×

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!

Ubuntu Asks Users To Pay What They Want

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the pay-what-you-want-to-continue-breathing dept.

Open Source 280

New submitter major_lima sends this excerpt from Ars: "When a typical user downloads Ubuntu for free and installs it on a computer with a Windows license that the user did pay for, Canonical gets nothing in the form of payment. There's nothing wrong with that — this is the open source world, after all, and many people contribute to Ubuntu with code rather than money. But starting this week, Canonical is presenting desktop OS downloaders with an optional donation form. ... 'Pay what you think it's worth,' and 'Show Ubuntu some love' are among the messages users will see, and downloaders can direct their donations to specific parts of Ubuntu development. ... Once you donate, the Ubuntu desktop starts downloading. Or, you can just skip the donation and download the OS for free, just as you always could. For some reason, the donation page is not presented to Ubuntu Server users."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

280 comments

Amazon ads (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612053)

This doesn't get you out of the Amazon partnership, does it?

Re:Amazon ads (4, Informative)

Knuckles (8964) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612103)

No need to, you can turn it off anyway, in Privacy settings.

Re:Amazon ads (5, Insightful)

pointyhat (2649443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612127)

I think you got it wrong: "you should be able to turn it on in the privacy settings". Oh no wait, that's not how it works these days - privacy is opt in!

Re:Amazon ads (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612151)

Which is basically the same thing, unless "opting in" is made difficult, or hidden in some way, otherwise the discussion about opt in or opt out is pointless.

Re:Amazon ads (5, Insightful)

pointyhat (2649443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612247)

The argument is definitely not moot. Opt-in vs Opt-out are completely different as there are opportunities for the opt in situation to occur before you get a chance to opt-out. Asking the user up front is the best approach (even Microsoft do this with Windows 8).

Re:Amazon ads (1)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612927)

It also depends on where the option is coming from. Just by asking somebody if wants to opt in, you are already advertising, so you might as well cut to the chase, and then let him opt out.

Re:Amazon ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613019)

So for Ubuntu opt-in and opt-out is the same. Things are slowly but surely falling into place...

Re:Amazon ads (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612181)

Personal information is the currency used to buy a lot of products these days. I've never paid Google a dime, but I've gotten many hundreds, if not thousands of dollars worth of value out of their products and services; in exchange I give them an amount of personal data that they use to present me with ads.

Pay for Ubuntu? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612137)

I would have paid... right up until Unity, when they turned the desktop to utter shite, and I stopped using Ubuntu.

If they want me to use that fucking abortion, they'll have to pay me.

Re:Pay for Ubuntu? (0)

collet (2632725) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613285)

Haha, Unity is the reason I moved to Ubuntu in the first place! I'll take any modern interface over silly ol' Gnome 2.

Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (3, Insightful)

macromorgan (2020426) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612063)

Just a thought... I still wish Cannonical would have put its resources towards helping make Gnome Shell better as opposed to taking its ball and going home.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612255)

Yeah because the GNOME people are well-known for collaborating with others and being open to criticism. Oh wait... Why should anyone want to work with a project whose team is filled with a bunch of pigheaded people to whom NIH syndrome is a way of life?

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612849)

That argument would have made sense if Ubuntu had switched to another standard system, like KDE, Xfce, or whatever. But they went on making their own. If there's one company who cannot complain to others about NIH syndrome, it's Canonical.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612261)

I was a unity hater as well. But 12.10's Unity interface is pretty fantastic (I've been running the beta for a little over a week).

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612845)

Could you post about your experience with 12.10 in more detail? What changed that made you go from hating to liking?

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (4, Interesting)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613155)

I'd say the most immediate change was the performance. Unity just performed horrifically for me before and I use fairly high end hardware (Intel i7 series processors, Nvidia GPUs, etc). That was a huge turn off.

I also found that the older Unity had all kinds of odd usability oddities and problems (sometimes various window management features didn't work, parts of unity would crash and I'd have to logout or reboot, etc).

