The founder of the Ubuntu-project talks in an interview about the integration of proprietary drivers, the One Laptop per Child project, and ‘great applications’ from Microsoft. “I certainly would not push the large IT companies to put Linux on consumer PCs, because I understand that in their business, the cost of a user accidentally getting Linux, thinking that they get cheap Windows would be a problem for the companies selling the computers. So I don’t think it is really ready yet for mass consumer sales of Linux on desktop.”
I admit now I have not read the article, but come on. It is easy enough to make a different shopping portal for big IT companies to ensure accidents don’t happen. Something like linuxdell.com or something. That way the people ignorant of Linux would not accidently purchas a Linux PC.
And I don’t mean ignorant in a bad way, we are all ignorant of something.
I think the point is that unless you make it VERY clear what you’re buying there is a high chance of a mistake. Even if it is clear that’s a barrier to sales because it sounds like you’re trying to dissuade people from buying.
Having said that I don’t agree with the point that the risk involved doesn’t out weigh the benefits. Admittedly those benefits don’t translate into cold hard cash and so a business is obviously not as interested.
Are you saying that you would buy Ubuntu pre-installed on desktop machines? I guess you’re already a linux user so you know how to install it yourself? Does the idea still appeal to have it all arrive in a box ready to turn on and go?
Before any kind of success is possible, we need to stop treating Linux as a hazard, and more as a completely normal choice.
So just tell the name of the OS on a single line, just like they do for Windows.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s a shame the word Linux still conjures up memories of the problems people faced years ago and which just don’t apply today.
Playing a little bit of devil’s advocate here, I believe that the Windows faithful might say the same thing about their platform of choice. BSODs? Very rare. DLL hell? Possibly reincarnated by Vista, but likewise very rare on XP. Malware? I’m not entirely convinced that this wouldn’t plague Linux if the market share story were reversed.
Fair points, but I do think DLL Hell is mostly a developer issue. When it isn’t, it’s because a developer hasn’t considered the problem that might happen.
BSODs, rare? I guess it depends on your hardware, which in fairness can’t be blamed on Microsoft. Then again they do claim to have the better hardware support so they have only brought this upon themselves. I personally used to have BSOD every couple of weeks and I know for a fact that my productivity improved by ditching Windows in favour of KDE.
Malware, I wouldn’t want to argue that point because we don’t know what would happen if the market share were reversed? Would the heterogeneous nature of OSS mean that malware couldn’t spread so easily? Maybe. Would the OSS developers choose to turn on image loading in an e-mail app by default and the running of scripts/other binaries on opening an e-mail? Again, maybe, but if they did the number of people in the community who thought it was a bad idea might stop a bad decision like that before it was made. There’s too many what ifs for that.
At the end of the day, people want (need?) a computer that just works. In the past Windows fit the bill because hardware support was there, Linux lacked. Now computers “can’t work” because of the huge amount of malware and spyware and viruses etc… A switch to Linux might just offer the masses what they need now. In time the tables would turn and a switch the other way could happen.
It’s a shame that switch to stay ahead of the malware producer is so hard to do. If only there were some way to standardise common files that we could move freely between computers. 😉 But we all know that won’t happen unless there’s a benefit for the stockholders somewhere.
Then again some people probably think Linux would like to lock down the formats too and retain that imaginary market share it would love to attain. If only there were some sort of licensing structure for the Linux community that might protect everyones interests. 😉
I have no dislike of Windows, it filled a need. I do however pity the poor folk stuck with it now that usefulness is being eroded.
I’m runnign Windows Vista Business Edition on a HP Pavilion dv6000 series laptop, and I can tell you that the usefulness hasn’t eroded – far from it.
What has happened, however, is Microsoft can no longer bad mouth Linux, but insted compete with it, and justify its pricing – is Windows *really* worth NZ$400 for a copy of Windows Vista Ultimate? Are the features in there so important that one should pay more than if they were to go with Novell SLED, for example?
For each person, the answer will be different; some will be move instantly, their software and hardware requirements are easily met, however, there are those whose hardware isn’t fully supported, and there are certain key applications which are missing.
Lets remember that Microsofts monopoly didn’t start from 0 and moved to 90 within a few years, it took years fighting the establishment, gradually replacing its competitor. Same will occur with Linux, or what ever other *NIX is on offer (OpenSolaris, DesktopBSD etc), it will take time – unlike Microsoft, time is on the side of opensource as its existance doesn’t lay in the success or failure of a particular organisation(s).
