Propose your solution
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Meryl
wrote on the 29 May 08 at 06:27
|
|
|
> "It is imperative that Canonical become profitable "
Why is it imperative?
I for one would be very disappointed if the Ubuntu ethic altered and I think a marketing/profit model is not what the Ubuntu community is about, and it would be a complete degradation of our FOSS ethic. Profits aren't everything. From my (limited) understanding, one of the reasons that Canonical sponsors the talented pool of intelligent, innovative and dedicated members of the Ubuntu Free Software community is because they recognise the evils of 'democratic free market trade' (aka clean shaven fascism in a suit). The Ubuntu community's skill base of translators, coders, documentors etc.. coupled with the Shuttleworth Foundation, help millions of people who are digitally divided from the rest of us with free distributions, computer access, and even setting up telcos. And the Ubuntu community participate because what really, really matters is people and community... That's what I love about Ubuntu and if the focus were to change I think it would be a very sad day for the entire FOSS community.
|
|
Ssdg
wrote on the 29 May 08 at 10:52
|
|
|
Charge for support=> done (professionnal support I mean, communauty support will never get sold because new wikis+forums will be created/used)
c) I heard of agreements for proprietary software in the canonical repository, so done
d) I don't know if canonical gets money on those but You can find books about ubuntu in "big" library in france, so done
g)done : http://www.ubuntu.com/training/certificationcourses
h) did you get even once on ubuntu.com there is this link https://shop.canonical.com/
i) and what about dell.com? look for ubuntu, it's hidden in the french version and I can't get the US one.
Most of this is done already and you can trust mark shuttleworth to take care of the "money" part.
|
|
gazilla
wrote on the 29 May 08 at 11:20
|
|
|
|
I think a little more research might have been called for here. Ssdg is quite correct, and where its not "done" see Meryl's comment.
|
|
jhoger
wrote on the 29 May 08 at 14:37
|
|
|
Ssdg...
My idea is to become profitable now rather than later by some subset or all of these revenue streams. That some of these revenue streams are being tapped does not negate the idea.
FWIW,
c) is not done, and where did I suggest proprietary software in the repository... I didn't. c is about helping to marketing consulting/contracting services by upstream providers not proprietary software. Proprietary software would not be in line with Free Software principles
d) not done. My point is books published BY Ubuntu with their brand where they get revenue. Similar to MS Press
g) I agree there are certification courses. Are they being pushed? Looks like nothing in the US...
h) Merchandise... yes you can poke around on the site and find some stuff.
i) A Dell computer running Ubuntu is noubuntut an Ubuntu branded computer. It should have an Ubuntu button on the outside, the customer should think they are buying it from Ubuntu.
I am sure Mark Shuttleworth is a great businessman.
But the fact remains that Canonical is unprofitable.
|
|
jhoger
wrote on the 29 May 08 at 14:43
|
|
|
Meryl... I don't believe the Ubuntu community by and large is anti profit or anti marketing or anti commercialism. I believe there is an element of that in the open source world generally.
But Ubuntu is a product of a commercial, for-profit company. That means that Canonical needs to turn a profit at some point. In the US for example, you have to turn a profit to remain a business in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service.
Marketing is simply how a business gets its products known and communicates with potential customers.
If Ubuntu remains unprofitable it will lose momentum and eventually run out of money. Being profitable on the other hand would permit massive improvements to Ubuntu such as many of the ideas on BS recommend.
|
|
jhoger
wrote on the 29 May 08 at 14:47
|
|
|
BTW Meryl, I didn't say anything about modifying the "Ubuntu ethic" which I guess you mean their Philosophy.
Please feel free to point out where any of what I said is in conflict with their Philosophy.
Actually I think this list is in line with the philosophy since it pushes services and products around the OS rather than, say, license fees for the OS or any software products.
|
|
Meryl
wrote on the 30 May 08 at 06:56
|
|
|
yes jhoger by 'ethic' I did mean 'philosophy', the FOSS philosophy specifically: and the reason it is important to ensure that nothing erodes or dilutes that philosophy is so the end-user/individual's needs are always esteemed above and beyond corporate/commercial needs. Therein lies my concerns.