So it was essentially a shuddering clusterfuck that actually impeded my work.

So far the new version is fast, just works and most importantly stays out of my way. Most of the time I don't see much OS UI, just my apps (which is how things should be IMO).

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (4, Informative)

gfxguy (98788) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613407)

Thanks. It still doesn't seem usable (from my perspective). It wasn't bugs, it was design... I like seeing several apps at once, and I have a large screen to accomodate it... Unitiy just doesn't seem designed for large screens.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612509)

What makes you think they didn't try to work with the Gnome folks?

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612511)

That's exactly how Unity was born. Canonical knew GNOME was planning big things for 3.0, so they wanted to contribute with ideas/code. GNOME wouldn't let them (and/or some ideas were diametrically opposed), so Canonical made Unity.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (4, Interesting)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612773)

This is what you get when you have a system where there's no configurability, and everything has to be hard-coded one way only: if you want to do anything slightly different, you have to fork the whole project.

If they had just gone with KDE instead, they could have made their own "plasma" variant or had a different set of configuration options (and even added new features selectable in the configuration options), and the KDE team would have been happy to accept these changes for inclusion.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (3, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612697)

I'd rather they took BOTH out back and shot them.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612801)

I think that's a great idea. Did they include an option to fund that? Because I'd totally be in on funding it.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612935)

If someone were to start a "Ubuntu -Unity +Gnome 2" kickstarter, it would probably raise $1M overnight.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613015)

Ah... the Unity side-thread. Okay, let's go with it.

Funny thing, just a little while ago I listened to Shuttleworth's 2006 Google Talks lecture. It's mostly nostalgic easy-listening. But what caught my attention was when he said what he was /really/ interested in is doing research & development on the desktop interface. Just that this would have to wait till the Ubuntu project was well-sorted.

Yeah. Guess we're there now. And I guess it's really not going to go away.

But that's okay, because Xubuntu is fabulous.

Re:Can I Fund Unity a Negative Amount? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613081)

Given what they did with unity, it's probably better that they left Gnome-shell alone. I ditched Unity for Gnome-shell first chance I got. It completely changed my work flow, and it's all for the better.

I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (5, Interesting)

pointyhat (2649443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612075)

I wonder how much of this cash will go to the real heroes i.e. upstream people like Debian? Canonical is just a reseller/ISV as they call them in the market.

Re:I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (3, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612365)

I assume most of it goes to someone else, seeing how the bottom option is basically a "give it to Canonical" option. But with their defaults, they appear to want you to give a little to everyone.

Re:I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612393)

If you want, you can always donate $$$ directly to Debian and some associated free software like PostgreSQL or FFmpeg. These donations are not used to pay for developer time. They are generally used to reimburse some of the travel costs associated with things like Debconf for the poorer developers, hardware costs for developer machines (something more recent) etc.

http://www.spi-inc.org/donations/ [spi-inc.org]

Debian is just one of the members of SPI. There are other software that benefits too,

http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/ [spi-inc.org]

And if you are suspicious that SPI is not associated with Debian, just look at Debian's donations page and be happy.

http://www.debian.org/donations [debian.org]

Cheers!
Anonymous Debian Dev.

PS. $$$ is not a big problem for Debian (as everything is either sponsored or volunteered), but it is always welcome.

Re:I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613021)

I thought they were pretty big on desktop projects. Upstart was pretty popular for a spell with a few distros (though not as much anymore), also the xwindows replacement I believe they are funding.

additionally unity (love it or hate it) is an ubuntu project, and they contribute to sub sonic.

linux is more than a kernel, and I would suspect the kernel met their needs 5 years ago, they are contributing upstream and making their own projects in the user space.

this myth that ubuntu does nothing is annoying and wrong, just as would be true if one said that about fedora (not red hat), slackware, debian, etc.

Re:I wonder how much of this will go upstream? (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613107)

I wonder how much of this cash will go to the real heroes i.e. upstream people like Debian? Canonical is just a reseller/ISV as they call them in the market.

