Ubuntu

Bug #377005
Comment #1

Comment 1 for bug 377005

Revision history for this message

Christopher Allan Webber (cwebber-dustycloud) wrote on 2009-05-16:

So, I find it kind of interesting that this post hasn't been responded by anyone despite it being a number of hours since it was posted. But there has been some discussion about it on the autonomo.us mailing list, that has ended with this:

Josh Berkus <email address hidden> writes:
> Guys,
>
>>> The Ubuntu community should decide if they want to be associated,
>>> governed and ruled by a proprietary software company, and should appoint
>>> non-Canonical people to all the key positions.
>>
>> Or they could admit that Ubuntu is de facto controlled by Canonical
>> anyway and appoint Canonical people to all the key positions. :-)
>
> I think that Ubuntu One was a poor choice of name for a variety of
> reasons (not the least of which is that it's crappy marketing; the name
> doesn't give you a clue what it does), but I also think it could have
> been dealt with more diplomatically. Mark is a fairly easy guy to reach
> and he does listen.

Well... I have a hard time believing that this bug isn't being listened to right now, so here's a shot at framing the conversation in a way that maybe can promote some dialogue.

I think we're at a pivotal point in Ubuntu's (and Canonical's) history. How this issue is addressed is going to determine how the community reacts, and what kind of community Ubuntu continues to have.

So let's start with the community that Ubuntu presently has, and where Canonical has been positioned in it. At this time of writing, Canonical is *heavily* invested in Ubuntu... and vice versa. Indeed, that seems to be the point.

Maybe not all users know about Ubuntu and Canonical's relationship. Certainly many of the up and coming generation of Ubuntu users (which is likely the same generation of users who have bought a GNU/Linux "netbook" without even knowing that this is what they are running) may have no clue.

But who has built the distribution, really? Well, of course there's the roots that come from being a derivative of Debian. But what I'm talking about is the many volunteers, the community organizers, the hackers, and the Ubuntu Local teams that really run the machine. And I think most of *this* part of the community is well aware of Canonical and its relation to Ubuntu... or at least, what they thought it was.

I don't think this issue is going to go away. It certainly won't go away as long as Ubuntu One is named Ubuntu One. But even if it was renamed to UbuOne it wouldn't really go away... I think that that would be just a change of makeup. The real issue will fester and likely continue to fracture the Ubuntu community until we get a very clear image of where things are going to go.

So, back to the email, was the naming of Ubuntu One an issue of bad marketing? Hm, well I would say yes, it probably was. But what's interesting about it is that it really brought the issue to a head in a way that it might not have otherwise. It did so by taking a name that people rallied around as a way of presenting a set of ideals (it has, after all, the rather populist slogan of "Linux for Human Beings") and applying them to a product that broke those ideas. As Jim Campbell said on Identi.ca:

If we go from having a closed desktop, to an open desktop that is strongly linked to a closed "cloud," what have we gained? #ubuntuone

(For reference, the URL for that is: http://identi.ca/notice/4276135 ... and it is the most 'popular' message on Identi.ca at the time of writing, so we shouldn't make the mistake that this point is going unnoticed.)

So, there is a deeper issue here. Is this the future business model of Canonical? Using its connection to the community to tie Ubuntu to a set of proprietary services?

Once again, I am going to quote Jim:

@rockstar I agree that right now it is just basic file sharing across desktops, but they plan to do more with it, & it sets a bad precedent.

(as reference: http://identi.ca/notice/4277182)

So here we go. The timing on this is actually quite significant. Right now, seeing the danger of subverting the free software movement by the rise of proprietary web applications, the Autonomo.us group is trying to campaign for the role of free network services. Nearly a year ago, right around the time that the Franklin Street Statement was released defining those ideas, Canonical announced that its proprietary bugtracker Launchpad (which has been at the heart of Ubuntu) would be free software. Right as the date of the release of that code is approaching, Canonical announced a new web service... and that "there are currently no plans or roadmap to open-source the server software part of Ubuntu One."

So the backlash that has been raised here should be of little surprise. Ubuntu is not a Canonical project alone... it is built on the backs of community members who have felt attachment to the ideas that Ubuntu, with its slogan "Linux for human beings", meant. Very few of the people who have done hard work on this project are likely unaware that Canonical was hoping to make a business out of it, but I
think that many people dedicated themselves so much because they believed and hoped that Canonical would pave the way as a company that made a business out of working with the community to develop free software. And now that whole relationship is coming into question.

The direction of Ubuntu won't be decided purely by Canonical alone.. the community, to a large extent, is going to decide this. But I think that at this point the community is awaiting a more clear reaction from Canonical (more than just closing bug reports over the *legal* aspects of trademark law and so on). Depending on what happens, the community could grow stronger, or it could fracture out of an identity crisis. Canonical could lead the way in making a business out of free network services, or it could lead the way in linking the free software desktop to a proprietary cloud.

