And those places neither does have truth or clear information. It would be Canonicals responsiblity to actually correct the GNU propaganda or avoid causing/spreading misinformation in their own marketing.

Just hiding behind information what other websites tells about Ubuntu than Canonical itself is not wise move. Neither is trying to say that it is not Canonicals responsibility to tell the truth in their marketing because it is placed somewhere in menus what most people does not even look.

As for example: If you buy a house, the saleman is responsible to tell you all the information of the house. Answer your questions trutfully and so on.
And not to give the information after you have bought the house or print it somewhere in the papers with small print or between the lines.
And especially now when Canonical is saying “Ubuntu is X” and the truth is that Ubuntu ain’t X but it is X+Y+Z, and where X is the Linux, it is a lie. As well Canonical could say that “Ubuntu is Y” or that “Ubuntu is Z” and they still would be lie as Linux would be X, Firefox would be Y and Openoffice would be the Z. So what Ubuntu just is, is X+Y+Z.

what the differences between ubuntu / canonical site and redhat / novel ?

did they also gave the information you asked canonical to do ?

at least you can read about linux and gnu in ubuntu about page

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

http://www.ubuntu.com/how-can-it-be-free

and you can read about debian

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntu-and-debian

—

before ubuntu It was familiar that linux == redhat / fedora

—

Each company like redhat and novel depends on proprietary certified software and hardware in their enterprise market and without those they will not make any success

—

also even redhat and novel start (or buy )some project as closed source and release them later (some ) depending on the market status and their benefits but not in sake of FOSS community

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3456361/Red-Hat-to-Open-Source-Directory-Server.htm

—

sometimes i feel the foss community has Double standards

if you told any one about any web service like sourceforge or google code or gmail …. is closed source they will said it’s just a web service and doesn’t matter if it’s open or not

but every one attack canonical about launchpad !

if you told any one about closed redhat and novel server they used to control their Enterprise OS ( like update manager ) , no one complain

but every one complain about ubuntu one server ?

————–

redhat always said there are not interested in linux desktop market but now why they always complain about canoncial and ubuntu ?

why they Raises foss community against ubuntu / canonical ?

———

Why every complains are coming from redhat/novel employer ?

why it’s not from ibm , google , oracle …. etc ?

——

AFAIK all this sick about ubuntu is just a dirty competition from redhat / novel

——

thanks mark thanks ubuntu community thanks canonical

I tought that you would not accept it. But you did not even check the Canonical or Ubuntu websites but you seemed to citate a web search engines results. Where on Canonical or Ubuntu website does read that:

1. Linux kernel is the operating system
2. Ubuntu is not operating system but a distribution
3. Ubuntu use Linux kernel as its operating system
4. Canonical use GNU development tools to compile and package the software what comes in Ubuntu?
5. In Ubuntu the GNOME is the desktop environment what people use?
6. That Canonical wants to offer only free/open source software?

“I *have* sat in user-testing sessions where people say that they find the plethora of names and brands in the free software world very confusing, and that it’s better for them to focus. That’s why we are not “Ubuntu Linux” or worse, “Ubuntu GNU/Linux”, even though we know, support and are very much part of GNU and Linux.”

So I have in many similar situations, but there is difference to push information to customers face, leave the information out from customer or tell different things to customer to make “things easier”.

“It seems silly for people who know exactly what GNU, Linux, X.org, Debian, Bash, Python and GCC are to insist that all of those labels be precisely explained to an audience that quite explicitly does not want to have all of that foisted on them.”

None of those demands that the all the information is told directly and first to all users. It would be totally enough to use correct terms from correct softwares without lying or spreading a misinformation like Canonical/Ubuntu does now on their websites. The full accurate information can be placed to FAQ or better sub-sites with links. Without need to tell them fully to everyone. But still make it simpler and easier
to understand and help others to find easier way the full information. Canonical/Ubuntu sites does nothing like that, they just hides the information now and confuse people.