But a "reseller" who is serious about OEM partnerships and mass market adoption --- with a distribution that accounts for most of what little market share Linux can plausibly claim as a desktop client OS.

If an OS is to be more than a purely intellectual exercise, then distribution --- building a critical mass of users --- is essential.

I'm OK with this (4, Insightful)

helixcode123 (514493) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612087)

I use it daily for my work and the kid's machine runs it. I'll drop them some $$$ next time.

Re:I'm OK with this (1)

skrite (2715089) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612807)

i'm ok with it too. My wife, two teen boys and myself use ubuntu (actually lubuntu) exclusively in our house, and i use ubuntu-server on 4 machines at work. I will drop them some love, so to speak.

Re:I'm OK with this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613039)

I use it on my old laptop. I too would drop some $$$.

I just hope they don't get discouraged (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612125)

I just hope they don't get discouraged at the number of downloads and installations that don't receive donations. I suspect that a lot of people are like me--they don't mind throwing a few bucks their way (or even a few dozen), but we tend to install, reinstall, set up virtual machines, install yet again, and so on across dozens of machines. I might give a one-off donation, but I'm not going to donate every time I install a copy of Ubuntu.

That's one of the things that's so damn frustrating about Windows and why Ubuntu (or really, any Linux distribution) is so useful. Windows is an awesome OS and I don't mind paying the license fee to run it, but I don't have a few thousand dollars to install it on each of my hobbyist VMs I use for development and testing stuff. Back in the days when I could just use my product code to install it willy-nilly on a few dozen machines, each of which I probably run for a few days and then reinstall for some new reason, it's not that big a deal. But now that everything phones home and nags the hell out of you and denies you service to what you bought, it's not such an appealing option. Hopefully Microsoft will someday realize that they're actively driving people like me away from Windows, but until then, I'll happily cast my lot with Ubuntu instead.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612309)

Get an MSDN OS subscription.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612501)

For $700, which only lasts 12 months, and then you have to throw down another $500 every year to keep it up? That's still an absolute shit solution compared to what we could do with Windows XP (and earlier), and can do even easier with the likes of Linux distros such as Ubuntu.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612667)

Especially for hobbyist developers who won't even make enough to make that first $700 or the cost of 2+ additional licenses worth the money, and yet having those extra VMs might actually be very much so worth it for that hobbyist.

Sure, not such an issue if you're a business with the money to pay for it, or just have enough coming in to blow on it, but for a hobbyist that doesn't find it worth it to put that money in, it's rape compared to just hoping XP and Linux distros will cover your ass well enough (nevermind if you lose your couple legitimate VMs due to some issue such as hard drive failure and all of the sudden, you can't use your license key that you did legitimately spend money on already...)

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613239)

Really? I only pay 250 a year. Some serious misinformation here. I find tons of these kinds of misrepresentations of the truth when the question of MS vs Linux comes up around here and the vast majority of them are from the Linux fanboi camp.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612665)

you beat me to it...

MSDN is awesome for devs. Just spun up 4 vm's with server 2008 today. 700 bucks for all the OS's 1000 bucks comes with visual studio.

MSDN is designed for 'dev and test'. Think it is something like 5 or 10 copies of each OS with keys. You can call them up and get more.

However, for someone who is just messing around at home, even 700 bucks is a steep price to pay.

If I could afford it I would get the vs ultimate msdn. That code rewind thing is pretty freeking cool. However it is not 4000 dollars cool... But I dont have the cash so I stick with the 'free' open source stuff.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (1)

StormReaver (59959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613057)

MSDN is awesome for devs

Paying $700 for an operating system that does essentially nothing out of the box is the height of ridiculousness. It's monopoly power at its worst.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613227)

It do a lot. It's just that there's other alternatives which do a similar thing for free.

What other software do you run which do more than Windows do? Just for comparision ..

