

Ubuntu's Shuttleworth: "I don't think anyone can make money from the Linux desktop." - qhoxie
http://blogs.computerworld.com/ubuntus_shuttleworth_i_dont_think_anyone_can_make_money_from_the_linux_desktop

======
amix
Mozilla is making millions on advertising from Firefox search and I think the
same business model can be applied to Ubuntu. For example, by adding a search
bar directly on the desktop.

~~~
mdasen
Better yet, since they are free to make modifications to Firefox, they could
always change the account to an Ubuntu one rather than leaving the Mozilla one
in there for search.

Wouldn't be so nice to Mozilla, but that is the nature of open-source. In
fact, if you have a company with lots of employees who use Firefox, it might
make sense for you to alter that. Of course, probably isn't worth the effort
considering how little you'd make back.

~~~
maw
They're not free to make that sort of modification to Firefox. Patches for
Firefox (and a number of other Mozilla products) need to be vetted by MoCo,
and I doubt they'd be approved.

They are, of course, allowed to rebrand and then make all the modifications
they wish.

This was the impetus for the creation of Iceweasel.

------
Create
"we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer
market in the foreseeable future." -- redhat, 2008/04/16

[http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-
with-r...](http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-
desktop-systems-an-update/)

------
olefoo
The question is not who makes money _from_ linux on the desktop, the questions
is, who makes money _because_of_ linux on the desktop.

Canonical's profits are going to come from training, certification and
consulting partnerships; but they aren't the only ones who will be making
money from the existence of capable linux desktops.

Any org that has a large number of client installations would probably save
money (easiest way to make it) by implementing a linux desktop.

------
jhancock
Is there any big player still trying to make money off a Linux desktop? I
thought this issue was resolved long ago. I agree with Shuttleworth, I just
don't think this is new news.

------
startingup
I am partial to BSD as a basis for hosting a browser, which is all I want my
OS to do. My ideal would be BSD + Chrome mated to be one small, light kick-ass
web top. I gave up on Linux a long while ago on the client side. It is chasing
Windows, which I think is backward looking.

Keep in mind that BSD underpins Mac OS X.

------
utnick
I disagree

As computers get better I think there could be a market for a really slick
compviz style linux desktop with a ton a tools packaged and integrated with
it, including virtualbox so you can run your windows xp partition in parallel.

I think there surely is a market for mac osx, even seperated from mac hardware
( if apple would allow that to happen ), likewise there is a market for a
linux desktop, we just haven't seen one good enough yet. But we are close.

------
cstejerean
given the problems with Vista and the success of Macs with OS X I expect some
of the other players (Dell, etc) to start looking at investing money in Linux
development so they have a compelling OS to ship with their machines, which
tells me there should be plenty of opportunities to make money from a Linux
desktop.

------
mattmaroon
If you remove the last word from that sentence, you get my opinion.

------
known
Ubuntu may try exclusive tie-ups with OEMs like Microsoft does.

------
ohhmaagawd
20XX is the year of the linux desktop!

~~~
Anon84
if $current_year == $current_year + 1 then:

now is the year of linux

------
thras
He's talking about selling Linux OS in a shrinkwrap package. On the other
hand, Shuttleworth says that services are where the money is at -- something
that companies like Red Hat have known for a long time.

Shuttleworth's most interesting comment was a suggestion that XP is being
given away for free to certain OEMs. That would be a bold move by Microsoft.
The whole ecosystem could change if Microsoft changed XP over to the Firefox
model of making money from software.

~~~
13ren
Yes, MS already sell XP Home OEM for $40 for the eeePC... they have the
capacity for brutality. From sales so far, it doesn't seem to need to be any
cheaper (in fact, a higher price would probably be OK). The ecosystem built on
XP's platform is still worth a lot.

What could kill them is a crossover to the web as a platform... ie. as the
desktop.

Implementations of Flash, Javascript and Java are getting faster and adding
features needed for the desktop (e.g. client-side persistence). It seems
inevitable that the old settop box dream will be realized. It was such a cool
idea!

The OS might even be non-linux, if it has other features that are needed more.
e.g. faster, more power efficient, maybe intrinsically multicore, so it can
work on cheaper, lighter devices, requiring less power - like a phone. Linux
has bloated, through evolving in the same rich hardware environment as
Windows.

~~~
jbert
> Linux has bloated, through evolving in the same rich hardware environment as
> Windows.

I'm not disputing your point directly, but I'd be interested in your data.

For example, there are Linux distros which run well on what I consider low-
power devices (I'm thinking of ARM-powered NSLU-2 or WRT54 devices) with, say,
32Mbyte RAM.

I'm also not sure what you mean by 'intrinsically multicore' - are you
implying that Linux doesn't make use of multiple cores? Or doesn't do it well?

~~~
astine
Linux can be made to be far more lightweight than Windows or OSX, but who uses
those distros? Most people use Ubuntu or something similar and those distros
are fairly heavy, not as heavy as Vista, but still much heavier than they
could be. Things like Compiz and KDE/Gnome really weigh a system down.

~~~
jbert
> Things like Compiz and KDE/Gnome really weigh a system down.

If you're looking for a modern desktop operating system, then yes, it is tuned
for a modern(-ish) desktop.

But if you're talking about using "a different OS" (as the OP was), then
you're already further from the mainstream than using a linux distro tuned for
your needs.

I'm just checking on the substance of the "Linux is bloated" claim, and trying
to find out what alternatives there might be.

