Ximian Adds Subscription

GeneJock writes "Apparently the days of free fast updates from Ximian are gone. The latest update to the Ximian suite replaces the old Red Carpet Manager with a newer version which includes access to a subscription service. This subscription service costs $9.95 a month ($7.95 for the first two months if you signup now). You can still get the updates for free but its slow going... looks like I'll be getting my updates overnight. Read all about it here." Can't fault a company for trying to make some money - hope it works. Update: 12/19 16:48 GMT by T : Please note: Ximian isn't cutting back on the free downloads, either -- in fact, just the opposite. Read below for some more information about this, including a link (yup) to a standalone static binary of Red Carpet, so you don't even need to use Ximian Gnome.

Nat Friedman of Ximian points out that the introduction of the subscription service doesn't mean a reduction in the availability of free downloads, from Ximian and the 40 associated mirror sites. "We've actually grown the pipe by 500% over the past 4 to 6 months," he says. "We also have a mirror coordinator." He cites ever-increasing numbers of Red Carpet sessions as the reason for introducing a subscription; November alone saw three quarters of a million sessions.

That number seems likely to increase, in part because of Ximian partnerships with companies like HP, now shipping a preview release of Ximian Gnome on HP-UX, but also because the Red Carpet software update system no longer requires Ximan Gnome; Friedman passed along this link to distribution-specific static binaries which work with other distributions as well.

Despite new servers and more bandwidth, Friedman asserts that some users downloading software for free will inevitably hit servers at times "when they're getting 8k downloads and they'd rather be getting 50k, and that's really who the subscription is for."

Comments

Forget about it if you use KDE

[L-Wave]

I could see paying for the service if it supported updating KDE as well....but usually installing the gnome ximian packages does some things I dont like to KDE:

1) KDE's menu loses various programs like gimp, gphoto, etc.... (because the RPMS are now labeled *-ximian.*

2) It breaks KDE-pim rpm, basically you cant run KpilotDaemon anymore

3) I forget what else, but there are more.

anyways, thats just my 2 cents about the service.

Too expensive

[alt.sex.fetish.jesus]

$9.95 a month is too expensive. Hell, I can buy hosting for $9.95 a month! I wouldn't mind supporting them and getting the benefit of higher bandwidth, but a fair market price as far as I'm concerned would be about $9.95 a quarter.

Stuck with bugs?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

How will they deal with people who don't want to pay $8/month but still think critical bugs should be fixed? Hmm.

Re:Stuck with bugs?

[Eimi Metamorphoumai]

Those people can download their bugfixes, they just have to wait a little longer. You should note that the free Red Carpet seems every bit as fast as it has for the past month or so (which is quite a bit faster than it was before that). We're not talking about having bugfixes out sooner, just taking less time downloading them.

$119.40 per year

[Patrick]

Ximian is asking you to pay $119.40 per year for software that is functionally on par with Microsoft Windows. I wouldn't pay $120 per year for Windows, and I'm not going to pay $120 for Ximian GNOME, either.

Even if you buy every release of Red Hat Linux, it won't cost you $120 per year. And that's an entire operating system (with GNOME included!), not just a pretty GUI.

Remember, folks, it's still legal to mirror this stuff. It's all GPL.

--Patrick, who will continue paying $0 per year for software

Too expensive, I agree

[truthsearch]

Paying per quarter or year makes much more sense. It's a strange feeling to pay for something monthly that you wouldn't use at least once a month (at least I hope they don't make one release per month). I could see 4 upgrades a year, so pay every quarter. But if I can dial up to the entire internet for $19.95/mo (granted 56K), why pay $9.95/mo just to upgrade a small portion of my software?

I agree with their strategy of charging, no problem there. In fact they should charge for their services. But they need to come up with a better pay model. Maybe charge more monthly for corporate upgrades, less for home users.