Also macs cost more than the hardware cost to.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613249)

Where the hell do you get VS Ultimate for $4000? The VS Premium, sure, but not Ultimate. Ultimate is in the $10k range.

Pro: $500 (used to be more like $700), or $1000 with MSDN.
Premium: $5000 ($4000 if you shop around), MSDN comes with it no matter what
Ultimate: $12k ($10k if you shop around), MSDN comes with it no matter what, and it's the "kitchen sink" MSDN with old versions and whatnot.
(All prices are per-seat. Yes, that's $12k per seat.)

VS is a really nice IDE. (But don't bother trying to convince the Linux guys of that.) I'm just not sure it's worth what they're charging for it. Most people could use the Express version, except there's no VS Express. It's VC# Express, VB Express, ASP.Net Express, and so on. When you break it into eleventy billion pieces, it ceases to be useful. So to get a useful version, the minimum price is $500, and that's just not going to be worth it to a hobbyist. Especially not with platform lock-in.

Full disclosure: I work with VS 2010 Premium every day of my working life. I like it, but only if my company pays for it. SQL Server is also good, but the same caveat applies.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (1)

mishu2065 (1616553) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612513)

...but we tend to install, reinstall, set up virtual machines, install yet again, and so on across dozens of machines.

And download the ISO every time?

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (0)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613269)

I fetched some iso to /dev/null just because some US college kid had tried and failed like three times before and got shitty speeds (from his school?) and was just about to finish.

He had 15 seconds less so I decided it would be cool to finish before him. Sadly I had to cancel and change the url because he was downloading the CD image rather then the DVD image so I finished later =P

It felt rather wasteful when I tried whatever a download for me from the US mirror he used would actually fail to find out whatever the trouble was at his end or not (considering that passed the Atlantic to here in Sweden just to also be dumped to /dev/null for just checking whatever it would finish or not. Sunet among others host the images (it was a openSUSE image.)

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613325)

s/less/left/

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612621)

That's one of the things that's so damn frustrating about Windows and why Ubuntu (or really, any Linux distribution) is so useful. Windows is an awesome OS and I don't mind paying the license fee to run it, but I don't have a few thousand dollars to install it on each of my hobbyist VMs I use for development and testing stuff.

You don't pay few thousand. You pay few hundred. MSDN OS subscription gets you unlimited installs for development and testing purposes. They just tell you not to activate the OS if you reinstall the images all the time.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/buy.aspx [microsoft.com]

$700 gives you ALL supported versions of windows to install and developer and test with in your VMs or real machines all you like. And no, you DO NOT have to pay this amount each year - the software you gain during subscription is forever valid. You don't get access to new software though until you pony up for renewal or new subscription.

And dev tools are mostly FREE (as in beer) from MS. Windows SDK 7.1 has VS C++ 2010 compilers. Free download.

PS. I only run Windows under KVM in Debian when necessary to compile software for Windows users. I do pay for that MSDN subscription.

Re:I just hope they don't get discouraged (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612893)

Before you embark on anything, consider this:

It sounds like you need the Microsoft Partner Action Pack. Just sign up as a basic partner (no entry requirements) then buy the Action Pack here: https://mspartner.microsoft.com/en/uk/Pages/Membership/action-pack-subscriptions.aspx [microsoft.com] - you know you want to. It makes sense. You even get lots of free training and discounts to sweeten the deal and get embedded further into the ecosystem.

The moment you start promoting this stuff, people want you to use your new skills to help them. A few years down the line, you've nailed it job-wise thanks to your new skill set and have a deployed SQL 2008 instance for your favourite client which has cost them £32000GBP in licenses per machine (not terrible). They are super-happy as it's saved them a fuck load on Oracle and it requires only one DBA. Then the CIO comes to you and asks about SQL 2012 upgrades so they can use the new failover/replication stuff. You do the research, then realise they fuck you over by changing it from physical CPUs licenses to cores, resulting in your cash efficient 12-core Xeons turning into another order of magnitude of cost: £386,000 per server! You phone your partner rep up they say "use Azure" which is fuck all use if your data volume is in the TiB space, so it's bend over and take it or spend a year rewriting it all (you know because you wrote most of the app in T-SQL because it was promoted as the "best way of doing things").