I don’t feel “stuck” at all using windows. I work in an all windows enviroment and go home to linux, solaris and irix (and beOS if I feel like it). Yes, I’d rather be using *nix, but everyone is going overboard with windows. Vista is a POS as of now, but throw firefox on XP, and you don’t really have to worry about anything. I haven’t formatted my laptop in over 8 months, and on average it gets used 50 hours a week. Never got a virus, and had spyware once. I’m not running AV or anything either.
It’d be really nice if linux was on top, but WinXP is far from “sucking” or needing your “pity”. Its just…not as good as linux
Actually, I hadn’t thought about it, but yeah I would buy a pre-installed Ubuntu PC. I would know without a doubt that all of the hardware would work no problem. The only concerns I would have would be what I did wrong.
I am not shy or timid about diving in, but I am still relatively new to alternate OS’es. The peace of mind would be worth it to me.
when Mark talks about Ubuntu. I like his vision, I can share his enthusiasm, great!
customers want a “cheap Windows”. Why doesn’t someone make a “cheap Windows”?
It would be really awesome if a corporation noticed this demand and picked up ReactOS and ran with it (I can dream, can’t I?) even if the on-the-shelf joe-sixpack version was more proprietary (like Crossover Office is to WINE).
There is still pleeeenty of room in the consumer OS market for competition, especially since Microsoft is having such a hard time with Vista. And more competition is still sorely needed.
There are plenty of cheap Windows at piratebay
I’m curious… What makes you think it would be easier or quicker to develop a “cheap Windows” OS using the ReactOS approach rather than the Linux approach? The way I see it, you only reverse-engineer when you have to. As the Linux community has shown, in many cases it is possible to replicate the feature-set of popular Windows applications without reverse engineering, which typically results in higher-quality software than if the original app were ported to a reverse-engineered stack. Developing a capable replacement desktop for Windows users is easier than recreating Windows dll by dll.
Edited 2007-04-17 20:12
I’m not talking about making a desktop operating system in general. The Linux approach (and the Ubuntu approach) works fine for that.
I’m talking about something directly compatible with Windows software and drivers. Linux comes close, but isn’t any closer in that respect than ReactOS is (ReactOS and Wine share a lot of code anyways). That isn’t to say it wouldn’t be possible for a joe-sixpack fully Windows-compatible desktop OS to be built on Linux (as WINE and ndiswrapper have shown), just that ReactOS is by nature more focused on that goal.
In short, a Linux desktop isn’t a “cheap Windows” (neither is MacOSX), and that’s fine. But why not a product that is? Microsoft is killing Windows XP in the hope of snaring Vista customers, and that leaves a huge gap between Vista, Linux and Mac fans that could be exploited.
I’m talking about something directly compatible with Windows software and drivers. Linux comes close, but isn’t any closer in that respect than ReactOS is…
As it is, serial port and parallel port software works under wine, raw CDROM I/O is possible, 16-bit printer drivers worked at some stage, a GSoC project is working on getting more recent printer drivers working, and I’m personally finishing off my work on getting scanner drivers working in wine (which ReactOS doesn’t have, by the way).
Many of the questions in this interview sounded like this:
“So, Edgy and Feisty were pretty lame releases. Why do you think that is?”
I hate “begging the question” questions.
That’s this guy’s interview style. It’s the same in all of these derstandard pieces. He wants the subject to admit they were wrong, and when they don’t, he continues at it, as if they’ll break down and confess the alleged failures. As a high-profile figure, you have to be gracious and polite at these interviews, but if I were Mark (or Miguel, who got this sort of treatment as well), I would never sit for another interview with this guy. Who does he think he is? Barbara Walters?
What a lousy style. I think it would be foolish to sit for an interview like that. It comes off more like an National Enquirer article. I’ve never heard of derstandard, and based on this interview, I’m glad!
So I don’t think it is really ready yet for mass consumer sales of Linux on desktop.
Unfortunately, Ubuntu is doing absolutely nothing in that area, nor is Mark or anyone at Ubuntu (or anywhere else for that matter) really having a deep look at the software involved, the functionality and working out just what is required – namely:
Backwards compatibility utilising and integrating WINE into the desktop and development tools properly, integrating a stock groupware solution in there such as Kolab, Zimbra etc. at the client and server ends, getting a reasonably easy to administrate directory services server to integrate with clients, servers and groupware, universal sign-on and administration, good quality graphical administration tools, knowledge base, installation and repository infrastructure for independent third party software integrated into development tools etc. etc.
