Whenever I read the Ubuntu philosophy, I feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I’m ostensibly part of a community that champions sharing and transparency. Then the pessimist in my head tells me the only reason I use Ubuntu is because it doesn’t cost money, and I’m cheap. For the four years that I’ve been an Ubuntu user, I’ve grappled with this question: how important is it that Ubuntu is Free, and not just free?
While I’d like to say I switched to Linux because I cared deeply about software freedom, the truth is that I had no idea what open-source meant–or what exactly source code was, for that matter–when I booted my first live CD. Instead, I installed Linux (first Mandriva, then Fedora, now Ubuntu) because I was a college student with a very negative income, and I was tired of paying for software. So I admit it: I gave Linux a try only because I’m a cheapskate.
After becoming more invested in the Linux community and learning more about computers, I eventually gained a genuine appreciation for the free-software movement. Its principles just made a lot of sense, and the fact that “normal” people like me could be fully productive using only open-source software convinced me that there was something deeply problematic with the fact that most of my neighbors signed their souls away to corporate America in order to browse the Internet.
But the commitment to software freedom that slowly grew on me doesn’t obviate the fact that I originally became an Ubuntu user for financial reasons–or that the single surest deal-breaker for me as an Ubuntu user would be for Canonical to start charging for the operating system, even if the source remained open.
Why Freedom Matters
Considering the relative weight of financial motivations, as opposed to philosophical ones, in driving Linux adoption is more than just a rhetorical question, or a chance to probe one’s inner-self. It’s also an issue to which the community’s leaders should pay more attention, in order to understand how to sustain Linux growth into the future (if that’s their goal).
Joe Panettieri wrote recently on this site about measuring Ubuntu’s user base. If there’s one point that Canonical’s leaders should take away from his post, it’s that they need to gather more information. After all, as some French theorist claimed, knowledge is power. If Canonical wants to fulfill Mark Shuttleworth’s commitment to “put Ubuntu and free software on every single consumer PC that ships from a major manufacturer,” it needs to know more about why exactly people are using Ubuntu.
This is an issue that is too often overlooked. The hardcore free-software geeks assume that the only reason anyone would use Linux is because it’s the near-fulfillment of Richard Stallman’s dream (the completion of his actual dream, of course, remains T.B.A.). At the same time, the pragmatists among us forget that for some people, there’s more to life than money, and that Ubuntu’s cost is not its chief attraction for many users. The community tends to become polarized along the money-vs.-philosophy divide, with each side forgetting the other’s existence.
Measuring Motivation
How can Canonical measure the motivations of Ubuntu users? Not easily, perhaps. But one approach that might be effective would be to include questions on this topic in its surveys of Ubuntu Server users. How does the openness of Ubuntu’s code factor into decisions between using Windows, Red Hat, Solaris, Ubuntu or what have you on servers?
The opinions of desktop users are harder to assess, but there are plenty of forums within the Ubuntu community where this issue could be discussed.
Canonical could also try surveying its desktop users, which it has never attempted, to my knowledge. I vaguely recall filling out a short form when I became a Mandriva user explaining why I had made that choice. I’ve always thought it was curious that Canonical seems less interested in gathering concrete information about the nature of the Ubuntu community.
Whatever strategy it adopts, Canonical–and the Ubuntu community as a whole–would do well to think harder about why exactly we choose to use Ubuntu. It will teach us more about ourselves, and just might help bring Ubuntu to more people, too.
Very interesting article, however perhaps looking at this from a developers point of view, freedom does matter. I makes us feel like we are encourage to make ubuntu better. Not so in other propietary os.
freedom matters a lot. i started using linux in 1995 (slackware) in order to convert an otherwise useless 386 into an ftp server. i started using it as my primary desktop around 2002 when mandrake 8.2 (if memory serves) came out. i used mandrake for a few years and even joined the mandrake club to help support my distro of choice. i switched to ubuntu when dapper drake was released because it installed so smoothly and i haven’t looked back. it does not appear to me that canonical is very interested in donations, which i admit is part of their appeal. if they had a link for donations on the default browser start page, i’m sure that would generate some appreciable money for them. as a suggested donation, perhaps $10(us) for each install is very reasonable for most folks in the developed west. even if canonical and ubuntu disappeared tomorrow (perish the thought!) debian would still be around as the basis for other great distros that would be sure to follow.
so as long as canonical is not aggressively pursuing donations, perhaps the best way to support the os we all know and love is to donate to the debian project?
I like how the common users are culturally expected to learn how to code (“patches welcome lol”), and then to contribute time and effort hacking on the software with no compensation, while the open source corporations make money selling the fruits of their labor. Whoever thought of using “freedom” to rope people into slavery was a marketing genius.
Sure, freedom matters, but not as much as the Linux community wants it to matter. Consumers are fickle. They have expectations about products and services, and you can’t substitute a philosophical ideal such as “freedom” for the ability to the sync your music to your iPod.
The reality is that we are surrounded — engulfed, really — by hordes of proprietary software and companies interested only in building locked-in ecosystems to generate revenue. These companies make enormous amounts of money and then use that cash to move products. Ultimately, value is determined not by the ideals a product promotes, but by its utility to the consumer. If I were marketing desktop Linux, freedom wouldn’t even make it into the brochure. It’s too abstract for non-technical people to grasp. Instead, I would focus solely on utility. How will this save me time? Money? Energy? Headache? If it can’t do that, then freedom is irrelevant.