This is a cautionary tale as we are as above. Not only that the license audit legal hounds are upon us and are making sure they bleed us dry or at least drag us through the courts to make a few notes even though we're compliant. Guilty until proven innocent.

Seriously, just use Debian/Ubuntu (and PostgreSQL) and avoid this shit completely.

Posted anonymously as we'll probably get sued. Stallman was ALWAYS fucking right. Listen to the guy.

Unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612147)

I promise to donate when they remove Unity.

good apps, fewer assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612193)

Apps like: DigiKam, Konsole, Kdiff3, Krusader (Directory Opus would be even better), and Chrome.

Also stop assuming you know how I should be using my system better than I do.

This just in (3, Informative)

SuperMooCow (2739821) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612209)

Ubuntu users unite to have Unity removed from Ubuntu because of bad usability.

Re:This just in (2, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612307)

What's actually wrong with Unity? Is there something you can point to, instead of just "ZOMG it's new I don't like it?"

Re:This just in (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612619)

The question is entirely irrelevant.

I should be able to use what I was using before. The "new hotness" does not require ripping out what was there before. This is why Unity gets grief. It really has nothing to do with "being different".

Canonical pulled a Microsoft.

Re:This just in (3, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612769)

So, use it. Oh wait, you can't because Gnome 2 has been dropped. Maybe you could try maintaining that?

There are Gnome 2-like desktop environments available in Ubuntu if you want them - just like when Windows 95 came out, if the new "Start" menu thing was too confusing and new, you could fall back to PROGMAN.EXE and have it work just like Windows 3. Some people even did that, too.

Re:This just in (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612631)

Because Unity is the epitome of cargo cult programming. This is an old comment by Matthew Paul Thomas but it summarizes quite well the usability problems with Unity caused by the cargo cult:

In the April usability test, eight of ten people discovered
the hidden menus. But seven of them discovered the menus by
hovering over the maximized window controls, which in 11.04 were visible all the
time. In 11.10, even those window controls will be hidden by default. So I look forward to seeing whether in 11.10, the fraction of people who learn how to access menus is even smaller, or even slower, or both.

But I don’t think that’s even the primary issue. You write as if learnability (or more specifically, discoverability)
and aesthetics are the only two aspects of usability. They are
important, but so is efficiency.

In the same usability test, whenever one of those seven people needed to use the menus a second time, they didn’t aim directly for the relevant menu. They again moused over the window controls to reveal the menus, and then scooted along to the right. This was, of course, grossly inefficient — especially compared with the speed that a top-of-screen menu bar exists to provide in the first place. In 11.10 the window controls will be hidden too, but the basic efficiency problem will remain: at the moment you’re aiming for the target, you can’t see it.

Every so often, some Ubuntu contributor asks why most of the Unity designers use Mac OS X. The reason, of course, is that those designers are experienced with Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, and other applications that don’t work (or if they do work in Wine, work much less pleasantly) on Ubuntu. And it is precisely those kinds of applications, with their deep feature sets, that use menus most heavily. Anyone who points to Web browsers or mobile OSes as harbingers of a menu-less world is, I think, misguided about what kinds of things people will still use non-mobile OSes for in ten years. It is a small irony that hiding menus by default makes it even less likely that anything like those applications will ever work well on Ubuntu.

Re:This just in (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613127)

The adjacent close and start buttons are frustrating.

Additionally, close is in the sweet spot, with start being a target that can over-shoot to close.

the fact that this is a design decision (that has become worse with versions, early unity had start in the true corner) sums up the issue I have with unity (poorly, if not actively wrongly designed) .

I have other opinions, but that is the shining example of objectively wrong ui design, that is made worse as revisions are made.

