Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canonical To Divert Money From GNOME

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the and-now-nobody's-happy dept.

GNOME 374

Julie188 writes "Canonical has reacted to backlash over its insane deal with Banshee by establishing a marginally better new deal. Banshee is a media/music player for Linux (and Windows and Mac) that supports music purchases via Amazon MP3. It will ship with Ubuntu 11.04. Amazon pays 10% to its affiliates — websites and software that send it business. Banshee had been donating its Amazon affiliate proceeds to GNOME. But Amazon's MP3 store competes with Canonical's MP3 store, Ubuntu One. So Canonical thought that it should help itself to 75% of the affiliate money from Banshee/Amazon sales and leave 25% for GNOME. The Banshee group said no thanks, we'll disable Amazon for Ubuntu users. Canonical is refusing to let Banshee disable Amazon. It has instead said it will contribute some money from Ubuntu One to GNOME but it still intends on keeping the lion's share for itself."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Last straw that broke the camel's back (3, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318030)

Ok, I'm getting a new business laptop in a week or so anyway, so it's the perfect time to start using debian instead of Ubuntu anyway.

I can't say I will mind, the last couple of Ubuntu releases were shit, I couldn't even upgrade to the last one as a bug is still unfixed that makes wifi speeds crawl at 70kbyte/s tops for certain wireless cards.

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318192)

I would recommend trying Arch. I started at Ubuntu but due to PPA hell I just installed Arch instead of adding repositories left and right just to get the latest software.

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (0)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318326)

What are you talking about? PPAs are a great way to have the latest version of a handful of programs, and have nothing to do with hell that I'm aware of. But yeah, if you want cutting edge everything then Ubuntu's six month release cycle is probably not for you.

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318412)

What are you talking about?

Arch.

PPAs are a great way to have the latest version of a handful of programs, and have nothing to do with hell that I'm aware of. But yeah, if you want cutting edge everything then Ubuntu's six month release cycle is probably not for you.

Debian depending on the version you install can be far behind or raw bleeding edge like Arch, but at least Arch gives some semblance of Desktop stability.
The point of the previous post was a recommendation to try Arch.

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318560)

I would recommend trying Arch. I started at Ubuntu but due to PPA hell I just installed Arch instead of adding repositories left and right just to get the latest software.

PPA certainly dull in comparison to the AUR! I also recommend Arch wholeheartedly for those who are a bit more advanced.

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (1)

boristhespider (1678416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318926)

Well off-topic now from the Canonical/Banshee/GNOME shitfest, but I really like Arch. The best Linux setups I've ever had were Gentoo, back in 2005, and then Arch in about 2007. Unfortunately last time I installed Arch I had a motherfucker of a time getting X Windows running and ended up ditching it and putting Ubuntu back on because I'm running out of time to spend the time getting something running. When I get that computer back I'm going back to Arch again. (Or Gentoo if I suddenly start getting hard-ons for hours of compilation again.*)

(* Actually since I swapped computers and stopped using Gentoo they started dishing out precompiled binaries for a few things. Since the computer I was compiling on took at least a night and it may have been almost a day to compile up X and Gnome, that's probably a good thing. I always viewed Arch - and swapped to it because of that - as something akin to Gentoo without all the compile-time. Maybe Gentoo took note of people like me...)

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318764)

i'd recommend Linux Mint [linuxmint.com] over Ubuntu. it's any all around better desktop OS.

Re:Last straw that broke the camel's back (2)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319138)

Everyone realizes this is Open Source Software, right? Every distro (Arch, recommended above, Debian, and Red Hat) all "take" other people's software and make money off of it. Canonical isn't under any obligation to cut GNOME or Banshee in at all. If Banshee didn't want it this way, the devs should have released freeware.

And people were upset over Apples 30%. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318062)

Face it, Canonical has gone rogue, just like Oracle and Novell. Remember, it is free as in libre, not gratis. If you are a "real" linux user, uninstall Ubuntu.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318104)

Isn't this more about Libre meaning being able to do the wrong thing?

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (4, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318116)

Remember, it is free as in libre, not gratis.

According to whom?

Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318242)

Your comment about "real" Linux users is basically the attitude that turns off a lot of people from even listening to reasonable arguments about free (libre) software.

According to whom?

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318502)

To real Linux users.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319218)

Me.

I fully support OSS software, but you start in what those kind of comments and I'm done listening too you. It shows you to be an irrational fanboy with no grasp on the fact that it does take effort to produce software. The dollar amount to attach to it may be debatable but the effort part isn't, if you want to blatantly disregard it, or are too ignorant to recognize it, you aren't worth wasting my time.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318790)

You misquoted - you should have quoted the bit that you're actually complaining about:

'If you are a "real" linux user, uninstall Ubuntu.'

"Free" in Free Software does mean freedom, not "free of charge".

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318160)

Yeah yeah, whatever... If you're a real linux user, uninstall whatever distro you have et build it from scratch, with a butterfly....

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (1)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318670)

Face it, Canonical has gone rogue, just like Oracle and Novell. Remember, it is free as in libre, not gratis. If you are a "real" linux user, uninstall Ubuntu.

How dare they want to make money while supplying the world with a FREE operating system! Free as in you-don't-have-to-pay-anything-for-it-ever-so-stop-whining. Or, hey, maybe if you donate enough money they won't have to resort to such commercialization.

Seriously - how can you be so naive and so arrogant?

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318746)

s/supply/repackaging an improved and differentiated version/

Anyway judging Canonical is irrelevant, they are free to do what they want and you are free to follow them or follow others or fork. Your document aren't hostages of canonical choices. That's the good thing of FOSS.

Re:And people were upset over Apples 30%. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318964)

lol

that kind of thinking drives you to debian with all the proprietry repositories turned off. totally free and unemcumbered and a right pain in the cunt to use as a desktop machine

or to be fair maybe that kind of thinking drives you away from ubuntu and towards linux mint (debian edition, of course). that's probably a good thing. LIFE TO LINUX MINT.

Money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318080)

...ruins everything.

Re:Money... (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319150)

And without money, do you think you would be typing this on that nice computer you have, and being able to communicate with people you'll never meet?

Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu (3, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318092)

Remember the story a few days ago about why Ubuntu no longer gets love from slashdotters and the Linux community? I think shenanigans like this says it all.

Re:Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu (3, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318194)

Remember the story a few days ago about why Ubuntu no longer gets love from slashdotters and the Linux community? I think shenanigans like this says it all.

I suppose you could call it shenanigans; but it is all perfectly within the bounds of the MIT/X11 license Banshee is released under. There's nothing in there that says Canonical can't take Banshee's code and re-enable the Amazon mp3 functionality - quite the contrary, the freedom to modify it is expressly stated.

This is one reason why more mainstream commercial licenses are restrictive. You can't give people the freedom to make changes, only to complain when you don't like the changes they've made.

Re:Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu (5, Insightful)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318582)

You can't give people the freedom to make changes, only to complain when you don't like the changes they've made.

Of course I can. Just because you are free to implement whatever changes you choose, does not mean that I am no longer free to disagree with your choices, or that I am not free to attempt to change your mind.

You do not have to follow my desires, that is your freedom. I do not have to like your choices, that is my freedom.

Re:Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319164)

Sounds like you're the kind of person which doesn't vote, but still seems to want to complain when "their guy" doesn't win.

If you want to restrict what people can do with your stuff, then use a license which states it.

Re:Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu (0)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319222)

Well, if you say "I don't like it" but there's always people that complain "Hey, you can't do that" even though the license says they can. It's a bit of a gray area where you move from expressing your dislike into trying to conjure up some after-the-fact moral limitations or obligations that aren't actually in the license. Between for-profit companies and unscrupulous individuals you can be fairly sure your license will be exploited to the fullest, and you sound rather naive when you complain that it is. If you don't like them doing something, you should probably get it in the license that they can't.

Re:Why Slashdotters no longer love Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319304)

Not to say that you can't but it kind of defeats the purpose, unless we are splitting hairs here.

Why the FOSS community no longer love Ubuntu (1)

ArcRiley (737114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319280)

The Ubuntu project is also losing support from developers over these things. I quit the project when they added the Ubuntu One music store, started selling proprietary software through software center, and became a peddler for MPEG-4 patent licenses. Most of my friends who used to be Ubuntu members have since quit as well, none of us want to follow them down the dark path they're headed.