[...] Ubuntu: Does Freedom Matter? While I’d like to say I switched to Linux because I cared deeply about software freedom, the truth is that I had no idea what open-source meant–or what exactly source code was, for that matter–when I booted my first live CD. Instead, I installed Linux (first Mandriva, then Fedora, now Ubuntu) because I was a college student with a very negative income, and I was tired of paying for software. So I admit it: I gave Linux a try only because I’m a cheapskate. [...]
Most people dont care about democracy, they dont see the point of voting for two sides of the same coins doing the bidding for the same corporate masters. Most people will say that democracy is off no use to them as they work their McDonalds shift or the single mom trynig to work 3 jobs to support her kids. Democracy is not her main concern.
Does this mean we shouldnt care about democracy?
All I care about switching people over to Linux is to make live easier on them (virus), on me (free tech support guy cleaning their virus) and for gratis (Linux, VLC, FF, OpenOffice and other apps). Gratis also touches on green since with Linux we can extend computer lifespans.
But without the four freedoms I cant do my part as a developer which these people will benefit from (as well as others who can use my code as long as they respect my copyleft provisions).
Do I need the user to know my role as well as the role of others in the FLOSS communities? No. That’s not why I do this.
But it still is a kick when people use an desktop OS that Ive helped in some small way.
I dont expect the single mom to worry about democracy just like I dont expect my parents, inlaws and aunts, uncles, cousins who use Linux to know about the GPL and the collaborative effort that takes place.
I dont have to explain to them why I think Mono is a bad idea (non free infrastructure with limited protection for only some Linux users but not all) but why I dont mind them using non-free/libre apps like Skype and Opera and Chrome with Linux.
Give away your 4 freedoms and lots of what we do would be lost.
Im happy that they can both enjoy the fruits of others labours.
My experience has been much like yours, Chris. I started using FLOSS programs and eventually made the move to Linux because I simply did not have the money for proprietary software and did not feel comfortable with piracy (which some do, whether they are tech professionals or not). I came to appreciate the better security and greater amount of choices with time (although I wish the gaming end would catch up soon).
I have made numerous attempts to try to learn coding/programming over the past 25 years. I simply do not have the patience for it. I am also poor and disabled in real life, so the epithets of “noob” and “digital welfare recipient” lobbed at me by some really are quite tiresome and hurtful. And I know the CLI is used for speed; what is so bloody wrong with giving explanations with a GUI when it’s available?
Maybe the hardcore fanatics are bent on being sure the ‘unworthy’ never have access, but they can squat on a pike as far as I’m concerned if that’s how they feel. Not everyone has the patience, skill, and time to tweak everything to death, and even some techs I’ve talked to have said so. I know not all the community is rude, but I’ve gotten enough “you are such an IDIOT for not knowing that” attitudes that I just quietly research my problems on my own and skip asking about anything directly.
Has anyone quantified how much free software is truly free? In other words, were 100% of the hours contributed by unpaid volunteers?
For example, Sun (acquired by Oracle) is said to have invested heavily in the salaries of employees working on OpenOffice.org. And didn’t other organizations (such as IBM?) also contribute paid employee time?
Ditto for Linux. Didn’t major companies contribute heavily through paid employee time?
And what of the people working on Ubuntu? Not just coding, but also attractive designs and literate, lucid documentation.
What percentage of the total hours contributed to Ubuntu were worked for free, and how many hours were paid by Canonical (and other companies?)?
So while the software may be free to use, it certainly wasn’t produced for free.
My unconfirmed impression is the Mozilla Foundation (Firefox web browser, Sunbird calendar, etc.) is supported entirely by volunteer work, but I don’t know that for sure.
Yes, I’m sure there are countless open-source applications (and many versions of Linux) where no one was paid. But very, very few non-technical people are using those apps.
If Firefox and Sunbird were created entirely by volunteers (I haven’t tried Thunderbird), then it is the exception — professional, mainstream software created entirely by volunteers.
Whenever we talk about free software, I think we should specify whether it was produced for free (100% by unpaid volunteers).
There are many people who selflessly contribute time and labour for the benefit of humanity. But there are many others who don’t believe in paying for anything, ever — regardless of their economic circumstances. And not all of them are working on Wall Street.
One aspect that sometimes gets left out of these “paywall” discussions is: it costs money to take money. A small trader can use something like PayPal, but if you are larger you have to use a proper payment system. You can use a turnkey service provided by a third party, or you can set it up yourself and hire someone to administer it. Either way, there are costs involved, which you have to pass on to the customer. Keeping it free makes for an easier life, I think …
“My unconfirmed impression is the Mozilla Foundation (Firefox web browser, Sunbird calendar, etc.) is supported entirely by volunteer work, but I don’t know that for sure.”
Hmm?
‘In 2006 the Mozilla Corporation generated 66.8 million dollars in revenue and 19.8 million in expenses, with 85% of that revenue coming from Google for “assigning [Google] as the browser’s default search engine, and for click-throughs on ads placed on the ensuing search results pages.”‘
They pay their developers, and they have a culture based around usability, utility, accessibility, without the huge emphasis on ideology and “freedom”. They even cooperate with.. Microsoft! Dread! Horror!
This is why Firefox is so good, and why GNU sucks so bad.
http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/these-things-i-believe/
http://www.azarask.in/blog/
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-offers-helping-hand-to-Firefox/2100-1032_3-6109455.html