Pay What you think it's worth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612249)

Ok, here goes:

For Ubuntu 10.10, I'd "donate" about half the cost of a windows license.

For Ubuntu 11.10-12.X, you would have to pay me to use it.

Still using 10.10, with a custom kernel, and ports of updated packages.

Thank you Canonical for ruining Ubuntu.

Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (-1, Flamebait)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612279)

For all the hours I wasted in dependency hell, for all their ads, changes, time wasting daemons, and the GUIs that coddled me when I was but a n00b, before moving to Archlinux and Debian, I'd say they owe me about $1500...

You couldn't pay me enough to use Ubuntu/Kubuntu or any derivatives thereof, whether done by Canonical or not nowadays.

Re:Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (2)

Scragglykat (1185337) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612735)

Dependency hell? You sure you aren't thinking of Redhat/Fedora? I've never had any dependency issues with Ubuntu that I didn't have with Debian, which is to say, I've never run into any... still... if you aren't into the GUI and you don't want to use their daemons or additional features, I can't see why you would pick them over Debian anyway. Oh, that's right. Paid developers which allows for packages to make it into the stable builds sooner so you don't wait 3 years for the version of Apache from 3 years ago to be added to your latest release. I forgot about that.

Re:Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (1)

ilikenwf (1139495) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612825)

At least for LAMP stacks and other packages, that doesn't matter if you use the dotdeb repos.

Re:Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (1)

kbahey (102895) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612875)

Mod the parent up.

Been using Kubuntu on the desktop, and in all servers I managed, be they in house or for clients, since 2006. Never had a dependency problem, nor a daemon problem.

Sent from a Kubuntu 12.04 laptop ...

Re:Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (0)

pointyhat (2649443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612959)

What about the fact mysql-server was just completely fucked in 10.04 LTS. We switched to Debian.

Re:Entry for "Canonical owes me $[xxxx]" ? (5, Funny)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612907)

You remind me of the Comic Book Guy:

Comic Book Guy: Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured I was on the Internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart: Hey, I know it wasn’t great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart: For what? They’re giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? If anything, you owe them.
Comic Book Guy: Worst episode ever.

Aha. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612289)

Amazon ads, Window decorations on the wrong side that the users voted agains (but "it's not a democracy, we don't vote on design decisions"), "Unity"... seems to me you want to annoy the users back to microsoft... I'd pay for a distribution that LISTENS, not for one like Shuttlebuntu, who seems more concerned to establish himself as "same asshole as in cuppertino, different continent"...

Server (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612303)

They offer lucrative support contracts to their server customers so show them this would be a little disingenuous

ubunutu is for noobs and lamers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612335)

seriously, who the fuck uses that crap?

Re:ubunutu is for noobs and lamers (1)

sgrover (1167171) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612727)

noobs and lamers, sure. But also businesses, non-profits, and other organizations looking for a low cost solution to their computing needs - including the maintenance side of the equation.

Go back a year or two, and anyone who wanted a low maintenance system was considering Ubuntu, if not outright installing/using it. Now-a-days though, that "low maintenance" target is slowly disappearing. KDE/Gnome do wonders for the low maintenance thing (maybe not Gnome so much these days), but the underlying system is starting to need more effort than I'd care to spend. My day job is to write code - not maintain systems. So the less time I can spend doing system maintenance, or learning yet another distro in the hopes of finding the low maintenance nirvana, the more time I have to actually be making money for the work I get paid for (i.e. writing code). In that context Ubuntu is still a valid option. But only considering that I immediately ditch unity and install Kubuntu desktop environment (mixed luck installing Kubuntu directly over the years) and have semi-scripted setting up my dev environment. But with the push for cash - amazon and now the "show us some love/cash" efforts, I'm fairly certain that I'm looking at Red Hat/Fedora for my next install. Or maybe Debian, though it seems to need more effort to set up right...)

