Slashdot Mirror

Kubuntu

• Rock solid KDE 3
• Commercial support provided by Canonical for a term of 18 months
• Release available through ShipIt for everybody as well as downloading

Kubuntu KDE 4 Remix

• Cutting edge KDE 4.0
• Support provided by the Kubuntu community via Ubuntu Forums, Kubuntu Forums, IRC, and the Kubuntu Users Mailing List.
• Release available through CDs for groups who need it (ie. LoCo teams, conference teams, etc.) as well as downloading

Work seems to be on its way: http://www.canonical.com/projects/landscape. No word on licensing though, but I trust Canonical so far, and non-free would kill their cred anyway, and so is unlikely.

You don't need to lie about a price. Just inform them the actual price, for there is one. Or, actually, four, ranging from $287.51 (minimum) to $3,716.00. Per year!!!

Only take care to explain it this way:

When you purchase Windows for $300 or so on a store, what you're actually purchasing is support from Microsoft: a phone number where to call when there are problems, optional updates, these things. These features are absent when you use a pirated copy.

With Ubuntu it's the same: if you want support, you must pay Canonical. The base price is roughly the same of Windows, and you get a very similar package of services. If you don't pay, and prefer using the unsupported version, you are on your own.

Then complement by saying that, other than this, the difference between both is that through it's "anti-piracy" campaign Microsoft attempts to force users to pay, even those who aren't interested in support, while Canonical just doesn't care and will itself sell you an unsupported version for a low price if you also don't care for the full package of services. That contrary to Microsoft, Canonical just isn't in the business of forcing users to pay for something they don't want, need, care or will ever use.

Of course, this last bit isn't that accurate, as due to the GPL Canonical really wouldn't have a right to call free users pirates. But if it wished, it could only maintain source repositories open, not binary ones. In any case, we don't need to dwell into this level of detail when talking to newbies. At the generic level, this explanation is as much accurate as one might wish.

The important point, though, is that Ubuntu in fact has a price point, and if you were to purchase it boxed from a store shelve, that's what it would cost. The "free" Ubuntu we can download from an official Canonical web site is just like the "free" Windows we can download from a pirate website, but with one positive side aspect: it isn't actually illegal to use it.

You don't need to lie about a price. Just inform them the actual price, for there is one. Or, actually, four, ranging from $287.51 (minimum) to $3,716.00. Per year!!!

Only take care to explain it this way:

When you purchase Windows for $300 or so on a store, what you're actually purchasing is support from Microsoft: a phone number where to call when there are problems, optional updates, these things. These features are absent when you use a pirated copy.

With Ubuntu it's the same: if you want support, you must pay Canonical. The base price is roughly the same of Windows, and you get a very similar package of services. If you don't pay, and prefer using the unsupported version, you are on your own.

Then complement by saying that, other than this, the difference between both is that through it's "anti-piracy" campaign Microsoft attempts to force users to pay, even those who aren't interested in support, while Canonical just doesn't care and will itself sell you an unsupported version for a low price if you also don't care for the full package of services. That contrary to Microsoft, Canonical just isn't in the business of forcing users to pay for something they don't want, need, care or will ever use.

Of course, this last bit isn't that accurate, as due to the GPL Canonical really wouldn't have a right to call free users pirates. But if it wished, it could only maintain source repositories open, not binary ones. In any case, we don't need to dwell into this level of detail when talking to newbies. At the generic level, this explanation is as much accurate as one might wish.

The important point, though, is that Ubuntu in fact has a price point, and if you were to purchase it boxed from a store shelve, that's what it would cost. The "free" Ubuntu we can download from an official Canonical web site is just like the "free" Windows we can download from a pirate website, but with one positive side aspect: it isn't actually illegal to use it.

That is one advantage the For Profit Companies have, Management can get good developers to work on Code they don't think is 7337 or fun or interesting but needed to get the job done.

I already mentioned this in response to another post, but yes, it's really really supported. http://canonical.com/support

1. Actually, Canonical offers professional support services for servers and desktops. http://canonical.com/support

2. My impression is that the "gaps" referred to in the article are mostly about certification from third parties like Oracle.