What's the big deal

[the_rev_matt]

I must be confused. A company is offering premium service (just like RHN does) for a reasonable fee and every gets their panties in a wad. They are not discontinuing the free updates (as the teaser implied they were), they are simply saying "if you pay us, you'll get priority access". Red Hat has been doing this for years with FTP access. A real world analogy would be this: For 32 cents (US) the US Postal Service will send your letter anywhere in the US. For another few dollars they will make someone sign for it, and for a few dollars more they'll get it there faster. Are you saying you'll boycott the USPS because they charge more for faster service?

As for myself, my time is actually worth something so I'm more than happy to spend 10 bucks a month on a useful service that gets my updates to me faster.

This changes a lot of things

[SpookComix]

I've been using Red Carpet Updater for a couple of months now, and aside from it's obvious bias toward Gnome (and how easy it is to replace parts of standard Gnome with Ximian's versions...complete with dancing monkey) and a few dependency issues (most recently during an attempted update of Galeon, no less) it's been a pretty good tool.

Linux needs an automatic updater like Red Carpet. Why? First, because of WindowsUpdate. It's quick, easy, and on the mark when updating the OS and MS's addons. You've bought the OS, sure, but the updates are free. At $9.95/month, now you have a free OS that ends up costing you the same as the full version of XP Home after just over a year and a half.

Second, because updating Linux without a tool like that is just impossible for the average user. People here often complain about the inaccessibility of MS updates to bug fixes and security holes, but at least they're in one place, on one site (even if you have to dig to see them), and usually end up on WindowsUpdate. How to the Linux Elite expect an average user to keep up with every possible package, dependency, bug fix, security hole and update? Linux's greatest strength, openness and diversity, is also it's greatest weakness. There is no central repository to keep your system running smoothly...except tools like Red Carpet.

What about for corporate situations? I'm telling you, Debian scares me, but a local apt-get cache for my users is looking more and more attractive every day.

Is this the new trend for Linux? "Yes, our OS is free (as in beer *and* speech!), but in the long run, it'll cost you more than Windows if you want to actually keep it updated." I dunno...that doesn't sound appealing to me, and it doesn't sound like it fits within the creedo that has been trumpeted for the last 10 years.

--SC

Re:Value added or just paying for bandwidth?

[dbarclay10]

Your entire argument seems to rest on the fact that you believe bandwidth is free.

BANDWIDTH IS EXPENSIVE.

Okay? Hope that clears everything up :) You may not pay by the byte, but Ximian does, as does almost every other company and individual running a server.

By allowing people to download stuff for free(although relatively slowly), they're still basically giving you money from their pockets.

So please, until you start providing servers with a 100Mbit connection to a good backbone, and provide all the bandwidth fees(thousands of dollars per month), then please don't bitch.

Possible better solution

[nemesisj]

This latest move is a noble attempt at trying to make some money, but I'd rather see companies like Redhat get an easy to use automatic software updater that keeps every package on my system up to date, and give me the "express treatment" when I enter a UPC code from the boxed version of the software I bought at a retail store. I think this would be a much better solution since it doesn't mean me paying every month, and Redhat is still making money off of retail sales, in addition to racking up more brick and mortar sales numbers.

Re:I hate to say it

[Sircus]

RHN is not free. You get a free year (afair) with your copy of Red Hat, but if you want additional machines to use the service, or you want to use the service thereafter, it's $19.95/month

$120 a year for an update service???

[Ars-Fartsica]

Good luck! That price point just won't work. Maybe at $30-$40 a year, people might sign on, but Ximian is simply not thinking with their current pricing scheme.

Added to which, whats to stop aggresive mirroring from getting software out to free sites within hours of it being available to Ximian subscribers??? I just don't see the benefit.

Re:I hate to say it

[bonius_rex]

What does this do to RedHat's paying RHN customers? There is a RedHat channel in RedCarpet. If I were going to pay for a service like this (I'm not), I'd go with Ximian, which gets me my RedHat updates, PLUS all the content from Ximian, codeweavers, Loki, etc. etc.

Anyone think this might be bad news for RedHat?