~~~
13ren
Also, I believe that the kernel has also grown much larger, especially in
recent years (don't have data or links, just from articles I've read).

Concurrency isn't really a solved problem. If someone did solve it, and formed
an OS around it, that would be what I mean by _intrinsically multi-core_. It
might also involve an entirely different CPU architecture, and view of the
hardware, which the fundamental concepts of linux just didn't map to
efficiently (e.g. no filesystem). Hypothetically speaking. But if you could
make it look the same to webapps, it wouldn't matter.

My point isn't that linux is bad in any way, but that if your platform is the
web, then the OS doesn't matter. BTW: I also don't believe that linux is the
ultimate OS - it's just an OS, and it's possible to have something better. In
practice, the alternative might be based on linux (or at least compatible).
Not because linux is perfect, but it's there already and because of the
ecosystem of software that relies on it (borrowed from unix). Linux is a
market success - by which I mean many people use it.

The only alternatives I can think off the top of my head are: BSD, solaris,
minix, QNX, Plan 9, AmigaOS and there are also some really "weird" OS's in
academia, many no longer used.

I believe Plan 9 was written by the creators of unix... as an improvement. But
it lacked market success.

 _EDIT_ BTW I'm not claiming that linux is _as_ bloated as Windows - just that
it has increased significantly in size, and due to the same cause: there is no
real need not to.

~~~
jbert
> Also, I believe that the kernel has also grown much larger, especially in
> recent years (don't have data or links, just from articles I've read).

OK. The kernel runs happily on a 32Mbyte ARM system I have to hand. dmesg
tells me the kernel usage (a 2.6.21) at boot time is ~2Mbytes:

<5>Memory: 30292KB available (1912K code, 153K data, 84K init)

I don't think that justifies being called 'much larger', unless you're
comparing with mid-90s kernel versions or something.

The source code for Linux is much larger, but I think that's mostly due to
broader support for hardware and other optional components.

~~~
13ren
That's pretty impressive, though I was thinking from the beginning, and
"recent years" being the last 10 years, and also of the kernel size (not its
RAM usage). I agree that kernel size matters less than RAM usage.

But to share my perspective: My first computer was a ZX81, with 1K RAM total
(i.e. 1024 bytes). 32*24=768 bytes were used for video in the worst case (it
was compressed, newline style). To be fair, it didn't have a filesystem (no
disks) or multitasking. In truth, I found 1K just too limiting, and went for
the 16K rampack addon.

Regarding my main point: I doubt the massive software base can be given up at
this point (even the disruptive technology of cell phones switch to linux when
they get powerful enough) - it's just my yearning for those days of daring
frugality, when a byte was worth fighting for.

~~~
jbert
> it's just my yearning for those days of daring frugality, when a byte was
> worth fighting for.

Which I certainly share :-) I borrowed a ZX-80&ZX-81 and then got my own
Spectrum...

Perhaps buy yourself an NSLU-2 <http://www.nslu2-linux.org/>, they're pretty
cheap, low power devices with 1 ethernet and 2 usb ports. There's good support
for plugging lots of things into the usb ports (you can stick a usb hard drive
or flash stick in for storage, usb sound card for media player, printer
server, etc). Just don't expect them to do too much (the CPU isn't powerful).

I use one as a low-power 'always on' file/ssh/git server.

And you can then once more have fun writing software which will run well in a
restricted memory environment :-)

~~~
13ren
My main PC is currently an eeePC, which is not all that far from that! I
predict another generation which is even lighter, lower wattage and cheaper.

Those dime-sized java devices appealed to me - can't find the one I mean, but
here's similar: <http://www.jopdesign.com/cyclone/index.jsp> and
[http://wireless.sensorsmag.com/sensorswireless/Wireless+News...](http://wireless.sensorsmag.com/sensorswireless/Wireless+News/Worldrsquos-
Smallest-Java-Based-Computers-to-Debut/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/514140)

~~~
13ren
WARNING: RAVE

It's the simplicity of the ZX81 that appeals to me - especially the small
number of commands available, in BASIC and Z-80 machine code. It's concrete
and graspable, and possible to get on top of to master some of it perfectly -
a toy world, a tiny playground to play in. The small universe makes it easier
to be sure you've got the best solution, and limited options make choices
clearer and easier to evaluate.

I've managed to get some of that feeling from Java and discrete mathematics -
though that essential thrill of efficiency and certainty is missing...

In my current project, I'm trying to create that kind of playground for users,
where the choices are concrete and combine orthogonally. I'm aiming for it to
appeal to "my people" (i.e. who appreciate what I do), instead of to the
naysayers, or opinions about how you "should" do things.

I think it requires a kind of genius, to make the abstract concrete. To me,
it's a worthy goal. Fortunately, you can create a work of genius without
actually being a genius - provided that (1) you spend a lot of time and
effort; (2) you make definite progress; and (3) can link those pieces of
progress together, so you build higher and higher. Well, I sure _hope_ I can.
:-)

