Canonical’s most famous project is Ubuntu. But Launchpad, another of the company’s major endeavors, has been around just as long–even though many casual Ubuntu users may not be aware of its existence. Here’s a look at the value Launchpad offers, and where it fits into Canonical’s present and future.
As we discussed in a recent post on Canonical’s business strategy, Ubuntu’s parent company has many sticks in the fire. Beyond its most popular product–traditional desktop Linux–Canonical has invested heavily in servers, cloud computing and netbooks, as well as services such as Ubuntu One.
In a sense, the Launchpad website, which dates to 2004, is the hub that ties these disparate initiatives together, offering a suite of tools for planning, developing and maintaining Canonical’s projects. In addition, it provides a platform for a wide range of third-party developers to do the same.
Launchpad’s Importance
Launchpad is not totally unique, of course. Other services and applications, such as SourceForge and Bugzilla, offer many of the same core features, including bug tracking and source code hosting.
Taken as a whole, however, Launchpad has unique value, from the standpoints of both Canonical and the larger Ubuntu community. In particular, consider the following features made possible by the website:
- Personal Package Archives (PPAs): Launchpad hosts more than 6,000 active PPAs, which make it easy for developers to publish their software securely and in a place where users have easy access to it. Without the many PPAs available on Launchpad, Ubuntu’s huge diversity of applications, which represents one of the distribution’s major selling points, would be much more difficult to maintain.
- Integrating the open-source/closed-source worlds: despite its close ties to Ubuntu, Launchpad doesn’t discriminate against closed-source projects–after all, the Launchpad code itself was closed for the first several years of its existence. To stalwart followers of Richard Stallman, this may be a bad thing. From a practical point of view, however, Launchpad’s availability for hosting proprietary projects as well as open-source ones benefits Linux users in general, by making it easier for closed-source developers to reach them.
- Build services: beyond hosting application packages in PPAs, Launchpad offers a free service for compiling binaries and building packages on different architectures. That makes it easy for programmers who lack an abundance of CPU power and/or familiarity with Debian packaging to publish their software for Ubuntu, which in turn benefits users by making more applications available to them.
- Revenue generation: while Launchpad is probably not generating much cash for Canonical at the moment, it offers a potential major revenue stream in the form of charging for proprietary development (thanks to mpt for the reminder about this in a previous post). A fee–currently $250 annually–is required to register proprietary projects on the site. So far, the vast majority of projects are open-source, but Launchpad has recently been pushing new beta features, such as private PPAs, that may attract more closed-source developers.
Without a doubt, Launchpad’s value has yet to be fully exploited. And with Canonical busy working on a variety of other fronts, Launchpad’s evolution over the years has been slow, if steady. Nonetheless, the website stands at the core of Canonical’s initiatives, while also underwriting many of the features vital to Ubuntu users–whether they realize it or not.
Read More About This Topic
Share This Post
Tags: launchpad
Interact: Add a Comment | Trackback Link | Permalink
Subscribe: RSS Feed

Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
I think you should really compare the Launchpad PPA stats to the OpenSuse Build service stats. The OBS provides build support for both rpm and debian packaging for multiple distributions and architectures (arm* and ppc for specific distributions)
as of today:
“The openSUSE Build Service hosts 14,869 projects, with 99,262 packages, in 24,642 repositories and is used by 24,595 confirmed users.”
Considering that OpenSuse Build Service is just a build service and not a code hosting or bug tracker….. how does that compare to Launchpad’s PPA stats? OBS provides _much_ better coverage for binary creation across many different linux distribution targets including Ubuntu. It provides much better _value_ to the independent code developer who wants to build projects and deploy widely across multiple linux distributions. Launchpad’s PPA’s are a very deliberately Ubuntu specific. Canonical doesn’t even provide Debian PPA’s because of the resource burn even though it would be possible for them to do so:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bug/188564/comments/27
Launchpad is very specifically crafted to be a benefit to Ubuntu and _only_ Ubuntu. It is designed, deliberately, to streamline ease-of-deployment on Ubuntu release targets as part of a networking effect strategy to entice developers to prefer Ubuntu as a deployment target.
When you look at the numbers, really look at the numbers, it’s very clear that other services like OBS and like github and google code (all services of the same vintage as or newer than launchpad ) that upstream developers actually prefer
deployment neutral services when they can get them. The amount of code sitting at google code or github for example dwarfs the amount of code hosted by launchpad.
To really understand the value of launchpad as an independent project service provider (ie not tied to Canonical or Ubuntu) you really have to drill down below the misleading launchpad front page numbers and start counting the number of projects that actually use launchpad as a primary development resource.
Another question..which you should be able to answer by looking closely at the project information… How many existing private projects are there? And how many proprietary projects are Canonical internal projects versus 3rd party projects. All the proprietary or private projects I’ve spotted checked are in-house Canonical efforts. Which is fine, dog fooding your own infrastructure for your own projects is perfectly reasonable. But that’s not a revenue stream.
-jef