“They want a straightforward, out of the box solution that “just works”. And that’s how we present Ubuntu, to the greatest extent possible.”

All the OOTB features works even then when telling the truth. There is no need to use marketing to cause misbelieves to happend or even spread propaganda (GNU/Linux). It is all about *how* the information is told, not just *what* is told.

“We know, however, that one in a thousand users will have the interest to go further, to become a participant. And we make it very easy for them to do that, first directly in Ubuntu and then in Debian and the wider free software community.”

Now Ubuntu/Canonical is blocking that directly. Example:

“Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive operating system that powers desktops, servers, netbooks and laptops. Ubuntu is, and always will be, absolutely free.”

That could be as well written as:

“Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive web browser that allows desktops, netbooks and laptops users to browse web. Ubuntu is, and always will be, absolutely free.”

“Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive office suite that gives for desktops, netbooks and laptops a full office applications possibilities. Ubuntu is, and always will be, absolutely free.”

And it would not be a lie. Calling Ubuntu as web browser or office suite is same thing as calling Ubuntu as operating system. Linux kernel is the operating system what is distributed in product called Ubuntu what is Linux distribution. Ubuntu is not the OS, Linux kernel is the OS. Ubuntu is not office suite, OpenOffice.org is the office suite. Ubuntu is not the browser, Mozilla Firefox is the browser. Ubuntu is not the desktop, GNOME is the desktop.

Right now, Canonical is trying to grow a massive userbase where users believe that Ubuntu is not using a Linux. (Linux is just a operating system, nothing more. Monolithic kernels are operating systems, microkernels are not).
Canonical hopes that users would talk about Ubuntu as “Which one I should choose, Ubuntu or Linux as my next OS?” or that people would talk about Ubuntu as it would be the innovative and the leading developer community without giving the credit to those who actually does or has done most of the code, not just tweaked configurations, repackaged software and generated themes and other small polishing.

To Canonical actually success, it must be big userbase what has hype over others. It must have a big or multiple commercical clients what are someway tied to Canonical to offer support or consulting etc. If clients can easily switch to other competitors, it is just bad thing. For Canonical it is better to develop a own ecosystem what makes littlebit problematic for the users to switch other distributions. Was it a deal about support time, a different configurations so the migration would be more difficult or just a such marketing hype that people believes that Ubuntu is not using Linux OS.

And for Canonical, there are canonical representives going around different shows talking to hardware developers that they should make the hardware compatible for Ubuntu because the Canonical is the Microsoft of the Linux world.
Canonical workers or Ubuntu community fans are talking how there should be a Ubuntu logo in the hardware boxes to tell the compability to “Ubuntu OS”. Idea must have been to get manufacturers market as well the Ubuntu while doing it. And that way gain more users. Truth is, Canonical is still using Linux OS and they will never fork it. Canonical could switch to other OS’s like HURD or even somekind BSD if wanted, but maintaining a own OS would be very stupid. Not even RedHat or Novell would do that.

10 years ago, there were very few hardware manucaturers who told straight that their hardware is Linux compatible. The Tux is the logo of the Linux OS. The Linux marketing has evolved and grown to such level that normal people can find Tux printed to device boxes, next to the “Designed for Windows” stickers. The hardware boxes mentiones usually now the needed Linux OS version “example Linux 2.6.15 or later” among other things.

Canonical goal is not to contribute to the open source to others directly, it is trying to gain money from it doing so and that demans that Canonical need to win competition. That is easy to hide behind nice marketing or slogans like “Ubuntu”. Canonical can not make anykind promise that the software will always be free. As that is up the upstream license. Of course if some key software gets license changed, Canonical could fork the software. But it is not up to Canonical at all even then.

