
Canonical asks desktop users to “pay what you think Ubuntu is worth” - recoiledsnake
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/10/canonical-asks-desktop-users-to-pay-what-you-think-ubuntu-is-worth/
======
fingerprinter
Holy freakin' hell that is an awful headline. This is a DONATION, nothing
more. Canonical is not asking people to pay, it is asking people to donate if
they are so inclined. The press releases states that Ubuntu is and always will
be free.

Use Ubuntu and want to give some money for it? Great. Donate. Now there is a
way where previously there was none.

Use Ubuntu and don't want to give money? Great. Don't donate.

Don't use Ubuntu? Carry on.

~~~
dholowiski
I don't use Ubuntu and I am carrying on.

But... that download page
[http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/questions?distro=desk...](http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/questions?distro=desktop&bits=32&release=lts)

A) makes it a pain to drag everything to $0 (8 sliders to drag) B) makes it
seem like you're getting a t-shirt too C) makes me feel bad for downloading it
for free. D) is any of that money going to the Linux Foundation? It's not
clear - if not, shame on them.

~~~
gizmo686
The linux foundation is responsible for a very small portion of Ubuntu, and is
probably one of the most funded parts. When I donate to Canocial to support
ubuntu, I expect that money to go to where it will be most useful to making a
good product.

------
jakubw
Presenting this screen before you can actually get the OS does not make much
sense for new users. They won't know if "hardware support on more PCs" or
"performance optimisations" will be any important for them. It'd be more
sensible for this to show up as a built-in screen after you've used Ubuntu for
a few months.

~~~
olalonde
"Paying before you can actually get the OS does not make much sense for new
users."

It does make sense for Windows and OS X users :)

~~~
pyre
Windows and OSX users aren't asked to itemize their 'contributions' into
various buckets.

------
buro9
I saw this yesterday when I was experimenting switching from Linux Mint to
Ubuntu on one of my laptops (multi-monitor problem that forums hinted were
fixed in latest Ubuntu).

What confused me about that page was this:

"Pay what you think it's worth" is a question based on past experience... you
either have no experience and think the value is zero or you already have
experience and think it's worth $x.

But then all of the options were very clearly angled towards the future and
answering a different question "Where would you like us to invest?".

It baffled me as without downloading and using Ubuntu I couldn't give you an
indication of what it is worth to me right now, and I couldn't say which part
I felt needed investment in the future. Even if I were a regular user of
Ubuntu and was upgrading from one LTS to another, how would I know which bit
now needs investment until after I'd seen what has changed?

I also could not see any indication that were I to have slid a slider one way,
that this guarantees that is where my money will go. In the UK, organisations
that take donations are bound to only use such funds for the purpose in which
they've been taken, less reasonable administration costs.

Canonical being based in the UK, does that mean that they are creating
different accounts per-slider and ring-fencing the funds solely for that use?
I doubted it.

I did the only thing I felt was rational and downloaded without a
contribution.

To me a more logical thing would be to ask for a contribution after I knew
there was value there.

In my case that means to let me install it, see whether it solves my multi-
monitor problem, and then suggest I contribute.

Or it could mean that in the support forums or interfaces if a solution
removes pain, ask me for money right then... I'll happily give it.

At those points I know the value and know where I want to see future
investment. But at download time? Nah, I know nothing.

If you're going to ask for something at the moment of download then a simple
tip jar would do the trick. The question of "Where should we invest in the
future?" should only be asked after someone is using Ubuntu.

~~~
taneliv
I agree that the page is a bit poor in communicating why you should pay, and
cumbersome to use. OTOH, the paypal order page does indicate how much money
you put towards each of the goals, so I suppose it is possible they abide with
the UK laws.

Personally I would be happy to have a monthly subscription to simply keep
Ubuntu improving, even without any additional value on top of what they
already provide. I realize this could be done by simply donating monthly.
However, in a subscription model they could probably set up a two-way
communication channel between them and paying customers, to both help refine
their goals and estimate how well they're being met, in a more continuous
manner than random donations at download time.

------
systematical
Not a bad idea. The areas where I have the biggest problems with Ubuntu is
hardware support and new updates just breaking my system. It's so bad that I
REALLY want to just go to Debian Stable as my primary OS. I just can't handle
that much downtime to switch over at home and the office.

I'm a developer. I don't give a shit about a fancy desktop. I just want my
hardware to work good with the O.S. and for updates not to wreck my system.
Why? Because I just want to write code, run what services and daemons I need,
and read shit on the internet.

It's really fn frustrating. I've been using Ubuntu for 4 years solid now when
I ditched Windows. I'd be willing to donate to the two areas I highlighted,
but if shit didn't get better....