Canonical is working on one: http://www.canonical.com/landscape

Dell's Ubuntu laptop deal showed that Microsoft Vista at $50 (according to engadget), but Red Hat's Enterprise desktop varies from $80 to $339 which isn't exactly cheaper for Aunt Tillie. Note that Canonical support is cheaper for 9x5 ($250) but they also offer 24x7 support ($900).

But is Red Hat trying to follow in Microsoft's steps confusing users with 4 desktop package options? Although Canonical is catching up with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Gobuntu, Ubuntu Studio, and Ubuntu Media Center.

We're talking about two different things. You're assuming that average people, when faced with two options, will pick the difficult one with no benefit to themselves, magically listening to an inconvenient person telling them that the easy option is "amoral". I'm more concerned with how Stallman will get people to actually listen to him. At this rate, he's bound to have as much success as the anti-whalers.

If your goal with life is improving society rather than achieving personal success, this works perfectly fine. It's just about the same choice that Stallman made and it's the same choice that thousands of free software programmers make when they use their spare time making software that the whole society benefits from.

Besides, Stallman has on numerous occasions mentioned ways to make a living while making free software, and many of the aforementioned free software programmers use these. Making private software (software that will never be released to the public, intended for use in only one place), doing support, making donationware or doing something other than programming all make you a living, whilst avoiding making proprietary software.

While I don't think this is right of Dell, another option for Buessness + Dell + Ubuntu + support would be to buy a Dell with no OS or buy one with Windows and do not accept the EULA at which entitles you to a small refund for Windows. Load Ubuntu and get OS support from Canonical.

Actually, it looks like Canonical has thought out their business support quite well in advance. Hell, it looks like it's geared towards businesses and not home users! What home user is going to spend that kind of money to get support they probably don't need when you can get it from IRC, forums, friends, etc.? Canonical seems to be making its money by supporting businesses (and because Mark Shuttleworth was rich in the first place hehe).

Canonical does have a business strategy with Ubuntu. They are offering paid support for the product (9x5 or 24x7). Furthermore, they seem to welcome any competition to their support by providing links to other companies offering Ubuntu support( see Canonical Marketplace ). In general it seems they have taken a slightly different approach than Red Hat. Canonical is trying to harness( or exploit, depends on how you view it ) the power of the ready and willing user, developer, and artist communities. I am not sure what kind of QA Canonical itself puts into each release, but it is enough for them to throw their name and business behind it. Red Hat seems to be more content with doing most of their own work. We have seen that the Red Hat model can work, but the jury is still out on Canonical. I think they might have a good future.

Ubuntu Support: http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
Canonical Marketplace: http://www.ubuntu.com/support/commercial/marketpla ce
Canonical Services: http://canonical.com/services

The SUDO stuff was covered elsewhere--to death.

But your question about Click n go...

First of all, I believe it is a single repository as well--at least I haven't figured out how to switch repositories. I have, however, figured out how to switch them with aptitude. So your security regards put click and go out front.

Secondly, click and go has graphics and user reviews. I still have trouble figuring out what all is available in synaptic.

Thirdly, click and go offers some commercial content too (Oh, there's the answer to your question!). Not a ton of it yet, but if you wanted to develop and sell a Linux game, I recommend you look into it now because it is probably going to be the best way to market Linux products once it's in Ubuntu.

Well-done troll, except Canonical does indeed provide paid support. Also, I fail to realize how sodomy plays a role in this wonderful distro, but I'm not one to judge based on the omission of a few pesky facts. "Don't complain, fix it" is my philosophy. Great job!

http://www.canonical.com/

Meaning: we clench our teeth, say a prayer, and hope that the Novell/MS deal doesn't bury us

I can't say for sure whether it's the same level of support, but there's always Canonical for Ubuntu and Progeny for Debian support.

But there is a company behind Ubuntu - Canonical. They offer professional support for those who want it. Of course, Red Hat is much larger, more entrenched and more experienced, but I think that outside of the US the situation isn't as clear cut.