The "New" Business Model

[DragonWyatt]

I am sick and damned tired of people bitching about modest fees from previously free open-source sites. I mean, really. ESPECIALLY when they still offer a free alternative.

We're all smart people. If there's one thing we should have learned about the dot-bomb era, it's that organizations (businesses, companies, hacker efforts, the red cross...) NEED MONEY TO STAY ALIVE. That's just how it is, people.

We have lots of control over organizations, simply by choosing who to support with our $. (Guess what? Ximian might be a good opportunity to further the cause.)

All of you people that are out there bitching about paying some small fee for good access, what don't you get about this? What is so hard to understand about needing $$$ to support the effort?

Money is a basic requirement for effectively bringing anything to the masses, be it charity, goodwill, and even open-source software.

Everyone bitching on here, take a step back and look at the big picture. You need to do your part. FYI, your part is NOT bitching about what amounts to a sustenance model for something you care about.

If you love and care about important stuff like this, suck it up, and spring for the 33 fucking cents/day it might cost you.

I, for one, have already signed up to pay the paltry $9.95/month to support something that I care about and love, which I don't want to go away.

Is Debian the SecretOS?

[pos]

Seriously, what is with this? Whenever people talk about Evolution or Red Carpet I get this feeling that I have some secret that nobody else knows about. I know debian is harder to get installed than other distros but *come on*.... it is a one time cost. You would think it was next to impossible the way people avoid it.

Every couple of weeks I pop open KPackage and use the debian servers to and shop around for upgrades. If I ever find myself needing software I don't have... I go to KPackage.

I don't understand. Why does Ximian need to charge money for bandwidth and Debian not? Are their operating costs a lot higher? I think it must be because Debian is not-for-profit so people must feel more responsability to make donations. I just don't feel philanthropy towards a for-profit business.

Just some thoughts.

-pos

Re:Not a chance.

[scenic]

Except that Red Carpet does everything you just asked for. I keep ALL my systems up to date via Red Carpet. I *don't* use RHN, and I don't have to hit any other sites for anything else.

RedHat updates? Available. Loki Demos? Available via Red Carpet. StarOffice (with all the configs set up so that Evolution can launch .doc and .ppt files directly into SO)? Available. Opera? Available. The list goes on.

My point is just that you're not just paying for priority access for GNOME updates. You're paying for priority access to whole system updates.

In a way, Ximian is making a meta-distribution, and Red Carpet is what facilitates that... it allows them to add channels that contain most of the major downloads you might be interested in. If you're not interested in a particular app (let's say you don't want to use StarOffice), just unsub that channel.

You should try running it... it's a lot different (better, IMHO) than RHN. That's why I've already signed up.

Sujal

Re:Double Standard...

[PrimeEnd]

If Microsoft were to offer Office for free with a slow download and for its current price with a fast download, most people would collapse with astonishment. Then they would praise Microsoft.

There is no double standard here. Ximian gives away all of its software for free. MS doesn't. With Ximian you can pay for a faster download.

But you knew that and were trolling right?

*Cough*apt*cough*

[Greyfox]

Linux has (and has had) several automatic updaters forever now. I prefer Debian's -- apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade is pretty hard to beat. If you run the stable branch, you can pretty much put that in a cron job and forget it. I don't know why it scares you... it's a great solution.

Redhat apparently has some sort of tool (up2date or something) which performs a similar task.

red-carpet was pretty cool, but IIRC the Ximian gnome didn't get along too well with Debian (Mainly dependency naming issues IIRC) so I wiped it off my desktop and installed the standard gnome branch. I really can't tell the difference, either. And getting Ximian off my desktop was a much more miserable experience than it had to be, though this was more Debian's packaging system's fault than anything else. The dependencies cascaded and X and all the X programs ended up getting uninstalled too.

If I were in a corporate situation and getting paid for keeping a Linux network healthy, I'd set everyone up with Debian, have their apts pointing to a machine inside the company and either set them on a cron job or hack out some method of kicking off a apt update on a remote signal. Then I'd thoroughly test new packages before releasing them to the live apt server.