Re:ubunutu is for noobs and lamers (2)

eric_herm (1231134) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612979)

If you want something supported for a long time, I would say Centos or Debian are the way to go. And if you wish to sustain developpers, you can either donate to Debian with SPI, or pay for a RHEL subscription, and that benefit to Centos, Scientific Linux, or even OEL, who are all clones of RHEL, and pay for jobs of many upstream developers ( http://www.redhat.com/promo/os-community/projects.html [redhat.com] ).

Re:ubunutu is for noobs and lamers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613111)

yeah. noobs and lamers who don't know how to write "ubuntu"

They should offer a network installation bootstrap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612341)

The iso should only have on it what is needed to get a network install going. In fact, all the live distros should cooperate and create a single bootstrap iso that presents you with a menu of what distro and what version you want to network install.

Re:They should offer a network installation bootst (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612661)

The iso should only have on it what is needed to get a network install going. In fact, all the live distros should cooperate and create a single bootstrap iso that presents you with a menu of what distro and what version you want to network install.

If you mean, "In addition to the standard all-in-one ISO," I wholeheartedly agree.

If you mean, "Instead of the standard all-in-one ISO," you're an idiot - not every computer in the universe has a network connection, and some of them, for damn good reason. [wikipedia.org]

More of this and less Amazon ads (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612449)

A company with employees has to make money at some point. I don't blame them for looking for ways to monetise Ubuntu. They should do that because it's better to have stronger alternatives to Windows and as much as some people hate it, you can't make the best product for no money at all.

Perhaps Ubuntu is doomed to fail for targeting the desktop more than the server. But someone has to do it. They have made some mistake recently but it's nice someone is trying to do something different rather than just making Linux into Windows.

I'm on Ubuntu now and there is a good chance I'll move to Mint or Debian next but they have given a lot of years of good use so I will probably throw some money their way.

will they accept negative numbers? (1)

Jedi1USA (145452) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612475)

As long as they keep the unity interface they'd have to pay me to use it...and I'm still not sure it would be worth it.

disenchanted (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612521)

I like Ubuntu but I've become disenchanted with Unity so I'm going to give Linux Mint with Ginger a shot when it comes out in November. I hear it uses the Ubuntu repositories anyway. I just need to compile a list of questions I need answered by seasoned users before I make the switch.

Mint Yes -- Ubuntu No (5, Insightful)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612541)

Although Mint is ubu-based, they seem to listen to their users, seemingly unlike post-LucidLynx Ubuntu. To me, Mint is what Ubuntu was before it went Authoritarian Bubble Rubbish -- a pretty fantastic, if not amazing distro. Back in Lucid, I'd not have thought twice about clicking the donation link. However, to pay what I think "it's worth" would probably be unreasonable, since a functional, stable distro is nearly invaluable to me. One could easily think that putting a billionaire behind Linux would be a wonderful thing, but I am not so sure. I also wonder if bubble-people are the sorts that would donate; they might find the process too complex and give up. Maybe Ubu should have an app glued by myriad dependencies that activates upon network-connection and solicits the user with a guided bubble-journey to their bank* account. Maybe they could deprecate Bash for a squeak interface, where users can squeak audible commands to execute various applications; "If you'd like to make a donation, please emit a higher, rather than lower-pitched squeak now.", etc.

Yes, I am slightly bitter; because I remember Ubuntu as something almost inconceivably excellent. The idea of having the freedom of Linux along with out-of-the-box functionality seems almost too good to be true. Thankfully there's Mint for that.

Yes, I was a big fan (2)

lew2048 (2571805) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613361)

I thought Ubuntu was wonderful under KDE and Gnome both. Would have been pleased to donate, never saw a web page that asked me to do so. Then they shoved Unity down my throat, far before it was ready, and I didn't upgrade for 2 releases. 10.10, I believe, finally broke via upgrades that didn't work (3rd team must have been assigned to that), and I finally had to use Unity on 12.04. I couldn't make the old gnome work for some reason. PITA. I wasted a lot of time and lost a lot of loyalty in that mess. Now they ask for donations. There is something very wrong in their thinking. So I will make a donation for past services, but I am looking for a new distribution.