~~~
Wilduck
I used Debian stable as my primary OS for a couple of years. While I was just
fine without the fancy desktop, at the time Firefox was stuck on version 3.0
even though 3.6 was available.

I don't know what the situation is like now, since I haven't used linux on my
laptop for a couple years, but if I were to go back, I would want something
like Debian stable, but with an updated browser.

~~~
pdw
There's now the backports service, <http://backports.debian.org/> where you
can get newer versions of packages recompiled for stable.

~~~
munchhausen
And using this service of course partially defeats the point of using Debian
stable at all, at least for the packages that you install from backports.

~~~
NegativeK
I can imagine it being more useful for things that are easily fixable/less
critical.

I was running a testing desktop, and X updated in a way that broke the
proprietary nVidia drivers (nVidia's fault -- not Debian's.) That was quite
annoying to suddenly have to fix. Those types of issues (though rare, even in
testing) would be nice to avoid.

------
madrona
I would like to pay the folks that manage the wonderful apt software
repository. Not one red cent to the Unity team, though. I don't like where
they are taking Linux.

~~~
thaumaturgy
The repository maintainers seem pretty shy, but I'm pretty sure that the
original author behind apt is this guy: <https://github.com/jgunthorpe>, and
you could send him a few dollars using gittip: <https://www.gittip.com/>

~~~
jarek
As jgunthorpe is not located in the U.S., receiving those dollars would
involve a manual process and extra fees: <https://www.gittip.com/about/>

------
batgaijin
I'd like to, but I think if anything I'd donate to Debian first.

~~~
akurilin
Can you explain the reasoning behind that?

~~~
ivan_ah
To many people, Ubuntu represents nothing but a shiny front end build on top
of the years of hard work spent on building Debian, the universal OS.

These people (we) are willing to use Ubuntu, since it is pretty much the same
thing, but they (we) will never go out and actively support the Ubuntu project
as we believe that Debian is more deserving of our support.

~~~
mekoka
I think I (sorta) understand your reasoning, but it doesn't make much sense to
me. When I write some application that makes it easier for my clients to do
some previously complex tasks and I ask them to tip me, I don't expect them to
tell me that the previous system or database did most of what made my work
possible.

These "donations" aren't just there to thank developers for past works, but
also to equip the distro so that it can improve and continue to push the
envelope _its way_.

Ubuntu's users chose to download and install Ubuntu, not Debian, probably
because they like whatever Ubuntu does that you find so insignificant and that
other distros aren't doing. I suspect that you too are running Ubuntu, not
Debian, for the same reasons.

When Ubuntu asks for money, that's because Ubuntu needs it to keep doing those
insignificant Ubuntu stuff, that made you choose to install it, not Debian.
So, don't bring up Debian.

When Linux Mint started their own distro, they didn't go all the way down to
Debian. Ubuntu probably did something worthwhile, that Mint would rather not
do themselves. But people who installed Mint didn't install Ubuntu, so when
Mint asks for donations, it's for Mint stuff. Let's not bring up Ubuntu.

This is written on Debian's donation page (<http://www.debian.org/donations>):

 _While all donations are welcome, it is especially hoped that any businesses
that make money through Debian (CD manufacturers, support companies, or even
businesses that rely on Debian for day to day operations) will contribute a
percentage of their profit to help make Debian the best OS it can be._

Get it? _help make Debian the best OS it can be_. Let's not bring up GNU or
Linux.

~~~
vacri
Mint did go 'all the way down to debian' - there is a Linux Mint Debian
Edition.

------
mekoka
Every couple of months, I recharge my Themeforest account (html templates), as
well as my Moniker's (domain names). I pay and they credit my account, which
makes it easier to buy goods, without the hassle of a payment process. The
thing is, while I put in $50, I probably only use $10 at a time and my account
can stay credited for months. I'd be ready to bet that by the time my credits
have all been spent, the money I originally paid for them has accumulated some
interest for these vendors. This revenue model is rather common.

If Ubuntu sold vouchers that allowed me to buy software at a slight discount,
rather than connecting to Paypal each time, I'd pay for it. The best part is
that it has the numbers and the products to make it work for them as well.

------
ghshephard
So, the tricky question is - what if we can't afford that? Does that mean
that, ethically, I should no longer use the product if I want to honor
Canonical's request?