Ubuntu is not a company, it is a community-driven distribution. Canonical Ltd. is a major financial sponsor of Ubuntu, but (AFAIK) provides very little guidance of the project.

I think (K)Ubuntu might be very commercial as well.

Canonical is a global organisation headquartered in the Isle of Man, with employees throughout Europe, North America, South America and Australia. http://www.canonical.com/

Many people who have never been to the Isle of Man are not sure exactly where it is! The answer is that it lies in the Irish Sea, between England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, less than 60 miles west of the Lancashire coastline http://www.isleofman.com/about/

You did not hear about canonical . Did you?
Please check also paid support options at ubuntu website.

Ubuntu is not tied to a corporation? http://www.canonical.com/

I thought that's what Canonical's Bazaar was all about? Mark Shuttleworth wants a bug-tracking system that will allow people to propagate a bug from the Ubuntu package to the Debian package to the upstream mainainers, all with minimal hassle and a central interface.

http://bazaar.canonical.com/

Universal bug tracking. That's the goal of the Malone project. And yes, it's sorely needed.

Considering Linus' recent words about specs and meaningful code, I reckon that Mark Shuttleworth's pragmatic efforts with the multi-distribution bug tracker (bazaar) will do much better for software compatibility among the Debian family, and possibly even outside it.

In the fine article, Mark makes the great point that the strength of FLOSS stuff is the source code, which can be compiled to whichever architecture it supports. It made me wonder if ABI compatibility in LSB is a silly x86-centric mistake.

If you want revision control that's flexible network-wise, it doesn't get much better than Arch. You can use any filesystem for the repository that your box can see. NFS, FTP, HTTP, SCP, it's all good.

Want Python? Use Cannonical's implementation of the Arch protocol, Bazaar. It's got nummy Python goodness baked in, along with better support for digitally signed repositories (via GPG).

$DEITY help you if you want to use either on Win32, however. The Arch protocol requires both a real filesystem, and an OS that can use case-sensitive semantics properly.

It should be: http://www.canonical.com/

The Arch project is active. Version 2.0 has been postponed in favor of continued maintenance of the 1.x line.

The Bazaar project is a fork of Arch that is introducing new features more rapidly (improved syntax, new archive formats, a caching system, etc.).

The question is where to go now? My preference would be GNU Arch, as it's more decentralized. But it may not be ready for this heavy a use, and I am hardly an expert in revision control.

There are lots of such tools, including CVS, Subversion (SVN), GNU arch, Monotone, Aegis, CVSNT, Darcs, FastCST, OpenCM, Vesta, Superversion, Codeville, Bazaar, Arx, and Bazaar-NG.

"The better SCM initiative was established to encourage improved OSS/FS SCM systems, by discussing and comparing them. Among other things, see their comparison file. Zooko has written a short review of OSS/FS SCM tools. Shlomi Fish's OnLamp.com article compares various CM systems as does his Evolution of a Revision Control User. The arch folks have developed a comparison of arch with Subversion and CVS (obviously, they like arch). Another pro-arch discussion is Why the Future is Distributed. A pro-subversion discussion is available at Dispelling Subversion FUD. Slashdot had a discussion when Subversion 1.0 was announced. Kernel traffic posted a summary of a technical discussion about BitKeeper. Brad Appleton has collected lots of interesting SCM links. jemfinch has some interesting essays about SCMs (he uses the term VCS), including why he thinks the approach to branches used by Darcs, Arch, and Bazaar-ng is a poor one. A brief overview of SCM systems that can run on Linux is available."

There are lots of OSS/FS software configuration management (SCM) tools. CVS, Subversion (SVN), and GNU arch get lots of press, but there are many others such as Aegis, CVSNT, Darcs, FastCST, OpenCM, Vesta, Codeville, Bazaar and Bazaar-NG.

You might also take a peek at my paper Software Configuration Management (SCM) Security.

In fact, many programmers will probably "give away the razor and charge for the blades" by creating software frameworks then charging reasonable fees for custom enhancements as users desire them.

Examples: Fluendo, Canonical, and Imendio. They're all pretty new companies, so while we may not know how sound the business model is, we'll know soon.