I should probably update the email address associated with my slashdot account.

Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (5, Interesting)

Skystrider (927762) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318106)

Which makes this whole kerfluffle look a bit ridiculous. But more than that, how does Canonical have control over the money that Banshee is donating to GNOME? Does Banshee send a check to Canonical with a request that it be forwarded to GNOME?

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318142)

I think they are saying that they'll take Banshee out of their apt channels or something like that... basically using that as leverage to get Banshee to do what they want?

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (5, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318222)

Canonical modified the version of Banshee that it ships with Ubuntu to use their own Amazon affiliate code instead of Banshee's everytime a purchase is made. This is perfectly legal, since anyone can modify Banshee's source code. However, it is pretty shady IMHO; no better than the people that slap another name on OSS and try to sell it to unknowing consumers.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (5, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318544)

no better than the people that slap another name on OSS and try to sell it to unknowing consumers.

That would appear to only be valid if the end customer doesn't know. If Canonical is being upfront about it, and not trying to hide it, then I am not sure it is "wrong" in any broad sense of the phrase. Not preferable to Banshee? Perhaps, as you state, the license clearly allows it. Banshee has actively chosen an license that specifically allows this, if it is a big deal, they can change licenses. Based on comments above, the developers aren't the ones who are complaining anyway, just the bloggers.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (1)

Swave An deBwoner (907414) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318856)

If Canonical is being upfront about it, and not trying to hide it, then I am not sure it is "wrong" ..

"Upfront" how? Maybe something like:

Purchases made at Amazon.com through Banshee used to yield 10% to the GNOME project as an "Amazon Affiliate" but we at Canonical have decided to substitute our own "Amazon Affiliate" code in place of that of Banshee, and skim 75% off of this 10% (GNOME will still get 25% of the 10%, so don't worry about this).

Yeah, I like that.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318880)

A solution could be to offer the user the choice of to whom the affiliate money goes. I would probably select Banshee, but at least you have a choice. Of course, Canonical would probable set the default to Canocical :)

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (4, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319186)

I don't think it's shady at all. Canonical build a complete operating environment. They take the majority of the code from the community, patch it heavily, contribute their own functionality and server resources, and integrate it all. They aren't simply selling a CD with stuff they've burned from the web. What the end user gets is Ubuntu, not a software collection.

When that user installs Ubuntu, installs a media player from Canonical's app centre, and then buys music, that sale is directly attributable to Ubuntu. If Banshee didn't exist, Canonical would use another media player to do the same thing or write their own if there wasn't one suitable. The actual media player in use isn't important. Canonical built the product, Canonical pushed the service, and Canonical runs the servers behind the app centre.

On a side note, doesn't just about every distro do the same thing with Firefox's default homepage and Google? Except without contributing anything at all back to Mozilla.org?

I'm not particularly enthused about the way the article writer spun this. It sounds like somebody at Canonical overstepped his bounds and made a mistake. But the article author keeps saying Canonical shouldn't have... Canonical shouldn't have... Canonical shouldn't have... the author sounds like he has an axe to grind and is using this screwup as an excuse. It reads like he's seen that somebody made a mistake but is deliberately pushing the idea that Canonical the organisation did this deliberately.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (3, Insightful)

PraiseBob (1923958) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318700)

Why on earth do the Banshee developers give away 100% of the money rather than using it towards paying themselves and investing that money into their own software in some way?

More importantly, why on earth would Canonical piss off large swaths of the Linux community over something that has so far only generated a couple thousand dollars. Maybe in a few years of building, it might add up to the salary they pay one developer.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319096)

How? Because it's not about the money, it's a matter of principle. Canonical is essentially urinating on their upstream to make a few petty bucks more, and then they are arrogant enough trying to make it sound like they are generous when they offer a upstream to keep a few crumbs. It's just shitty ethics, totally amoral, it's like something you'd expect from Microsoft. That's how.

Re:Ubuntu One is Hosted by Amazon (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319204)

Dammit, where are my mod points when I need them.