>"I believe there is an element of that in the open source world generally."
Me too, I hope it stays that way and its something we need to actively protect. A marketing/profit model needs great care and consideration especially regarding long term effects for the end-user. Also flow-on effects and other repercussions need to be carefully weighed because once we start down that path it could create a cascade of events that could make us no different to another big commercial oligopoly.
> In the US for example, you have to turn a profit to remain a business in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service.
OK so the IRS's ideology supports the US's capitalist economy: that makes sense. But there are many other equally valid economic models throughout the world and to my mind profits are not an indicator of success (BTW I run my own business). So I am not completely anti profit, anti marketing or anti commercialism, but I do see many perversions and injustices proliferating some societies today. Some governments venerate corporations as all-powerful demagogues, these corporations have massive lobbying powers, can get laws altered to their favour and they are granted complete impunity with their methods in pursuit of a profit... to the point where they are permitted to trample all over and even destroy the little people (some shrink-wrap EULA's are so ludicrous they'd defy anyone's logic). Again, profits are not an indicator of success.
Don't get me wrong, I think we do need to openly discuss ideas like you have proposed, its good because when they are added to the mix we can see all the possibilities and directions that could be worth considering and it helps in clarifying the Ubuntu community's vision by consensus.
I like the idea of Ubuntu getting the profits from the Ubuntu book, its going back into the community it came from.
I too would like the whole world to know about Ubuntu, so everyone has the freedom to choose whatever OS they want but we have to be very, very careful how we do it.
|
|
jhoger
wrote on the 31 May 08 at 02:47
|
|
|
Meryl, in fact this idea originated out of a discussion of Auzy's idea that Canonical should open source Landscape (which is proprietary, closed source, distributed by Canonical) or adjust the Ubuntu philosophy.
My opinion was that Canonical should keep their philosophy intact and stop promoting a proprietary software product. These suggestions were my suggested alternatives that would NOT violate the Ubuntu philosophy.
I'm surprised that this idea is controversial (evidence by the see-saw voting which is currently at 0). Canonical is a for-profit company, not a non-profit. If they are to achieve their mission, they need to be profitable, or they will eventually cease to exist.
They need to survive beyond Shuttleworth's seed capital or there will be no Ubuntu. Ubuntu doesn't have a "head" without Canonical. It's not like Debian where they have a governance system.
|
|
Meryl
wrote on the 31 May 08 at 10:59
|
|
|
... and we are waiting for Launchpad to be open too.
>"they need to be profitable, or they will eventually cease to exist."
I'm still struggling with this statement because I suspect that you might be looking at Canonical from a US IRS law perspective (you mentioned the IRS in a previous post). The US's IRS is not a global tax policy (yet). Therefore I can't grasp how a foreign country's tax law can apply to Canonical, and bear in mind Manx tax and company law may not function with the same obeisance to the supreme god of profitability that other countries do. For example; in my country, companies can operate year after year at 'break even' and may experience the odd loss and yet still happily "exist" because 1) they provide a valuable service, 2) shareholder(s) agree that profits are not an indicator of success and 3) shareholder(s) choose(s) not to be greedy.
Also I reckon SABDFL (and Canonical) would have a good idea what they "need" to focus on to continue "existing" with regard to Manx law.
A very good point jhoger: Where would Ubuntu be without SABDFL?
I hope it is a good many decades before we find out that Canonical has to appoint a worthy successor, and when that time comes, I hope the successor will have the same clear vision, philosophy and philanthropic ideals.
|
|
|
|
This idea was flagged "implemented". Since there is no indication of this having happened, we are disregarding the flag. If it is implemented, please explain in a comment, then re-flag the idea.
|
Post your comment
|