Time will tell if this subscription model works for Ximian. I suspect that in its current form, it will not.

Re:*Cough*apt*cough*

[WesHertlein]

I prefer Debian's -- apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade is pretty hard to beat. If you run the stable branch, you can pretty much put that in a cron job and forget it.

Be careful about saying something like this. Too many people will take it literally.

One should never run a software upgrade unattended like this (trimmed and taylored by an IT department is one thing, somebody's local server or desktop is quite another). I know, I know, you take proper precautions with what gets puts in a crontab. Even for something like this, you're probably better off with the snippet:

apt-get update && apt-get upgrade --download

That way:

• The upgrade only runs on a successful update
• The packages get cached for easy install later, but nothing remotely volatile is going to be executed right now
• A nice reassuring note will appear in an e-mail box everyday. (Everybody does alias root mail to a local user, and then check it, right? ^_^ )

Personally, I go a little more crazy. I tend to do:

apt-get -qq update && apt-get -dqq upgrade && apt-get -sqq upgrade

(The shorthand is mostly for e-mail subject lines, so I get a reminder of what's going on.) In long terms, that's:
apt-get --quiet --quiet update && \
apt-get --download-only --quiet --quiet upgrade && \
apt-get --simulate --quiet --quiet upgrade
This way, I only get mail if something (like an install) needs to get done. I check my e-mail in the morning, and if something is pending, it gets taken care of.

This post is mostly a just-in-case post... someone might read the parent and think, "hey, that's a great idea!" (which they should ^_^). Hopefully they'll scroll a little bit before adjusting their crontab.

Re:Must be better than Transgaming...

[billcopc]

Why bother with "an update per month" ? Who says you're going to need that update ? Let's say you just buy a month at a time, and only buy a month when you know there's an update waiting for you. Ximian (or any other company) will start producing minor half-assed updates just so you stay hooked onto the service every month. Now even though Ximian is a free-software house, they are still run by marketing and finance droids, so don't expect them to be any more honest than XYZ MegaCorp.

Once again, I declare that the net needs a micropayment system (with a warranty, if that's applicable at all). If you want to download 20 megs worth of updates, then pay for that 20 megs of bandwidth (let's say 2 dollars). If you spend the next year without needing or wanting an update, then you don't disburse another penny and life is good. This model is flawed because it will encourage them to release 'fat' patches, but there surely is a way to allow a reasonably honest and fair system for all.

Re:This came up Monday and the verdict was...

[Omnifarious]

The problem is that cable companies essentially have to intrude on your network and figure out what you're running in order to offer their service. Ximian's service is a natural and reasonable one to offer. There is no 'customer policing' to make sure it works.

Also, I have no problem with the cable companies differentiating based on usage, but that should be based on usage, not what software you happen to be running. If they want to rate limit you and charge you extra to have it lifted, that's great. What I have a problem with is them telling you what you can and can't have on your network.

Essentially cable companies are trying to 'police' users for business mistakes they made. They shouldn't have assumed that all users would be docile downloading consumers, and structured their business and pricing plans accordingly. Instead, they want to blame consumers for their glaring error in offering unlimited bandwidth to home users isn't quite so apparent.

In short, the situations are not comparable.

Re:Ximian

[baptiste]

Guess 9.95 isn't so bad....

A month? For updates to Gnome and other products I need to purchase? I just can't see how $120/yr is a good value (ok $99.95 if I buy it a year at a time). Of course Redhat wants $240/yr per machine. Yes, I know bandwidth is expensive, etc, etc and Ximian needs to make money. I'm all for that. But the pricing seems a bit off. Hell - for $120 or $240 a year I can buy windows and still get updates to it (teh few there are ;) ) for free.

I'm not saying everything has to be free. But come on! For example - I've got 3 desktops (me and kids) and a laptop. All run Redhat. Do I have to buy subscriptions for each (I do with RedHat) That's $400/yr just to auto update my packages? I hate dependency problems as much as the next guy but that's nuts.