OSS programmers who finally find a way to get some meager return on their investment ought to at least use it to get some smoking good
hardware in return. Even if it doesn't pay all the bills, donating ALL it to someone else's project seems pointless.

Giving it all away to GNOME never made any sense in the first place. And the few shekels won't even show up
on Gannonical's bottom line.

But more to the point, this type of funding arrangement, where a couple cents here are earned, essentially as a sales
commission, or from embedded ads, are becoming the norm in many Android Apps.

Do we want it in Linux as well? Will Libre Office start carrying banner ads from Google? Should more apps
have a Donate button?

What the hell? (4, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318112)

I downloaded Ubuntu a while back because it was simple to install, it was straightforward to use, and it meant I didn't have to spend my time doing sysadmin-y things.

But what is all this bullshit about integrated mp3 stores? I want a fucking operating system with some basic general-purpose tools. If I want to buy mp3's I'll go do that; I don't want my operating system worrying about how I should. (Of course, I expect my distribution to include a media /player/ -- that's something else entirely.)

Re:What the hell? (2)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318234)

Oops, should have picked Debian.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318286)

Because the media players Ubuntu includes have an integrated MP3 store, probably because the most popular media player in the US (read: Apple's) also has one.

Besides, if you wanted nothing but an OS with some basic general-purpose tools you'd be using Debian, not Ubuntu which has always prided itself in being the "everything and the kitchen sink" of Linux distros.

Re:What the hell? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318386)

What a coincidence! Squeeze just recently released, and is a lot more "modern" than the previous release.

Sounds like a good time to install Debian.

Re:What the hell? (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318464)

the most popular media player in the US (read: Apple's

That's a funny way to spell Windows Media Player. I mean, even after you discount the not insignificant amount of people who install a different player on their Windows boxes, Microsoft still wins through sheer market share. Keep trying, Apple. But $110/bbl oil is not conducive to lavish consumer spending.

Re:What the hell? (1)

memojuez (910304) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319006)

You are spot on with your analogy. Ubuntu calls itself "Linux for Human Beings" and is trying to be the cuddle and coddle flavor of the Linux World. It is trying to make itself more attractive to that need their OS to think for them. In a manner of speaking.

and how do you expect them to support themselves? (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318324)

ya know ubuntu gives away it's OS. where is the income?

have you donated to them lately? you just downloaded it and expect them to keep making it for free? for you?

Re:and how do you expect them to support themselve (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318872)

Many of them seem to be doing okay with selling support. It's not like there is a shortage of linux distros.

So much for Ubuntu meaning humanity towards others (2)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319166)

and how do you expect them to support themselves?

It was supposed to be by selling technical support and services tied to Ubuntu [wikipedia.org] .

Obviously, that hasn't worked out too well. Neither has Canonical's efforts to get Ubuntu installed by OEM's [channelregister.co.uk]

The OEM Services group is the largest part of Canonical, according to (Canonical CEO Jane) Silber , and it works with OEMs and other hardware suppliers to get the Ubuntu variant of Debian Linux installed on machines of all shapes and sizes (netbooks, desktops, servers).

How many half-decent-sized OEMs are offering Ubuntu in a major way? None.

BTW, it was also Silber who is responsible for this latest decision:

The final group - and the newest unit and one that Silber established - is the Online Services group, which distributes some free as well as fee-based consumer-facing services. These include the Ubuntu One storage utility, which debuted [3] last fall with Ubuntu 9.10 and which will be soon expanded with Ubuntu 10.04 to include the Ubuntu One Music Store, the Canonical equivalent to iTunes done in partnership with London-based online music distributor 7digital.

Ubuntu's OEM game plan got blindsided by Android / Honeycomb, which makes their Unity offering look medieval. The shrinking netbook market also didn't help. Taking 75% of the revenue, when Novell contributed most of the work, and didn't take a penny ...

This mess has bad optics - it makes it look like Canonical is now scrounging for loose change in the couch.

Re:What the hell? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318532)

Use Mint. It's like Ubuntu, only with less commercialization and more useful stuff.

Re:What the hell? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319270)

Use Mint. It's like Ubuntu, only with less commercialization and more useful stuff.