I cannot for the life of me, having used Ubuntu both as a desktop and a server, see what on Earth it is doing that is any way different or more user friendly than using Debian, Suse, Fedora, CentOS or anything else. It’s a mirage.
But I think in strategic target markets, like workstation or in emerging markets, there are good opportunities and we work with the companies in those markets to execute on those opportunities.
Those strategic target markets have existed for years, and they are very much niches. Those niches were being filled quite nicely before Ubuntu or even Linux ever existed with Unix workstations, and they’re being filled today without Ubuntu in many cases, so I’m not understanding that one.
Also, the above statement is effectively a concession of defeat, because Novell said pretty much the same thing when they tried to justify a market for their desktop. “Oh, we’re not competing with Windows” they said “But we’re trying to target markets where desktop Linux is a good fit”, which means they’re not facing the issues head on. Whatever that fit is, it’s not enough to make the whole endeavour justifiable.
They’re retreating into a niche because they simply have no clue know what to do, strategically, when a customer gives them their copy of SLED or Ubuntu back when they discover they can’t install third party software from a CD, integrate it with Active Directory or manage a bunch of desktops over a network, have groupware working reliably or they can’t use at least some of their existing software.
Unless that changes, certainly on the desktop side (and the server to an extent as well) everyone is just treading water at best. Sad. Very sad.
Edited 2007-04-17 18:50
Correct.
Ubuntu is a lot of hype but falls short.
It is still just a distribution like all the others: it is difficult to install 3rd party commercial software, there is no backwards compatibility (cannot install a dapper deb in edgy without dependency problems).
Maybe Mark realized he has a lot more problems than solutions.
I’m no linux pro, but when libc undergoes a major change, how should this even be possible?
You wonder why Ubuntu has such a following even though the OS works like many others. I’ll tell you if you listen closely…
Ubuntu has an exciting, inspiring vision that is pushed top-down by an excited, inspired leader.
Ubuntu gives people something to believe in, something to look forward to, and it does so in a high quality, predictable manner.
PS: I think that people in the Linux/FOSS community are so obsessed with “freedoms” that they are left unaware of the values of leadership. The greatest ships have captains, not committees.
PPS: “Backwards compatibility utilizing and integrating WINE into the desktop” would be great! Stick integrated virtualization in there while you’re at it. Lets switch between real and virtual desktops using the desktop manager everyone already has on their screen.
Ubuntu has an exciting, inspiring vision that is pushed top-down by an excited, inspired leader.
Yer. What is it? It’s not borne out in the software.
Ubuntu gives people something to believe in, something to look forward to, and it does so in a high quality, predictable manner.
Hmmmm. So nothing different to any other distribution then? That’s pretty wishy-washy stuff rather than going into anything specific, like I did.
I think that people in the Linux/FOSS community are so obsessed with “freedoms” that they are left unaware of the values of leadership. The greatest ships have captains, not committees.
There’s not an awful lot of leadership going on, because I don’t see anything different that Ubuntu is doing over any other distribution – apart from an awful lot of people caught in a bubble of hype. Now the stuff I described in the post above – that would take some leadership and a fundamental understanding of how desktops actually get used.
“Backwards compatibility utilizing and integrating WINE into the desktop” would be great! Stick integrated virtualization in there while you’re at it. Lets switch between real and virtual desktops using the desktop manager everyone already has on their screen.
I’m afraid the issue of backwards compatibility and providing a reliable bridge between getting people off Windows and on to a Linux desktop has flown right over your head at a height of 30,000 feet. I don’t have the time to explain it fully, but don’t worry. You’re by no means the only one to not get it at all. It’s at least a large part of the reason why the whole concept of desktop Linux is stuck where it is in terms of people using it. Very few people, if any, prominently involved with any desktop Linux distribution have been in organisations and actually seen how desktops get used and seen the issues involved.
The tens of thousands of people who switched to Ubuntu from other distros obviously see something that you do not.
Your last comment doesn’t make any sense to me unless I read it like you thought I being sarcastic. (I was not)
The tens of thousands of people who switched to Ubuntu from other distros obviously see something that you do not.
Apart from hype, I can’t see anything. What exactly is different about Ubuntu?