I agree with the poster - I'll be doing my upgrades overnight and send Ximian what I feel is fair value for the desktop and the service.

I paid my $99.00

[bherrmann7]

I doled out the money. I have enjoyed using Ximian's
service for over a year now. It saves me time and
keeps my software (including OS) up to date.

Although the main reason I paid is not for faster downloads, I paid because I want them to keep up the good work. Continue to develop useful software and release it as GPL. The faster downloads is just a bonus.

Ximian desperately needs a REAL business model

[Ars-Fartsica]

Subscriptions will not support Ximian. Red Hat already offers a more compelling product - they'll update your entire OS, not just the UI.

I don't really see how Ximian is going to make it. At the end of the day they are really just another Eazel - a company with a neat product that you can obtain for free. There simply is not a compelling reason to give Ximian money.

The best advice I could give them at this point is to develop some truly useful and unique linux apps and sell them. People will pay for something they cannot get elsewhere if it truly enhances the utility of their system.

For example, I would pay for a Real JukeBox type system that united all of the functions of the various linux music programs in one nice package.

Rumor Control

[Peter Teichman]

We'd like to clarify a few of the facts around our new Red Carpet Express service.

Since we launched the Red Carpet service this past April, it has become immensely popular. In fact, usage of Red Carpet has grown over 500% since the service's inception, and we've had to scale our public server's network pipe accordingly. Today, hundreds of thousands of people use Red Carpet on a regular basis to keep their systems up to date. Almost since the day we launched it, we've had a number of users ask us to provide a subscription service to Red Carpet that would offer a higher level of bandwidth. That's what Red Carpet Express is.

Red Carpet Express is not a sign that we're backing away from our free Red Carpet service. As our userbase has grown, it has become harder for us to increase our available bandwidth -- and consequently our monthly colo bill -- to provide everyone with the fastest connection possible. And so, for the users who absolutely must have high speed all the time, there is Express. Red Carpet Express is made up of a new, dedicated network of machines located at major hubs, and doesn't cut into our free service at all. In fact, over the last few months, we have increased bandwidth to our free Red Carpet service dramatically as the userbase has grown.

Red Carpet Express is not a sign that we're backing away from our mirror network. We have a dedicated mirror coordinator who works with our over 40 mirror sites to make sure they have the latest content as quickly as possible. This isn't going to change with the launch of Red Carpet Express. In fact, I'd like to encourage those users of our free service to consider looking for a mirror site closer to them.

Anyway, we hope people give Express a shot. It's the perfect stocking stuffer! :-)

Re: Mirroring... Gnutella Network!

[abe ferlman]

The Gnutella network exists and would be an excellent haven for free content. So long as it is clear that you are expected to share whatever you download, this is basically free bandwidth for ximian, although it is still slow.

This also solves the legitimacy problem that peer-to-peer systems often have. If the files are legal to redistribute as all GPL'd code is, then pow! - we have a clear non-infringing use for a network like this. Sorry Jack Valenti, networks are for kids.

It's a win-win. What's really needed is a list of projects that need to be shared from people's idle gnutella collections, so that the sharing can happen with a modicum of intelligence- or perhaps even just an announcement on the download page asking users to pledge to share the files they download (or some portion of them) on peer to peer networks like the gnutella network in order to guarantee their widespread distribution, and a place to enter their email address so they can be notified when a newer version has been released so they can start sharing the newer one. You probably can't offer a discount for this or anything since

If bandwidth is their only problem, I think this is a solvable problem so long as the content they are distributing truly is free.

Please, someone with more time and experience, steal (or hire me to implement :) my idea and develop a free software distribution vehicle (apt-get? redcarpet? something new?) which is agnostic as to its transport mode but explicitly encourages the use of peer-to-peer networking for file transfers and only uses centralized servers for version listing updates. The legality of transferring files between users rather than from central distribution points is a huge advantage of free software- currently we're only capitalizing on it by downloading iso images or copying cdroms. We can do much much better.

Bryguy