Your move, Canonical. What happens now?

So, I find it kind of interesting that this post hasn't been responded by anyone despite it being a number of hours since it was posted.  But there has been some discussion about it on the autonomo.us mailing list, that has ended with this:

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Guys,
>
>>> The Ubuntu community should decide if they want to be associated,
>>> governed and ruled by a proprietary software company, and should appoint
>>> non-Canonical people to all the key positions.
>>
>> Or they could admit that Ubuntu is de facto controlled by Canonical
>> anyway and appoint Canonical people to all the key positions. :-)
>
> I think that Ubuntu One was a poor choice of name for a variety of 
> reasons (not the least of which is that it's crappy marketing; the name 
> doesn't give you a clue what it does), but I also think it could have 
> been dealt with more diplomatically.  Mark is a fairly easy guy to reach 
> and he does listen.

Well... I have a hard time believing that this bug isn't being listened to right now, so here's a shot at framing the conversation in a way that maybe can promote some dialogue.

I think we're at a pivotal point in Ubuntu's (and Canonical's) history.  How this issue is addressed is going to determine how the community reacts, and what kind of community Ubuntu continues to have.

So let's start with the community that Ubuntu presently has, and where Canonical has been positioned in it.  At this time of writing, Canonical is *heavily* invested in Ubuntu... and vice versa.  Indeed, that seems to be the point.

Maybe not all users know about Ubuntu and Canonical's relationship.  Certainly many of the up and coming generation of Ubuntu users (which is likely the same generation of users who have bought a GNU/Linux "netbook" without even knowing that this is what they are running) may have no clue.

But who has built the distribution, really?  Well, of course there's the roots that come from being a derivative of Debian.  But what I'm talking about is the many volunteers, the community organizers, the hackers, and the Ubuntu Local teams that really run the machine.  And I think most of *this* part of the community is well aware of Canonical and its relation to Ubuntu... or at least, what they thought it was.

I don't think this issue is going to go away.  It certainly won't go away as long as Ubuntu One is named Ubuntu One.  But even if it was renamed to UbuOne it wouldn't really go away... I think that that would be just a change of makeup.  The real issue will fester and likely continue to fracture the Ubuntu community until we get a very clear image of where things are going to go.

So, back to the email, was the naming of Ubuntu One an issue of bad marketing?  Hm, well I would say yes, it probably was.  But what's interesting about it is that it really brought the issue to a head in a way that it might not have otherwise.  It did so by taking a name that people rallied around as a way of  presenting a set of ideals (it has, after all, the rather populist slogan of "Linux for Human Beings") and applying them to a product that broke those ideas.  As Jim Campbell said on Identi.ca:

If we go from having a closed desktop, to an open desktop that is strongly linked to a closed "cloud," what have we gained? #ubuntuone

So, there is a deeper issue here.  Is this the future business model of Canonical?  Using its connection to the community to tie Ubuntu to a set of proprietary services?

Once again, I am going to quote Jim:

@rockstar I agree that right now it is just basic file sharing across desktops, but they plan to do more with it, & it sets a bad precedent.

(as reference: http://identi.ca/notice/4277182)

So here we go.  The timing on this is actually quite significant.  Right now, seeing the danger of subverting the free software movement by the rise of proprietary web applications, the Autonomo.us group is trying to campaign for the role of free network services.  Nearly a year ago, right around the time that the Franklin Street Statement was released defining those ideas, Canonical announced that its proprietary bugtracker Launchpad (which has been at the heart of Ubuntu) would be free software.  Right as the date of the release of that code is approaching, Canonical announced a new web service... and that "there are currently no plans or roadmap to open-source the server software part of Ubuntu One."

So the backlash that has been raised here should be of little surprise.  Ubuntu is not a Canonical project alone... it is built on the backs of community members who have felt attachment to the ideas that Ubuntu, with its slogan "Linux for human beings", meant.  Very few of the people who have done hard work on this project are likely unaware that Canonical was hoping to make a business out of it, but I
think that many people dedicated themselves so much because they believed and hoped that Canonical would pave the way as a company that made a business out of working with the community to develop free software.  And now that whole relationship is coming into question.

The direction of Ubuntu won't be decided purely by Canonical alone.. the community, to a large extent, is going to decide this.  But I think that at this point the community is awaiting a more clear reaction from Canonical (more than just closing bug reports over the *legal* aspects of trademark law and so on).  Depending on what happens, the community could grow stronger, or it could fracture out of an identity crisis.  Canonical could lead the way in making a business out of free network services, or it could lead the way in linking the free software desktop to a proprietary cloud.

Your move, Canonical.  What happens now?