And it is funny how Canonical say that they use Open Source software, but still they can not even manage to keep closed source away. In other news, Canonical is telling how they want to offer a easy way for closed source software developers to offer their software on Ubuntu. There is nothing bad in that as thats why we have LSB (Linux Standard Base) and package managers repositiories. Nothing is missing already. Commercical and closed source softwares has been allowed be sold and distributed over decade now. All what companies need to do, is to make a LSB compatible binary and send it to distributors who will place it to repositories. I have used in 90′s many times such easy way to install closed source software. But even at that point, no one were going to offer them as default or better, because distributors had philosophies and ideas what needs to be done to protect the freedom. It might be longer road but in the end it is the best.

“There is a common mistake in life, to assume that everyone else should be just like you. How boring the world would be if that were true. How terrible if everyone you met was only interested in the same things you’re interested in. Sooner or later, you’d realise they represent competition, not moral support!”

I would never want others to be like me. But I would never neither want to tell my customers a propaganda or give the misbelieves about the product what I sell. Yes, I would get littlebit less clients but the truth matters. And as you might have noticed, I do not demand that Canonical explains all the information fully in the frontpage. Just that it does not give misinformation or allow people to get misbelieves.

And competition is never good to anyone. Not to company and not for Client. That is just pure propaganda how the competition is good. Is is almost breast feeded to us since birth, but at least teached to us in schools. Is is the thing what keeps the people who has the real power in control, not the citizens.

What should always be tought and used, is that there must always be choises and that everything must happend as in teamwork. That it is what is about open source as well, teamwork, not competition. And openess is what gives choises and allows teamwork. There is no place for competition, it cause all kind other side effects what in the end makes everything in the whole life more complex and tougher.

Ironically it has been that when Canonical representives in different shows (like CEBIT) told that Canonical is like Microsoft of the Linxu world, as Canonical really seems to be such or at least tries to be in such position. And cause for that is Canonicals marketing and how they treat their clients. As in the end, people will turn around against Canonical, like right now almost 50% of this blog comments are critic about Canonicals actions being harmfull for the community. And those from the people who have wider knowledge or other information than just being happy getting something free without need to pay to MS about Windows or buy a new computers and such other information limits.

That all might sound littlebit tought, but it is all with full respect.

I tought that you would not accept it. But you did not even check the Canonical or Ubuntu websites but you seemed to citate a web search engines results. Where on Canonical or Ubuntu website does read that:

1. Linux kernel is the operating system
2. Ubuntu is not operating system but a distribution
3. Ubuntu use Linux kernel as its operating system
4. Canonical use GNU development tools to compile and package the software what comes in Ubuntu?
5. In Ubuntu the GNOME is the desktop environment what people use?
6. That Canonical wants to offer only free/open source software?

“I *have* sat in user-testing sessions where people say that they find the plethora of names and brands in the free software world very confusing, and that it’s better for them to focus. That’s why we are not “Ubuntu Linux” or worse, “Ubuntu GNU/Linux”, even though we know, support and are very much part of GNU and Linux.”

So I have in many similar situations, but there is difference to push information to customers face, leave the information out from customer or tell different things to customer to make “things easier”.

“It seems silly for people who know exactly what GNU, Linux, X.org, Debian, Bash, Python and GCC are to insist that all of those labels be precisely explained to an audience that quite explicitly does not want to have all of that foisted on them.”

None of those demands that the all the information is told directly and first to all users. It would be totally enough to use correct terms from correct softwares without lying or spreading a misinformation like Canonical/Ubuntu does now on their websites. The full accurate information can be placed to FAQ or better sub-sites with links. Without need to tell them fully to everyone. But still make it simpler and easier
to understand and help others to find easier way the full information. Canonical/Ubuntu sites does nothing like that, they just hides the information now and confuse people.

“They want a straightforward, out of the box solution that “just works”. And that’s how we present Ubuntu, to the greatest extent possible.”

All the OOTB features works even then when telling the truth. There is no need to use marketing to cause misbelieves to happend or even spread propaganda (GNU/Linux). It is all about *how* the information is told, not just *what* is told.