Your last comment doesn’t make any sense to me unless I read it like you thought I being sarcastic. (I was not)
Nope, it wasn’t sarcastic and it makes perfect sense. I would just like to know what makes Ubuntu so different to other distributions.
No, please, we really want you to “explain it” since you seem to be in the know. Don’t play the “I’m not telling game” if you’re going to bring something up in that manner. The belittling and ad hominem attacks are great and all, but the fact that he disagrees with you isn’t the issue here. Its the issue he disagrees about.
No, please, we really want you to “explain it” since you seem to be in the know. Don’t play the “I’m not telling game” if you’re going to bring something up in that manner.
See the first comment in this thread for details. People have an awful lot of Windows specific COM based applications that are going to be around for a very, very, very long time. If people want to move to desktop Linux then they need to be able to run their existing applications reasonably well, whilst at the same time moving to purely Linux desktop based applications where they can. You want to provide some backwards compatibility, keeping yourself tied into a Windows world by simply running Windows applications on Linux. This is how you move people on to different platforms.
They may even have a hybrid scenario, where a COM business logic server can be run with WINE and interact with a desktop Linux application. No one is thinking about that, let alone doing it or knowing why it would be useful.
The belittling and ad hominem attacks are great and all, but the fact that he disagrees with you isn’t the issue here.
What I find belittling is that people are pretending, or worse, just don’t want to realise, that Ubuntu does not provide anything that any other Linux distro isn’t already doing – especially when it’s supposed to be for human beings and people think it’s taking Linux forward. Before anyone presumes to know what is required of any desktop Linux distribution, or what doesn’t matter, I suggest anyone involved with it spends at least six months in a Windows-using company’s IT department and gets an extremely deep understanding of the development that goes on, to support issues.
You want to provide some backwards compatibility, keeping yourself tied into a Windows world by simply running Windows applications on Linux.
That’s not worded right ;-).
Should read:
You want to provide some backwards compatibility with existing Windows applications, whilst not keeping yourself tied into a Windows infrastructure. Windows oriented Linux distributions like Xandros have this problem. You need to fit into a Windows environment, but you can’t do enough to get people off it!
Ubuntu doesn’t have the development resources to “make it happen”, and it’s doubtful that Shuttleworth wants to expend that kind of money to “make it happen”.
You make good points, but Shuttleworth is being realistic, just like Novell, and just like how RedHat became realistic about the Linux desktop years ago.
The current incarnations of distros will never be a threat to Windows hegemony on the desktop. And until people stop being afraid of adding proprietary bits to their offerings that differentiate from everybody else, value-add to the stock open source soup, and actually offer some kind of incentive to put in the kind of resources needed, then forget about desktop Linux.
Once OSX “officially” becomes a handheld/mobile consumer electronics company, and makes a deal with Dell to offer OSX on their systems, then the game is over.
The current incarnations of distros will never be a threat to Windows hegemony on the desktop. And until people stop being afraid of adding proprietary bits to their offerings that differentiate from everybody else, value-add to the stock open source soup, and actually offer some kind of incentive to put in the kind of resources needed, then forget about desktop Linux.
It won’t be a competitive threat to the Windows platform, what it will change the way Microsoft has to do business. Windows will increasingly become a platform for free software. The Windows port of KDE4 is an important milestone toward making free software more accessible to Windows users. Ultimately the free software community needs to reach out to the Windows installed base. We want Windows developers hacking free software, but they won’t hack it if it doesn’t run on their platform.
A problem with the Linux community is that we tend to identify with the kernel more so than anything else. But most of the work needed to make Linux a more compelling platform is in userspace–in the free software stack. And you know what? Most of the issues that have plagued the Windows platform are in its userspace.
Let’s give Windows users an alternative free software userspace. Let’s bring our stack to them and work together. It will be far easier to port the free software stack to Windows than it will be to maintain a Windows stack on Linux (WINE) and far more advantageous to the free software community. When software vendors can deliver software for Linux, Windows, and Mac in the same manner by building against a free software stack, selling the idea of supporting Linux will become a lot easier.
Instead of thinking about how we can bring Windows applications to Linux, we should be thinking about how we can bring Linux applications to Windows in an accessible way. Let’s expand the reach of free software instead of merely embracing proprietary software on Linux (which has to happen as well).
I think you make some valid points. Here’s the problem though. “Free Software” isn’t really free. The resources needed to produce “free software” aren’t free. So if the money dries up from the corporate sponsors, then you’re relying on volunteers. There really needs to be a balance.