~~~
furyofantares
I'm not sure what you mean by "can't afford that."

If you think Ubuntu provides you with $X in value but you literally do not
have $X to your name, well, I'm not sure how it could be providing $X to you,
then.

You could be totally broke and feel like Ubuntu has the potential to provide
you with $X in value (by helping you get a job, for example). You could just
donate when the value is realized, not before.

Maybe you didn't mean that you literally don't have $X, but instead meant that
you might not feel like it's worth paying $X for what you get out of it. In
that case your choice of X was simply too high.

I don't really like the phrase "Pay what you think it's worth" for two
reasons.

One of my issues with it is that it's easy to think of it as a fixed
impersonal price rather than something that varies from person to person at
any given time.

The other issue is that, as a developer, I do NOT want users paying what my
products are worth to them. I want them to pay less than that, so they get
something out of the deal. I want people to be better off for having acquired
my software, I do not want to extract 100% of the value they get out of it in
exchange.

~~~
gabemart
>If you think Ubuntu provides you with $X in value but you literally do not
have $X to your name, well, I'm not sure how it could be providing $X to you,
then.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

Imagine I have disposable income of $0 and I currently use Ubuntu. By your
reasoning, Ubuntu is worthless to me. However, let's say that if you offered
me $1 to stop using Ubuntu, I would say say "no". We can safely conclude that
Ubuntu is worth more than $1 to me, even though I don't have $1 to pay for it.

Ability to pay doesn't always equal value created. If I like take walks in a
national park, I obviously derive value from that resource, but I don't pay
anything for it and it doesn't allow me to generate any additional income.

~~~
freehunter
You certainly do pay for national parks. If you're a citizen, you pay for it
in income taxes and any money paid to local businesses while shopping that
they then owe in taxes. If you're not a citizen, you're still indirectly
paying through taxes paid to businesses while you are on vacation. National
parks are not all funded by the entrance fee, they're government-subsidized.

To answer the question, no it is not unethical to use free software for free
when you cannot afford to donate. Canonical is not expecting you to pay for
it, merely making it clearer that you are _able_ to pay for it if you wish.
This comes on the heels of the outcry over Amazon search being built-in, with
people asking if Ubuntu is hurting for cash, why is it not easier to give them
money?

~~~
gabemart
>You certainly do pay for national parks. If you're a citizen, you pay for it
in income taxes and any money paid to local businesses while shopping that
they then owe in taxes. If you're not a citizen, you're still indirectly
paying through taxes paid to businesses while you are on vacation. National
parks are not all funded by the entrance fee, they're government-subsidized.

Yes, but if you're a citizen you "pay" for it in a legally obligated way, so
that payment tells an observer nothing about your preferences.

I spoke imprecisely, but my point was that there are resources which are free
at the point of use which still have value to the user. Perhaps a national
park was a bad example, I should just have said "the countryside".

------
comice
We called for this when they announced they'd be putting affiliate links in
search results, so I'm happy to see it.

I just want to see the affiliate links go away now :)

------
sandGorgon
So, I use Ubuntu as my daily driver. But, I am deeply conflicted about this.
Primarily because I have heard/read that Ubuntu does not spend its money on
developers (expecially core, kernel, fs) and rides on Debian and Red Hat.
Secondly, until fairly recently, parts of Launchpad were closed source. Third
- there are other groups like Postgres, Openssh, etc which need funding more
desperately.

What will the donation amount of be used for? More marketing - which I
understand is equally necessary, but unworthy for me right now - vs things
like hiring and paying developers?

~~~
abraham
You can select which areas of development your payment goes to.

[http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-
mu...](http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-
Ubuntu-worth.png)

~~~
sandGorgon
I see that - but it would be nice if they covered which groups exactly would
be funded by each item. For example, I am all for the hardware support aspect
of Ubuntu - I would personally want to fund superior multi-display support and
suspend/resume.

Who are the developers in Ubuntu working on it ? In fact, ARE THERE any
developers working on it. I would really appreciate some increased
transparency here - because as I see it, there are lots of contenders for my
money: including LinuxMint, which IMHO needs money more desperately.