“We know, however, that one in a thousand users will have the interest to go further, to become a participant. And we make it very easy for them to do that, first directly in Ubuntu and then in Debian and the wider free software community.”

Now Ubuntu/Canonical is blocking that directly. Example:

“Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive operating system that powers desktops, servers, netbooks and laptops. Ubuntu is, and always will be, absolutely free.”

That could be as well written as:

“Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive web browser that allows desktops, netbooks and laptops users to browse web. Ubuntu is, and always will be, absolutely free.”

“Super-fast and great-looking, Ubuntu is a secure, intuitive office suite that gives for desktops, netbooks and laptops a full office applications possibilities. Ubuntu is, and always will be, absolutely free.”

And it would not be a lie. Calling Ubuntu as web browser or office suite is same thing as calling Ubuntu as operating system. Linux kernel is the operating system what is distributed in product called Ubuntu what is Linux distribution. Ubuntu is not the OS, Linux kernel is the OS. Ubuntu is not office suite, OpenOffice.org is the office suite. Ubuntu is not the browser, Mozilla Firefox is the browser. Ubuntu is not the desktop, GNOME is the desktop.

Right now, Canonical is trying to grow a massive userbase where users believe that Ubuntu is not using a Linux. (Linux is just a operating system, nothing more. Monolithic kernels are operating systems, microkernels are not).
Canonical hopes that users would talk about Ubuntu as “Which one I should choose, Ubuntu or Linux as my next OS?” or that people would talk about Ubuntu as it would be the innovative and the leading developer community without giving the credit to those who actually does or has done most of the code, not just tweaked configurations, repackaged software and generated themes and other small polishing.

To Canonical actually success, it must be big userbase what has hype over others. It must have a big or multiple commercical clients what are someway tied to Canonical to offer support or consulting etc. If clients can easily switch to other competitors, it is just bad thing. For Canonical it is better to develop a own ecosystem what makes littlebit problematic for the users to switch other distributions. Was it a deal about support time, a different configurations so the migration would be more difficult or just a such marketing hype that people believes that Ubuntu is not using Linux OS.

And for Canonical, there are canonical representives going around different shows talking to hardware developers that they should make the hardware compatible for Ubuntu because the Canonical is the Microsoft of the Linux world.
Canonical workers or Ubuntu community fans are talking how there should be a Ubuntu logo in the hardware boxes to tell the compability to “Ubuntu OS”.

10 years ago, there were very few hardware manucaturers who told straight that their hardware is Linux compatible. The Tux is the logo of the Linux OS. The Linux marketing has evolved and grown to such level that normal people can find Tux printed to device boxes, next to the “Designed for Windows” stickers. The hardware boxes mentiones usually now the needed Linux OS version “example Linux 2.6.15 or later” among other things.

Canonical goal is not to contribute to the open source to others directly, it is trying to gain money from it doing so and that demans that Canonical need to win competition. That is easy to hide behind nice marketing or slogans like “Ubuntu”. Canonical can not make anykind promise that the software will always be free. As that is up the upstream license. Of course if some key software gets license changed, Canonical could fork the software. But it is not up to Canonical at all even then.

And it is funny how Canonical say that they use Open Source software, but still they can not even manage to keep closed source away. In other news, Canonical is telling how they want to offer a easy way for closed source software developers to offer their software on Ubuntu. There is nothing bad in that as thats why we have LSB (Linux Standard Base) and package managers repositiories. Nothing is missing already. Commercical and

That kind of audience is going to use Windows or OS X.

Andrei@September 17th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
You say about Mark: “Be careful, if you and the other Ubuntu guys really care abot Free Software”.
Why do you say that?
Because Canonical managed to deploy 220,000 Ubuntu desktops in schools throughout a certain region in the world?

You also said you think that Ubuntu is “getting close to a civil war in the free software world”
Who would supply the weapons? Microsoft?
That is a cheap attempt to spread FUD… one of the most well known M.Soft’s tactics against Open Source…