I’d also say that your attitude is quite different from the linux zealots that we see around here, who are really more ABMers than anything, and see the whole thing as a sporting event than anything else.
KDE4 should be interesting. I look forward to see what bits run on Windows.
Ubuntu doesn’t have the development resources to “make it happen”, and it’s doubtful that Shuttleworth wants to expend that kind of money to “make it happen”.
They don’t really have to spend all that much money, because the software to do all that has largely already been written. It’s a case of bringing it together and making intelligent use of it. We have groupware solutions in the open source world, we have directory services and we have the ability to remotely administer desktops – it’s just no one is bringing it together in an easy to manage way.
Once OSX “officially” becomes a handheld/mobile consumer electronics company, and makes a deal with Dell to offer OSX on their systems, then the game is over.
I don’t know why people persist in thinking this with Apple. First of all, everyone is not going to go out and buy Apple consumer electronics. Apple is just one company amongts many. Secondly, the reason for OS X’s being is that it is an OS that sets Apple’s hardware apart. They will never do any kind of deal with Dell.
Distros are already good at bringing together bits from various sources. If it was just as case of “bringing it together” than it would have been done already.
What really needs to happen is consolidation. Competition and choice is thrown around quite a bit by open source advocates, but “Linux” lacks branding. I think it would be a good thing if RedHat, Novell, and Ubuntu merged (or bought). Not that I think it would happen, but at least then we would have “Linux”. Small players can’t really compete with Microsoft.
Apple is already reaching the point where more than 50% of their revenue comes from non-PC sales. If the IPhone is as successful as the IPod then their PC division will become just a bit player in their strategy.
Did you miss recent events. Macs are just PCs these days. Never underestimate the bitterness of Jobs over Gates completely dominating the PC market after Apple owned a huge chunk of it in the early 80s. They said Apple would never go Intel. Now they say that OSX will never open up to non-Apple hardware. Never say never.
The thing is, however, is that Ubuntu is the Apple of the Linux world – take something that is average, wrap it up in a pretty skin, integrate some nice tools together and market it to buggery.
People push these ‘things’ off as minor improvements – if they’re so minor, then how come others haven’t done it? I find it funny that those who are quickest to give Ubuntu and the likes a hard time, are the very same people who moan about something, then complain once that problem has been resolved; they’re never happy.
As for the rest; what are you crapping on about? of course there is no active directory, but there is eDirectory and Zen Desktop from Novell which has all the enterprise features of Microsofts active directly but also the ability to have security policies that span Linux and Windows within the same organisations.
The problem isn that there aren’t those features available, its idiots who aren’t willing to ‘just f*cking google it’ and do some investigation. It reminds me of the person who goes to the fridge, yells out that a particular item isn’t there, and the mother comes along and the item was sitting in front of them in the whole time. This is the same situation.
Solutions exist out there; you as an ‘IT expert’ (used in the most loosest of terms) are paid to do that, you are there to just sit on a shivel seat all day expecting to be spoon fed by software and hardware vendors their product wares. If as an employer I wanted that, I’d do the damn IT myself!
People push these ‘things’ off as minor improvements – if they’re so minor, then how come others haven’t done it?
What things, and what improvements? I’ve yet to see anyone define what they are. (K)Ubuntu still doesn’t have a centralised and integrated control centre for managing things at the system level, akin to YaST, and a user might then legitimately ask “Why do I have this desktop control centre and a control centre for the rest of the system?” I’ve asked myself that question for years.
of course there is no active directory, but there is eDirectory and Zen Desktop from Novell
It’s proprietary, not easy to get as a result, definitely not easy to install (ask any person who’s dealt with Novell software) and not well integrated with anything. I doubt I’m going to get that on Ubuntu any time soon.
The problem isn that there aren’t those features available, its idiots who aren’t willing to ‘just f*cking google it’ and do some investigation.
In using a distribution ‘designed for human beings’ I don’t want to Google for anything. I just expect it to work, or at least see some acknowledgement that they know what the issues are. Ubuntu, like every other Linux distro, still passionately believes that to get a piece of up-to-date software I’m going to wait until it gets submitted to the package repository and wait six months until I’m able to install it.
No, I’m not going to Google for it. Quite frankly, I can’t be bothered to do that, nor should I waste any time whatsoever on it.