Best Linux Donation? (1)

Talennor (612270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612595)

Let's say I want to donate to the best organization for Linux today, which if I don't see the desktop as the priority surely wouldn't be Canonical. Who would that be then?

Re:Best Linux Donation? (2)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612813)

I'd probably say RedHat. Unfortunately their desktop isn't quite as nice as Ubuntu's. They do things like run SELinux by default, exclude certain drivers/codecs, and have really ugly fonts!

But they do a solid server distribution, and (unlike Canonical) have a good reputation of pushing their changes back upstream. They employ a lot of developers to work on open source projects such as the kernel, and generally speaking they are a good open source community member.

Re:Best Linux Donation? (1)

eric_herm (1231134) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612999)

But RH do not get donation ( likely for taxe purpose, and because that's too tedious to manage right if you are a business ). You can try to give the to various SPI managed entity, to gnome, to kde. Or you can try the Linux fundation, the FSF, or a local LUG. I think Opensuse is now a fundation, that could be a option, Suse also has a good record of upstream contribution, even if smaller than RH.

Re:Best Linux Donation? (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612879)

While that title is inviting flames, I'd suggust Fedora for its numerous contributions to upstream projects. while not soely responsible, It is very responsible for the joy that is Linux today. I'd also suggust Suse, but the whole MS cross license deal when it was owned by novell turned me off.

Re:Best Linux Donation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41613163)

Debian, Slackware, or the kernel guys themselves, IMO.

let me know when it works (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612709)

I've attempted to install Ubuntu 12.04 on my Mac Pro, both straight onto a hard drive and through a VirtualBox virtual machine, and it fails both installations. So I'd be willing to pay for it when it freaking works.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41612729)

Really? They apparently stopped listening to our feedback, and now they want money from us?

To say I really hate the new interface would be an understatement. Perhaps this will bump the annoyance factor of continuing with Ubuntu past the point of switching to some other distribution.

I hope 90% of the money... (4, Insightful)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612739)

goes to Debian, where 90% of the work comes from.

Re:I hope 90% of the money... (5, Funny)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613211)

The people who do the most work, should get the most money?
Sounds like communist propaganda to me.

Mr. Shuttleworth's car needs a new set of wheels (2)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612835)

That's what this is all about.

Re:Mr. Shuttleworth's car needs a new set of wheel (4, Interesting)

agoliveira (188870) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613149)

Believe or not, Mark Shuttle worth does not have a car. He bikes to work. When in London he usually either bikes, takes the tube or, in case of something urgent, a taxi.

A united fund is what we really need (1)

davide marney (231845) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612867)

I'd be more than happy to contribute to a united fund that pools tax-deductible donations to OSS projects, like United Way does for its charitable causes. The key here is to make the donations recurring and automatic. It used to be that payroll deductions were the only way to achieve that, but now there may be more options. I don't want to give to just one organization, I'd like to spread the love around. And, I only want to be asked once a year, not every time I download something.

Tackling the wrong problem. (1)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#41612915)

The summary complains that:

When a typical user downloads Ubuntu for free and installs it on a computer with a Windows license that the user did pay for, Canonical gets nothing in the form of payment.

but their solution isn't to try to get manufacturers to offer OS choice on machines, instead it's to ask users to pay twice to use only one operating system.

How about a method to get some of the major manufacturers to allow you to direct your Microsoft tax to Ubuntu instead when you don't plan to ever run Windows...

Give me a usable GUI, I will do that (1)

lew2048 (2571805) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613257)

Unity is still a buggy PITA. That was stuffed down my throat. IF they want loyalty, they have to ask.

Cannot even handle RAID install without manual inp (1)

dirtaddshp (1188189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41613293)

Until i can install Ubuntu on my RAID array without dealing with manual grub entries, its not ready to be paid for IMO.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...