For a lot of people, those last two statements are mutually exclusive as there isn't a viable non-commercial alternative to far too many things for that statement to hold true outside a very specific niche.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319286)

It's like Ubuntu because it's based on Ubuntu, but Mint changes stuff and takes donations. It's kind of like Ubuntu's relationship with Banshee.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319008)

Stop whining. Ubuntu is the closest thing we've seen to a linux system you can actually give to the average punter. They have to make money somehow or else it's over for them. Perhaps you'd like that though.

Re:What the hell? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319052)

It's providing equivalent functionality to iTunes on Mac/Windows.

Many people will find the integration with Amazon MP3 helpful.

If you don't want it, don't use it.

Linux vendor discovers revenue stream (3, Funny)

slick_rick (193080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318162)

Dirty hippies all over the world vow to not bath again until travesty corrected. How is this newsworthy? Business stay in business by making money, Canonical must start sometime.

Re:Linux vendor discovers revenue stream (2)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318216)

Something about biting the hand that feeds...

biting the hand that sits in its parents basement (-1, Troll)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318342)

whining about how everything should be free in life.

Re:Linux vendor discovers revenue stream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318348)

You have to first get fed.. seems that alone is a crime in the FOSS world..

Re:Linux vendor discovers revenue stream (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318410)

Really, what was the last time you donated to Canonical?

Flamebait (3, Insightful)

fandingo (1541045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318196)

This is a complete mischaracterization of what has happened. There have been several bloggers that have been outraged on the behalf the Banshee/Gnome developers, but the Banshee devs have not been upset with this decision.

In fact, the situation is far better than the summary says. First, Banshee will ship with the store enabled on Ubuntu with a 75/25 affliate split between Canonical and Gnome, respectively. Neither side has a problem with this. Second, the official Canonical music store will do a similar split (75/25), even though Gnome doesn't have anything to do with its development.

Sure, the deal sounds like shit for Gnome, especially the Banshee part, but the freaking people that develop the application weren't upset by it. Furthermore, Canonical is splitting their store.

The developers that have the right to complain about this decision aren't, so it doesn't seem like anyone else should either.

Canonical isn't perfect, but why such the hate lately? If you aren't a developer or directly related to the Gnome Foundation, STFU. Stop being outraged on other people's behalf.

Re:Flamebait (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318314)

word

Re:Flamebait (1)

lgordon (103004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318440)

What? KDE doesn't get a cut? The HURD doesn't get a cut?

Re:Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319258)

No one gives a shit about Hurd, though.

psychology of hating anything to do with money (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318500)

a couple possibilities.

1. they hate their job, the compromises they must make to survive it, therefore anything involving profit = evil, because their own workplace requires them to be such heartless turds.

2. they live in their parents basement and dont understand the emotional weight of a lack of an income stream

3. they believe any sort of corporation involvement will pollute the thoughtspace of linux (nevermind the fact that linux exists because of massive corporate donations)

4. speculation... maybe they are scammers themselves, who see in others the evil they know is within them?

Re:Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318510)

"Stop being outraged on other people's behalf."

I love this. Thanks!

Re:Flamebait (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319196)

First they came for the...

yada yada yada.

Vicarious rage has its place.

Re:Flamebait (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318718)

thank you. the rambling slashdot "summary" left me completely confused as to why i should give a shit even if someone was "harmed". your summary makes it clear that this is pretty much a win/win as far as the parties involved are concerned (and who else should be?).

Re:Flamebait (0)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319190)

Yep, you said it! I was afraid a moment that I should change distribution, but it seems it's okay to keep Ubuntu after all. (for those slashdoters who are still trying to figure it out, the second sentence was a satyr of the linux distros fanboyisme wich dictact to change distros every time something money related happen... )

Re:Flamebait (1)

ruemere (1148095) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318956)

Thank you for clearing this up. Additionally, it looks like Banshee, by becoming default Ubuntu player, is getting more audience already. That's a win for Banshee developers, too.

Regards,
Ruemere

Re:Flamebait (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319174)

it's a win for everyone (except rhythmbox i guess). rhythmbox sucks immensely. i can't believe i used it for months before finally finding banshee in the repos. ugh.

