to setup FOSS alternatives are not feature-complete because the manufacturers hide interface specifications from you and me. Really, telling us that you use Ubuntu because of binary blobs and drivers is like telling us that you have sex because of AIDS!
“Inclusion of binary blobs in the kernel, inclusion of closed drivers for video cards by default, and you say “while still being free?” No, this is yet another LONG slide down the slippery slope. And what a message it sends to the hundreds of thousands who use the distro.”
—————–
I agree. I’d rather not see a distro let go of its principles just for the sake of building a user base. If a user isn’t concerned with the principles with F/OSS, I’d rather not have them as part of the Linux community. That user will likely jump ship anyway when “The Next Big Thing” comes along.
Admittedly, I do use binary Nvidia drivers, the Flash 9 plugin, and a few other proprietary programs. When a good F/OSS alternative exists though, I will make an effort to use that instead. (E.g., Evince over Acrobat Reader, GIMP over Photoshop, OGG over MP3.) And you won’t hear me begging a free distro to make it easy to install non-free stuff by default either.
At least Ubuntu is making an effort to educate its users about free vs. non-free software to coincide with making it easier to use non-free software. I just hope it doesn’t fall on deaf ears.
Inclusion of binary blobs in the kernel, inclusion of closed drivers for video cards by default, and you say “while still being free?” No, this is yet another LONG slide down the slippery slope. And what a message it sends to the hundreds of thousands who use the distro.
These are just plans and there is still time to consider the details of how it’s actually implemented. My guess is that they’ll receive a lot of negative responses from the long term Ubuntu users (like this blog post: http://www.jejik.com/articles/2006/11/is_ubuntu_set_to_become_non-f… ) and they’ll end up making the free drivers the default but adding a pop-up notification that allows users to install the non-free drivers easily if they so choose.
This will no doubt boost Ubuntu’s popularity to new heights — Ubuntu’s main target audience is the new Windows converts who couldn’t care less about “all that open source crap”. And Ubuntu is determined to give their users what they want. Personally I prefer Debian because it does The Right Thing both technologically and ethically.
Yes, I’m free to use them. Restricting me from that kind of breaks the freedom thing. The codecs won’t be installed on default, it will be just easier to access them. I don’t know about drivers but most likely it will be the same case. It wasn’t that hard before anyway, just check universe/multiverse in “Sources of software” and use “Add/remove apps”.
On the other hand the plans of making “real” free Ubuntu make sense – some people won’t like these changes and they will be free to choose the version that suits them. Original Ubuntu wasn’t really free (as in Richard Stallman’s point of view) to begin with, there were firmware binary blobs needed for some drivers like ipw2200.
Edited 2006-11-13 10:35
Repeat after me:
Firmware blobs are good. Without these, the device is useless. These used to be in a chip on the device, but now are downloadable to the device via the OS. But its still the same software. This software runs on the actual device, and never touches the OS.
Binary driver blobs are bad. These run in the host OS kernel and can lead to all kinds of bad things.
There’s a big difference between the two, and it’s really annoying that so few people know the difference.
phoenix:Repeat after me:
Firmware blobs are good. Without these, the device is useless. These used to be in a chip on the device, but now are downloadable to the device via the OS. But its still the same software. This software runs on the actual device, and never touches the OS.
Binary driver blobs are bad. These run in the host OS kernel and can lead to all kinds of bad things.
There’s a big difference between the two, and it’s really annoying that so few people know the difference.
I will, sort of. You have a point (take thumbs-up here) i want to expand on:
Firmware blobs are good, if the firmware is FOSS.
Firmware blobs are ugly, if the firmware is binary and propritary.
Binary drivers are bad and ugly for the stated reason.
Okay, but how many devices out there do you know of that have open source firmware?
EXACTLY! egon you da man!
Being committed to free is what made Ubuntu popular and not being committed is what will make it unpopular.
Negative. Massive media blitz is what made ubuntu popular. Shipping free CDs helped out a lot, too – pressed CDs are a lot more likely to garner attention than sharpie-ware. Besides that, they have done a lot of work towards making an excellent distro – let’s not forget that. Has ubuntu *ever* been 100% Free? Has it ever even been *about* being 100% Free? Not that I can recall.
Considering the level of griping on their forums *insisting* things be made yet easier, and *insisting* that linux users should never have to do research before buying hardware, I imagine 50% or more of their current user base don’t give a rat’s ass whether it’s Free or even Open Source. Free is not often as importnat as many make it out to be – even people it this thread decrying “blobs” admit to using them.
Negative. Massive media blitz is what made ubuntu popular. Shipping free CDs helped out a lot, too – pressed CDs are a lot more likely to garner attention than sharpie-ware. Besides that, they have done a lot of work towards making an excellent distro – let’s not forget that. Has ubuntu *ever* been 100% Free? Has it ever even been *about* being 100% Free? Not that I can recall.
Good point. What created the media blitz? People using it and talking about it. Some people used it because it was a good easy OS and some people used Ubuntu because it claimed to be free and was a good easy OS.
I have no problem with them not being free. Heck, what could I do about it anyway. They should just go ahead and call it yet another commercial linux. But at least the other commercial linux(s) have their *free* projects or releases that only contain free software. Maybe Ubuntu should consider that.
Why does the Ubuntu team not choose Ubuntu free and an add on iso for the non free. There are two projects wich do the same thing already, easy ubuntu and automatix, so it would be very easy to do, just ask their help. I would like to see Ubuntu free, wich is totally open source, and an add on iso , for people who would want that, for the commercial non free add ons , and drivers.
Just pop in the cdrom (or DVD ) , agree to the licence in one go, and choose the programs you like to install from the menu. Its not that hard, just keep it seperate. Linux is all about building, you need different things , for various tasks.
But the basis should stay open source, as open source is the tool that gives you acces to the source code and the freedom to distribute and create, and be creative.
Or. Have the binary blobs included by default for those that don’t care, and then have an option to remove them if you’re an evangelist/zealot. :p
Shuttleworth says that Feisty will include the binary drivers by default to provide users with the best performance, but he also wants to educate users about free vs. non-free drivers and alternative hardware that does have free drivers available.
Providing them by default will do PLENTY to educate them in all the wrong ways.
now it makes sense to do it ,
maybe i will install fedora core6 (i have an dvd around) to play with
That news could be an big grey spot area for ubuntu feisty , default proprietary drivers (by default in release) , It’s good for users but not so good
for open source developers (kernel hackers and others)
maybe they know something mark won’t tell us: nvidia’s and ati’s drivers will become open source soon (like sun did with propietary java)
first they included jre by default and now is all open source (under gpl)
Open drivers is something that’s not just useful for zealots. There are very good practical reasons why open drivers are preferable for both users and system developers. The whole XGL/EGL thing is a primary example. For years now, the lowest levels of the system have stagnated because of the lack of access to the driver source. Now what you have is pretty slick upper layers (Compiz, Cairo, etc), mated to very kludgy lower layers (AiGLX, XGL), all because the inability to change the driver has become a constraint on the design of the stack.
Neither Microsoft nor Apple are playing with this handicap. Both have the source code for NVIDIA’s and ATI’s drivers, and both are designing their GL (or DX) stacks in ways that make sense for the windowing system, changing the drivers as necessary, instead of trying to design the windowing system around a fat binary driver they can’t change.
Props to Intel for making at least some attempt to get proper, open source DRI drivers for GMA. Because of that move, the really functional graphical infrastructure is going to support GMA first. Stuff like proper memory management in the DRI is happening in the GMA driver, because people aren’t stuck reverse-engineering years-old hardware just to get basic 3D working first.