Mark Shuttleworth Talks About What Ubuntu Contributes

[mirv]

Sorry for the confusion - I meant with Ubuntu itself. Not in a blog post that average users aren't going to read. That blog post more or less read to me like a board meeting (many words, little said). Is anything done from Canonical's (substantial) marketing force to recognise all the folks that Ubuntu relies upon?

[mugginz]

Sorry for the confusion - I meant with Ubuntu itself. Not in a blog post that average users aren't going to read. That blog post more or less read to me like a board meeting (many words, little said). Is anything done from Canonical's (substantial) marketing force to recognise all the folks that Ubuntu relies upon?

How about from their code of conduct:

Be collaborative. Collaboration is central to Ubuntu and to the larger free software community. We encourage individuals and teams to work together whether inside or outside the Ubuntu Project. This collaboration reduces redundancy, and improves the quality of our work. Internally and externally, we should always be open to collaboration. Wherever possible, we should work closely with upstream projects and others in the free software community to coordinate our efforts in all areas whether they be technical, advocacy or documentation. Our work should be done transparently and we should involve as many interested parties as early as possible. If we decide to take a different approach than others, we will let them know early, document our work and inform others regularly of our progress.

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct

[mirv]

Marketing speak for "we will tell people what we want done". Again, there's no recognition. Perhaps it's better that I give an example - as I've mentioned previously, I don't use Ubuntu. I've no idea what state an installation is in, what's displayed, and if the package manager shows links back to that package's website or primary maintainer. That would show recognition of where something comes from.

[mugginz]

Marketing speak for "we will tell people what we want done". Again, there's no recognition. Perhaps it's better that I give an example - as I've mentioned previously, I don't use Ubuntu. I've no idea what state an installation is in, what's displayed, and if the package manager shows links back to that package's website or primary maintainer. That would show recognition of where something comes from.

There's this:

http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu

Where did it all begin?

Linux was already established as an enterprise server platform in 2004. But free software was still not a part of everyday life for most computer users. That's why Mark Shuttleworth gathered a small team of developers from one of the most established Linux projects – Debian - and set out to create an easy-to-use Linux desktop, Ubuntu.

The vision for Ubuntu is part social and part economic: free software, available free of charge to everybody on the same terms, and funded through a portfolio of services provided by Canonical.

[mugginz]

Still from the "About Ubuntu" page:

Governance

Version 4.10, codenamed the 'Warty Warthog', the first official Ubuntu release, was launched in October 2004. Global interest in Ubuntu was dramatic from the outset. The year following the Warty Warthog release saw huge growth in the Ubuntu community as thousands of free software enthusiasts and experts joined.
The governance of Ubuntu is somewhat independent of Canonical, with volunteer leaders from around the world taking responsibility for many of the critical elements of the project. It remains a key tenet of the Ubuntu Project that Ubuntu is a shared work between Canonical, other companies, and the thousands of volunteers who bring their expertise to bear on making it a world-class platform for the whole world to use.

[mirv]

Uh.....that last one tries to infer that thousands of people are working to make Ubuntu great. More of "look at us, aren't we great?" - nothing against this, it's what all companies do for marketing. I can see you likely don't quite understand what I mean (my own fault for being unable to explain properly), so I should perhaps leave this alone.

[mugginz]

Marketing speak for "we will tell people what we want done". Again, there's no recognition.

That's pretty unfair.

Perhaps it's better that I give an example - as I've mentioned previously, I don't use Ubuntu. I've no idea what state an installation is in, what's displayed, and if the package manager shows links back to that package's website or primary maintainer. That would show recognition of where something comes from.

From the "Ubuntu Software Centre" which is how they recommend a user install software.



Clicking the link take you to the projects website

[mugginz]

Uh.....that last one tries to infer that thousands of people are working to make Ubuntu great. More of "look at us, aren't we great?" - nothing against this, it's what all companies do for marketing. I can see you likely don't quite understand what I mean (my own fault for being unable to explain properly), so I should perhaps leave this alone.

As to the "Look at us, aren't we great" comment, I happen to think they are great, as are Red Hat, and I.B.M. and others for what they do for open source software. Why shouldn't they be proud of what they do?

Some more from ubuntu.com

What is open source?

Originally coined in 1998, the term open source came out of the free software movement, a collaborative force going strong since the dawn of computing in the 1950s. This early community was responsible for the development of many of the first operating systems, software and, in 1969, the Internet itself.
The open source community is thriving and today boasts some of the best brains in the business. The aim has not changed: free systems and software should be available to everybody, wherever they are.
Without open source, many of the systems and applications we take for granted simply would not exist. All the big players in computing come from, or owe a huge creative debt to, the open source community, and continue to rely on its talent and expertise when developing new products.
In the spirit of open source, Ubuntu is absolutely free to download, use, share and improve however and whenever you like.


And then they link to:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php/

[mirv]

Ah, yes, linking to the project's website is a good example of what I was thinking of. That's a little better, thankyou.
And I did say, all companies pretty much well have to say "aren't we great" - kind of necessary really! Can't expect anyone to say "we suck" (though I can think of a few standards committees that should say just that).
Shuttleworth a while ago was talking about how distros should align release schedules, which would mean the software for them would have to be aligned for that. This caused a bit of friction a while back - I personally saw this as too much of Canonical wanting people to do things for Ubuntu, when Canonical didn't do much dev work back in return.
I realise that last statement may stir things up again, but I mention it only to say why I have some concern about what Canonical gets up to, and scrutinise it a little bit more than I otherwise might.

[mugginz]

Shuttleworth a while ago was talking about how distros should align release schedules,

When he called for that it was motivated by pure motives as there are some benefits for all in doing this, not just Ubuntu.

He's as an independently wealthy man (and not from Ubuntu as Ubuntu wasn't cash-flow positive at least the last time I recently checked) he has no need to try to "screw the open source community" in order to make money or find fame. He had some fame already via the space trip, etc. He was involved in the Linux community before he was a millionaire and has a down to earth and honest wish for the Linux platform to succeed.

That's why I find it a little nasty when people want to shoot him and Ubuntu down. Imagine if one of us "Linux Lovers" came into a heap of money, then threw a lot of it into open source to improve the Linux desktop only then to have people taking pot shots at you.

which would mean the software for them would have to be aligned for that. This caused a bit of friction a while back

Yes I remember the friction. I don't want to sound inflammatory but it's going to anyway - I saw a lot of people jumping to conclusions. There are people who will immediately jump to the wrong conclusion when it comes to Ubuntu no matter what they do.

- I personally saw this as too much of Canonical wanting people to do things for Ubuntu, when Canonical didn't do much dev work back in return.

It wouldn't help at the same time to have the anti Ubuntu hate group riling up as much hate as they can.

I realise that last statement may stir things up again, but I mention it only to say why I have some concern about what Canonical gets up to, and scrutinise it a little bit more than I otherwise might.

That provides some insight, thanks.