Re:Flamebait (3, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319212)

Two facts:
  1. The Banshee developers were not taking a penny. All revenue was being donated to GNOME. So this is not a "win" for the devs in any shape or form, but it IS a loss for GNOME.
  2. Novell sponsored a lot of the development. Looks like they practice the concept of "Ubuntu" (humanity towards others) better than Canonical does.

Re:Flamebait (1)

paulpach (798828) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319124)

Sure, the deal sounds like shit for Gnome...

I agree with the rest of your post, except for this bit.
How is this shit for Gnome, it is not like the Gnome project is entitled to this money in some way. They are receiving 25%, when they could very well be receiving 0. Canonical is actually being generous here by donating those 25%.
As you point out the banshee developers don't have any problem with this. But even if they did, they already gave written permission to do this (the license).
Canonical has the right to keep 100% of this money if they so desire. Rather than say that they got shitty 25%, be thankful they receive anything at all.

Re:Flamebait (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319162)

Canonical isn't perfect, but why such the hate lately?

Maybe some distant relation to 'apps' stopping to work with an upgrade or the whole boot if you are on a WUBI installed system?

CC.

Re:Flamebait, not (3, Informative)

Klivian (850755) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319228)

Uhm, no. That is not correct RTFA. As it is, the Banshee developers elected to disable the store by default, preferring it to Canonicals split deal. The Banshee developers decided that requiring the users to manually activate the store, but giving GNOME a 100% cut was preferable. Canonical asked the developers to choose from 2 options, but when their choice was not what Canonical wanted they simply did the opposite anyway.

Re:Flamebait (2)

xonker (29382) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319312)

Did you RTFA? The maintainers they asked were *not* happy with the decision and the maintainers have *gone on record* as saying it's "unreasonable" - I know that one of the OMGUbuntu folks has been going around saying he's a Banshee contributor (he is, but not one of the maintainers) and trying to characterize it as everything is OK - but that is NOT the case.

Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318224)

UBUNTU ROCKS! FTW!

Re:Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318742)

ubuntu SUCKS like shite

Sort it out. (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318228)

What a mess. Ubuntu / Canonical rubbing people up the wrong way again.

Thank goodness for Amarok.... that is, when Amarok developers eventually get their fingers out of their behind and add back all the features they stripped from KDE3 Amarok 1 for the so called "improved" KDE4 Amarok 2 version.

Re:Sort it out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35318374)

What does Amarok have to do with any of this? Canonical isn't screwing over the developers of Amarok, but there is nothing to stop them from doing that if Amarok implements a competing music store. Banshee isn't the problem here, understand?

Making a profit (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318256)

Nothing wrong with making a buck, its how you do it that matters.

This does smell a bit foul.

Irony (4, Insightful)

halfaperson (1885704) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318332)

I'm no Ubuntu fan really, but I find it quite funny how the GNOME devs are famous for not giving a fuck about their users opinions, and still they're somehow outraged when someone doesn't give a fuck about theirs.

Re:Irony (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318832)

I wish I had mod points.

I guess it's not really competition (1)

lgordon (103004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318424)

If Banshee disables Amazon, then theoretically that would increase the sales to Canonical's MP3 store. So by disallowing Banshee from doing this, basically Canonical is saying that their 75% cut of the affiliate money from people willing to buy MP3s from Amazon is more profitable than the direct sales they would get from people willing to buy from their no-name MP3 store. In the spirit of the original article, I tried to be as confusing with this post as possible.

What would be a realistic business model, then? (2)

tacarat (696339) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318470)

The problem Linux has had is the ability to help a company keep it's lights on. When it's sold by companies like IBM or Redhat, people are paying for the name more than the product. The community, which is a strength of Linux, is rather harsh when you try stuff, screaming about the "free as in beer/speech" bit.

And that's fine. The strength of one's opinion is why we love Linux. Still, most ignore the fact that the free "as in beer" part still has to be paid by somebody. So the community ends up ditching the distro and going elsewhere. That's fine too. One has to wonder, though, how long companies or individuals will be willing to put up cash to finance a distro's infrastructure when the community has issues with recouping costs. If you've sent money (or time) their way in some way, shape or form, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about average users who give nothing back to the system other than notching the download meter count up by one. This mass hurd, while useful for gaining momentum, is also a fickle problem that needs to be addressed in some way.