It reminds me of the person who goes to the fridge, yells out that a particular item isn’t there, and the mother comes along and the item was sitting in front of them in the whole time. This is the same situation.
No it isn’t. We’ve got an awful lot of people who don’t ever actually look in the fridge and then yell at people who complain when something isn’t there, and then when their head is stuck right in there some time later they realise it really isn’t there. That’s if they ever understand at all, which most don’t.
Solutions exist out there; you as an ‘IT expert’ (used in the most loosest of terms) are paid to do that
Don’t worry. I’ve come to realise that very, very few people in the open source world, whether they be fully fledged developers or people who just use open source software and comment on forums, know very, very little – if anything at all – about how IT infrastructure, and particularly desktops, are actually used out there in the world and why Windows gets used. They have a rather idealistic, and naive, idea of why various things and shortcomings don’t matter when they’re pointed out.
It’s not good enough. For a distribution ‘designed for human beings’, Ubuntu falls a long, long way short. You can’t then just deny that and then turn around and tell people to Google for things that should be presentable and working in the distribution. As many shortcomings as it has, it’s why many people in the world use Windows, because they just don’t have to faff about with Google to get many things working, such as single sign-on. Hell, it’s easier to get Windows to work with a Samba server than it is to get a Linux client using Samba to work with it. Not a great advertisement.
Unless people understand that, they’re talking to absolutely no one, which again, is quite a sad thing to be doing.
Thats a good question, but the problem is, in your reply to my post, its simply yelling over the top of what I said rather than addressing directly. My reply was in regards to a particular post relating to using Ubuntu in a large organisation (hence the raising of active directory).
As for why there are two? because of this silly notion that the ‘vendor’ – that is the distribution, responsibility to providing the necessary tools to setup Linux, and the desktop ‘vendor’ (in this case KDE) provides the tools to customise the desktop.
The whole idea is stupid because right now we’re seeing crossing over of this, there is no work between the distributors and working with the desktop developers; they seem to maintain a port, but when it comes to integrating the actua desktop into their distribution – it doesn’t happen.
The person who I replied to was using “Linux” meaning in a generic sense of ‘not necessarily Ubuntu’ – hence, if you purchased a SLED licences along with SLES and Novell management software, you would find it just as capable as an environment with Windows and active directory.
And again you speak over my head rather than to me; the issue is Linux in the enterprise that was bought up, if you want to talk about the use of Linux in terms of home use, then so be it, but don’t jump back and forths and some how try to tie to tie the two together in some sort of missmash way.
Of course, hence I don’t run Linux – I learned long ago that Linux is a ‘community distribution’ noo matter how much people like to prance around the issue.
What does that mean? well, what that means is you’re at the mercy of whether the particular itch of a particular programmer happens to be the same itch as yours. If it happens to be, then count yourself lucky in that the issue will be addressed in a few months time.
For me right now, I’m using OpenSolaris for a server and Windows Vista on the desktop. Sure it has issues in relation to updates and not all the software I want is 100% compatible with it, but at the same time, its about what you’re willing to give up in favour of something is perceived to be better.
Yes, there are alot of naive people out there in regards to the enterprise, but at the same time, there isn’t a hell of alot you can do about it. Its like the bash-a-thon over Office – I question whether those who hate Microsoft Office have used it for anything more than writing a letter to Aunt Pearl to thank them for the $20 they got for their birthday present.
I love it how these guys actually have a head on their shoulders. Ask Linus about windows, he will say as a kernel developer, it is a very uninteresting OS to him. Ask Mark Shuttleworth about universal viability of Ubuntu and he will say we’re not there yet. Ubuntu is good enough for many uses, but not every use.
Its too bad you don’t get that kind of clarity from the users.
I will never use it because I will not be a mindless sheep being lead by someone who does not believe in their cause.
Therefore I will continue to use Fedora, Red Hat user since 1999.
Ubuntu will come and be gone but Red Hat will still be around.
“Beeing a sheep” is hardly applicable in the linux world.
‘Sheep’ are people who have never used any system other than Windows, and think it the beat to march too.
The hilarious thing about your comment is that RedHat gave up on the desktop years ago. Tienman came out and said it.
The hilarious thing about your comment is that RedHat gave up on the desktop years ago. Tienman came out and said it.
