RE: is-canonical-becoming-the-new-microsoft
The Open Sourcerer is running a blog post titled "Is Canonical Becoming The New Microsoft?"
The author does make some valid points regarding issues like proprietary software in Ubuntu and concerns over the views that Matt Asay holds.
I do however disagree that switching from Google to Yahoo is affecting the freedom of the distro as Google is a commercial company with a very bad track record at privacy, so Yahoo can't be worse in terms of such issues. I also disagree that it will become less free just for replacing GIMP or OOo if that choice is made. They become less free depending on the replacement they choose.
What concerns me lately is the negative views held by many close to Ubuntu and Canonical regarding Free Software, the FSF and RMS and the increasing adoption of non-free software and non-free services like Ubuntu one in the distribution.
For now, I'm still a fan and Ubuntu's model of not ever having an enterprise version and a community that are different, but things could change over time.
# 20100210: Forgot the weblink
Comments
25 comments postedYou're a fucking retard. You think just because you say google has a bad track record with privacy, it's true? Where did you get that shit? Google at least once resisted a subpoena for information regarding its users, while Yahoo rolled over with their legs in the air.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html?_r=2
And in other cases like their deals with China they rolled over and played nice.
Google is a big company, it will do the right thing for profit reasons and the wrong thing for exactly the same.
This is just part of a negative PR campaign against a popular Linux OS by various parties that have an interest in weakening Ubuntu and/or Linux as a whole. Articles like this, even if people immediately disagree with it, sow the seeds in the minds of people. People who write these articles know its intended effect over time. So maybe don't pass these articles around or dismiss these articles/posts for exactly what they are - a coordinated negative PR campaign.
I also like that there is NO separate enterprise version and also, important for me, that it is NOT a public company.
Getting revenue from using Yahoo search? Fully, 100%, support it. They may also be getting revenue from Google for the Google Apps that is going to be on Ubuntu Netbook editions. Support it too, if they do. This will help gett Linux into the mainstream. Forward, lateral and fresh thinking like this is needed to move Linux into the mainstream.
Look forward to Ubuntu 10.04 to replace my 8.04.
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2010/02/09/is-canonical-becoming-the-new...
Yeah ... Don't make a comment on the original post, write a whole post about and feed it to us, so we have to read shit in duplicate.
God damn attention seekers!
I posted this seperately because I too have been worried for a while about some choices in Ubuntu, namely replacing perfectly fine components like Rythmbox with Mono-based alternatives.
Secondly, I want to address a growing movement in the Ubuntu community that mocks the FSF, GNU and RMS yet has tolerance for non-free software and Microsoft.
The last point includes comments made by Jono in FLOSS weekly episode 91.
from whose perspective is Rhythmbox a perfectly fine component? this application from my experience is inferior to Banshee in many critical areas.
No. No they're not.
Look at Bug Number One. Becoming the new Microsoft seems... kind of central to fixing that, actually.
Personally I actually like Android better than Ubuntu right now, all the cool apps in the market. I bought this musical app for $2, it's like having an entire orchestra of instruments in my pocket. Once the vendor kicks the keyboard octaves up to like 3 and fixes the multitouch, I look forward to playing Für Elise on it :D
*Yahoo can't be worse?* Simply by the how absurdly bad Google is, Yahoo can't be worse? Who of Yahoo and Google send a Chinese dissident to jail?
That comment is solely about Yahoo, not even canonical's deal with Yahoo. I would not be worried about Canonical becoming Microsoft, that's a very long path to drift. Also, Microsoft was always Microsoft AFAIK. It's not like it's a known and studied process where (some) companies tend to go Microsoft slowly.
I did not say canonical is becoming MS, the post I blogged about made that claim.
As for Yahoo/Google, I mean that both are for profit companies with bad track records on issues like privacy.
Feel free to come join Debian if the non-free boogeyman in Ubuntu is getting to you.
If Ubuntu ever tanks in a way I don't like, then to Debian I will go.
Couldn't agree with you more, or with Guy van Sanden, for that matter. One of the many great things about Ubuntu is that it's not a one-way road. If it should indeed turn out to be a cul-de-sac sometime in the future, there will always be a plethora of alternatives, be it Debian, be it gNewSense, whatever.
The question is, just how hard would it be for someone who is used to Ubuntu to switch to plain-vanilla Debian? What are the major differences, what potential pitfalls are there to avoid, what advantages and drawbacks does Debian have over Ubuntu? I have yet to find a well-informed, up-to-date write-up on this topic. Any links would be highly appreciated, and not only be me, I guess!
>They become less free depending on the replacement they choose.
yes, but this point is moot: ubuntu will never put a non-free software on their install-cd, and as such will always remain free
>increasing adoption of non-free software and non-free services like Ubuntu one in the distribution.
ubuntu one (the client) is free software... it's only the server backend (and thus the service) that is non-free as in speech (while being free as in beer up to 2GB)
while it should be better if even the server was opensourced, i'm glad that this service exist: no other OS afaik as a free (as in beer) online-storage out-of-the-box... and it could help with the funding of ubuntu (shuttleworth won't be there forever dumping loads and loads on money on this project)
Googles privacy is better than Yahoos. Provide proof.
Yes, maybe it is better, but it's still picking between getting shot with a magnum or a shotgun.
So you think it would be better to have no search engine?!?
Idiot...
No, you misunderstood completely!
I'm defending Canonical on this decision actually because they are replacing one commercial entity with another for revenues to fund Ubuntu development!
There is no good reason they should give Google a boost for free (as in beer).
I would have taken issue is they replaced something that is open and Free (as in speech) with a closed alternative.
There's an option in Ubuntu, not sure if it's in the Desktop CD or the Alternative CD to install "FOSS Software Only", so I don't see what all the fuss is about. Ubuntu (well, Canonical in this case) compromised to never bring out a payed-for OS, not a completely FOSS OS. If they did that, the OS would be rather restricted, specially on a hardware level (think r600, r700 and evergreen Radeon GPUs, specially with displayport).
Debian makes this disctinction for firmware compared to software. But it is a thin line.
I oppose the FSF and it's retarded campaigns as much as I oppose mono. I still think things like Ubuntu one or Landscape aren't the real dangers though. As long as we have a choice not to use One or Landscape it's ok. The MS way would be "you have to pay to use One in order to be able to install Ubuntu".
but it depends a bit if you are in the Open-Source or the Free Software camp as the ethics are very different for those two.
I think you missed the point. I'm in the Open-Source camp, but I see Open-Source as a means, not as a goal. I'll use Open-Source whenever possible, and Closed-Source/Proprietary software whenever necessary (there's no decent Open-Source alternative for Google Sketchup for example).
Point is, as long Ubuntu/Canonical doesn't *force* you to use Closed-Source tools, there's no problem as far as I'm concerned.
Agreed. It all depends on what your values are and what you think is important.
If your only concern is whether or not software doesn't cost anything and/or its cheap and that it works reasonably well, that's a set of values.
Another set of values is contained in the "four freedoms" of the GNU General Public License...that software is "free as in freedom" and that standards for documents, media etc. are free as in freedom too.
Without the hard-nosed position of the FSF, Ubuntu and other GNU/Linux distros would never have existed. It's important to remember that.
I also think that it's important to have the FSF around to keep the software companies honest. If we don't have the FSF and others lambasting companies and governments they will drift further and further away from the original free software ideals and indeed become like Microsoft and Apple.