"Free: The Future of a Radical Price", by Chris Anderson, [amazon.com] is an interesting read on how "free" worked and works. Oh, and look, no affiliate link. Free link! :P And before anybody asks, I've paid for several distros directly from the teams as a way to show my support. The Lycoris team, for example, was doing a great job. Not everybody is lucky enough to have their efforts rewarded by a buyout, though.

I still like ubuntu (4, Informative)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318486)

I put ubuntu on one of my laptops because it Just Worked(tm). That was version 9.04. Everything on the machine worked, and it even handled setting up the broadcom wifi firmware for me so I didn't have to futz with fwcutter, et al.

I've been upgrading steadily ever since. At this point in time, I've been let down more often by the hardware itself (two HD failures and now the CPU is dying...) than by Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is stable, reliable, and the single most user friendly linux distro I have ever used, and it keeps getting better. It lets me do what I need to do without getting in my way so I have more time left over for other inconsequential things like... oh... my life.

I just don't get all this indignation regarding a company that is trying to put out a viable consumer friendly OS for free, while trying to make enough money (in an honest, not privacy invading way) so that it can continue to do so.

Re:I still like ubuntu (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319116)

I just don't get all this indignation regarding a company that is trying to put out a viable consumer friendly OS for free, while trying to make enough money (in an honest, not privacy invading way) so that it can continue to do so.

Its like being a Canadian entertainer, everyone loves you as long as you're the underdog but as soon as you get a movie or record deal in the US and start making money you have sold out and are now part of the machine.

Re:I still like ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319184)

"Ubuntu is stable, reliable, and the only linux distro I have ever used,"

FTFY

you'll find most distros these days are just as good at sitting on your laptop as ubuntu. it may shock you to learn that canonical don't write the drivers for any of the hardware. get yourself a usb stick and a few other linuxes and you'll probably find that most of them go on just as easily and may very well be less piss-fucking-ugly than ubuntu tends to be. (also they may spit out fewer upgrades that brick your entire system. "pulse audio" mean anything to you? cos it fucking should. ubuntu aren't the only guilty parties here since i seem to recall fedora fucked everyone over as well along with god knows who else, but pushing out updates that fuck over your computer is an ubuntu speciality. if you love debian, either use debian or use mint. i'd recommend swaping to arch or gentoo or slackware or something that doesn't fill so much of your hard drive with pointless shit.)

Re:I still like ubuntu (2)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319278)

Sounds like it is the *only* distribution you have used in the last 10 years. Try something else and be amazed. All those silly bugs that stop you from just *getting something done* in Ubuntu disappear.

Oh, and I would have thought what all the indignation is about is pretty obvious? They are putting out an OS for consumers to use for free, but in every single release they strip out the functionality that consumers love and replace it with something most of them hate. They are effectively compounding problems every release. Canonical loves to throw salt on the wounds.

Ubuntu users are far better off just moving to Debian (or some Debian based distribution such as Debian Mint) because all the things that they used to like about Ubuntu are there!

The old joke "Ubuntu" is Swahili for "Can't install Debian" used to be funny and understandable, but if you cannot install Debian or an alternative these days you need to box up your computer and send it back to the manufacturer. Ubuntu is *harder* to use than other distributions in my experience.

Fedora (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318678)

I used to hate it. I was a very, very, very hardcore debian guy. Ive built some freaky stuff with debian, until I went into bussiness and had to use redhat. Anyhow, i never liked what ubuntu did to debian and now im on fedora 14 and I have no plans whatsoever to move to anything else.

I love this thing. Its not at all what fedora used to be, which I hated.

Re:Fedora (1)

Darfeld (1147131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319254)

If anything, you're story is a wonderful example of the freedom of choice given by the linux distros. So thanks.

Also I think it's unrelated to the subject of TFS.