Yes. Given that Red Hat gave up on the desktop, and Ubuntu and other distributions still aren’t doing anything different to either Red Hat or Fedora, you have no idea how doubly funny that statement is.
seriously. This is the most +5 informative interview I have ever read related to Ubuntu yet. Ubuntu is the thing that introduced and switched me to the Linux desktop two years ago, but I was always questioning myself on the success of Canonical’s business model.
At least, now I have some better indication, coming from Mark’s words. This confirmed what I thought was the current situation: not entirely funded by Canonical’s contracts and sales (still a chunk of Ubuntu being funded from Mark’s pocket), but there actually seems to be some market that is growing to help support Ubuntu and make it viable. Good to know.
“This confirmed what I thought was the current situation: not entirely funded by Canonical’s contracts and sales (still a chunk of Ubuntu being funded from Mark’s pocket), but there actually seems to be some market that is growing to help support Ubuntu and make it viable.”
Yeah, it’s the server market. Personally I think Debian has a better product for that particular market.
Debian and hence Ubuntu lack one important thing for mission critical server environments… That one thing is proactive security.
– Hardened libc with canary based stack protection and extra checks to prevent format strings with bad printfs.
– gcc buffer bounds checking with the FORTIFY_SOURCE patches and everything compiled using it.
– Any form of Mandatory Access Control (Redhat uses SELinux SUSE uses AppArmor)
– Buffer overflow prevention by using the hardware NX (No Execute) bit on modern processors. Exec-shield uses this.
– Auditing subsystem
– Position Independent Executables
RHEL, Fedora, and any RHEL based distributions support all of these features out of the box with a default install. Debian does not support some of these features at ALL! Is auditd or any of the audit tools even packaged for Debian? Security gurus like Russel Coker get flamed on the Debian ML when they propose integrating security features like SELinux.
An attitude like this against security has no place in a distro that claims to be great for servers.
Debian and hence Ubuntu lack one important thing for mission critical server environments… That one thing is proactive security…..RHEL, Fedora, and any RHEL based distributions support all of these features out of the box with a default install.
Well, that’s certainly one good example of what Ubuntu doesn’t provide compared with other distros – especially for something which is trying to be taken seriously as a server as well as a desktop.
Security gurus like Russel Coker get flamed on the Debian ML when they propose integrating security features like SELinux.
You could argue that’s not Debian’s job, but someone else using Debian to put on top. However, that’s no reason to not package it and not QA it with the rest of the distribution.
Sorry to say this, but this reads exactly like the stuff we keep on reading from Miguel de Icaza. Gee, let’s just forget Windows for a moment and look at the strengths of Linux. And yes, there are plenty of good and unique ideas in Linux that have nothing to do with Windows.
What a boring interview …
Personally, I do not see anything about Ubuntu that makes it head and shoulders above any other distro and I have used it. What makes Ubuntu as popular as it is is the marketing hype behind it and the buzz that was created when this distro came out and filled a niche.
Filling a niche it one thing but using it as a soapbox to cite various opinions is another. It’s as if Shuttlesworth is deemed credible because he has financed his own distro.
And at a time when Linux is reaching the tipping point we do not need high profile individuals like Mark making statements that could seem detrimental to the effort.
Before anyone gets all high-minded about Ubuntu just remember that it has yet to become self sufficient and may be history in a few years should Mark decide to stop promoting or funding the project.
I would not bet a server farm or a lot of desktops on a distro that is driven primarily by the marketing and resources of one person to the extent Ubuntu is.
In some ways Shuttlesworth has done a great service to the community but in other ways he can make a significant impact in the opposite direction if he is not careful.
Edited 2007-04-18 14:32
{Before anyone gets all high-minded about Ubuntu just remember that it has yet to become self sufficient and may be history in a few years should Mark decide to stop promoting or funding the project.
I would not bet a server farm or a lot of desktops on a distro that is driven primarily by the marketing and resources of one person to the extent Ubuntu is.
In some ways Shuttlesworth has done a great service to the community but in other ways he can make a significant impact in the opposite direction if he is not careful. }
The one major thing that Ubuntu gives to Linux that is not so readily available in other distributions is the marketing hype that Shuttleworth brings to the table.
Do not underestimate the value of this contribution. Without Ubuntu, Linux would be far more invisible. With Ubuntu, Linux cannot be readily ignored. Trying to simply ignore Linux (ie pretend it doesn’t exist) is a major plank in Microsoft’s current anti-FOSS anti-open PR strategy …
I think he’s really hot.