~~~
eligos
Yes, there are... in fact, the unity developers are working in better multi-
display support

------
jrockway
_"Tip to Canonical - they help make it happen"_

That's why the packages end in .cpg: "Canonical PackaGe"?

~~~
munchhausen
Are you insinuating that Ubuntu is just a Debian with a different name slapped
on it? If that is the case, then you must not have used Ubuntu at all.

As a Ubuntu user, I like the Ubuntu Software Center and being able to install
Skype and Dropbox through it and not having to scour the web for packages
compatible with my system. I like some Unity features such as the dash and the
HUD, because they greatly simplify discoverability of features that I do not
use on a daily basis. I like the fact that Canonical certifies Ubuntu on a
variety of hardware and I can therefore purchase my next laptop or server with
the knowledge that my preferred OS will work fine on it.

I could go on, but I don't think there is any need - it's pretty clear that
Canonical makes a lot of things happen apart from building .deb packages.

~~~
jrockway
Canonical adds all the fun stuff and Debian adds all the boring stuff. But,
you can't have the fun stuff without the boring stuff, and it's easy to argue
that Ubuntu would not exist without Debian. Letting the user kick a few bucks
back to the Debian Foundation wouldn't be the most horrible thing ever.

(I do use Ubnutu, BTW, but regret the decision on a regular basis. I
especially like waiting 15 seconds to get a shell prompt because it's checking
for package updates to display while I'm logging in. The 15 seconds after each
typo'd command is also enjoyable. "Did you mean to install the package sl?"
No. No I did not. Ever. </rant>)

~~~
ostso

        unset -f command_not_found_handle

------
mikelward
How do I contribute while discouraging Unity? Doubtless they will interpret
"Make the desktop more amazing" as an encouragement rather than the opposite.

~~~
UntitledNo4
I'd say that if enough people change the the ratio of their donation so that
"Make The Desktop More Amazing" gets $0 while "Better Support For Flavours
Like Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu" gets the most of the donation, this might help
Canonical get the picture.

------
xthexinternetx
How about Canonical pays me for the hours I've spent debugging problems like
scripts shipped with bugs or complete changes to the foundations of the
operating system which just appear by surprise?

I really like it when motd just randomly became some convoluted set of
scripts.

~~~
jff
Or when their fancy "Display some dots on the screen instead of kernel output
on bootup" thing (Plymouth) only gets properly disabled by GDM and will
otherwise continue to draw glowing dots across your window manager and
applications. At least, that's what I found when I tried to run XDM + xmonad
on my ARM netbook. Eventually had to go in and hack the XDM startup script so
it too would properly shut off Plymouth before trying to run.

------
don_draper
I'd pay for a light laptop with XUbuntu (xfce) and 3 years of support so that
everything just works.

------
bitwize
This made me want to find the donate button on Slackware's page.

------
beloch
The donation request doesn't show up if you download Kubuntu. The last I heard
Canonical doesn't pay anyone to work specifically on Kubuntu anymore (although
Kubuntu users obviously benefit from a great many things Canonical does for
Ubuntu). One of the donation categories does include Kubuntu though...
Strange.

------
jaipilot747
I'm not sure about the installer demographics or user base of Ubuntu Server,
but assuming that users who install the Server edition would be more Linux-
savvy than newbie desktop users and be able to appreciate how much value
Ubuntu brings them, wouldn't it make sense to show this screen there as well?

------
donniezazen
It would be interesting if they upload donation statistics on what people want
Ubuntu to do.

------
sciurus
"Over the most recent 12-month period, Ubuntu accounted for 1.1 billion hits
to Wikimedia, with the next-most popular Linux desktop distribution—Red Hat's
Fedora—accounting for 36.7 million."

That's a much wider gap than I expected.

------
jfb
If I were interested in using an X based Unix, I'd probably do this and donate
a few bucks. I like what Shuttleworth is doing, even as I don't want to use a
Linux distro.

~~~
jff
If you're interested in an X-based Unix, Ubuntu probably isn't the right thing
to look at in the future, since I hear Wayland is supposed to be here Real
Soon Now.

~~~
jfb
I guess I was sort of trying to draw the distinction between OS X and anything
else. Would've been faster to just say that. The less X in my life the happier
I am.

------
zobzu
I'd rather donate to individual projects than the guys packaging stuff and
making unity.

Oh wait, that's what I do.

------
mariuolo
It sounds like OSS panhandling.