Fishy... (1)

BillX (307153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318684)

Something sure does seem fishy about this whole arrangement, so I can understand why bloggers have been going apeshit (though the developers seem OK with it [slashdot.org] ). Historically, this was a tactic of commercial malware, and overwriting third-party affiliate IDs with your own - in the browser or any other HTTP stream - was a good way to get your product removed by antispyware applications [spywareguide.com] . (Now, get off my lawn!)

mplayer (3, Funny)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318720)

Real geeks know that mplayer is still the One True Media Player for *nix. And we use it from the CLI and have our fave streams and playlists scripted.

Re:mplayer (1)

troubbble (1314525) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318972)

I realize this goes against the point of CLI, but I use mplayer because it's just a whole lot easier than messing with complicated GUI's.

Re:mplayer (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319146)

Same here. In fact, the reason I'm a CLI geek is that I find GUIs and menus confusing and hard to memorize, but commands, arguments, man pages, etc are pretty easy. Maybe most of us who prefer the CLI are just wired a bit differently than most people...

hmm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318744)

The last time I made a serious attempt to use Linux as a main desktop machine I could not find a good mp3 player. Banshee was the best, but too buggy and the interface didn't feel right, sort of a knockoff of itunes which already has a pretty lousy interface. Nothing came close to WinAmp, which despite it's horrible crime of being Windows-only (though I guess it's moving to android too) is the best mp3 player I've ever used.

Welcome to Open Source (1)

DMiax (915735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318796)

Open Source cannot force you to keep the affiliate code in the source (that is a string in the source that tells Amazon who referred the customer to them, so that it gets the 10% share). And it can be argued that the referral is from Ubuntu to Amazon instead of Banshee to Amazon. Who knows how many of those customers chose Ubuntu because of Banshee instead of the other way?

Desktop environments (0)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318802)

It occurred to me quite a few years ago that modern desktop environments and desktop toolkits (eg. GNOME, KDE, E17, Qt) are the equivalent of a DoS or brute force attack on ldd or any dynamic linker.

How many different index/db systems are there on a modern day OS? Wasn't an optimal one found about the time that computers evolved from a static memory registers to paged access? There is probably index circuitry in the memory chips themselves by now.

sigh (1)

glebovitz (202712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35318922)

Just another reason to stick with Fedora.

When Free software advocates don't believe in Free (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319016)

I find this incredibly ironic. It is no mistake that Free and Open software licences grant the moral right for recipients to modify their code as they see fit. It the the licences very reason for existing.

If the Banshee developers didn't want other people profiting off the code they should have released it (or the plugin if possible) under a non-commercial licence.

To grant someone a Free licence and then complain bitterly when someone has the temerity to use the rights intentionally granted therein seems like bad form to me.

What's really interesting... (2)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35319102)

Before everybody starts bashing Ubuntu (this is slashdot afterall), the article mentions that the analysts feel this is a better deal for gnome than what they had. Gnome now gets 25% of sales from Ubuntu One and Amazon. Not just for Banshee, but also Rhythmbox. From Amazon, Canonical is the affiliate and as such aren't required to give anything to Gnome for the use of Banshee or Rhythmbox.

Ubuntu may make mistakes in it's relationship with its partners, but in this case, it appears that they are being quite generous.

I don't care.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319144)

I don't use gnome, I use Ubuntu. Sure, Ubuntu happens to use gnome today-- but as Unity and Shell diverge, and Ubuntu adopts Qt, that's going to matter less and less. The fact of the matter is that if gnome was what I wanted to use and support, I'd use foresight-- and I don't. I like supporting Canonical-- I think they're taking the desktop in a better direction than the gnome foundation. *shrug* It may be more politically advantageous for them to stick to the Software Center for revenue though. Mark knows what he's doing, I'm sure they'll figure all that out. I'm not going to worry about it.

All the Ubuntu haters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35319232)

Ubuntu was really one of the first linux distro's targeting desktop environments that actually got it right. If it weren't for Ubuntu, we'd still be toying around with Fedora installations that don't include the wireless drivers or video adapters that are not recognized properly, or audio that doesn't work after the initial install. Wubi installer is awesome. People need to stop hating on companies just because they are trying to make a few bucks on the side (Apple already has a music store and rapes people into using it -- they make it next to impossible to download your own music and play it for free).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?