10 ms·

Canonical asks desktop users to “pay what you think Ubuntu is worth”

126 points by recoiledsnake 14y ago

zobzu 14y ago
I'd rather donate to individual projects than the guys packaging stuff and making unity. Oh wait, that's what I do.
ghshephard 14y ago
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?
- octopus 14y ago
  The donation step is optional, so I see no "ethical" dilema here. If you can afford to donate some money to the project you could do it. If not, no problem you should use the product as you see fit. I suspect that most Ubuntu users can donate 16$ for the project.
- baddox 14y ago
  Obviously, the implication is to pay what you think it's worth to you. They're not asking for you to pay the entire industrial value of the Ubuntu ecosystem divided by the number of users.
- furyofantares 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    >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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        >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".
- NegativeK 14y ago
  At a higher level: In my view, when it comes to open source software, beer-free is a part of libre-free. If you can support the open source projects you use and want to stick around, that'd be good. At a shallow level, it will make them better. But if you ask an open source maintainer whether a cash-strapped college student or a third-world citizen should avoid using their software because they their donation money could be used for a different purpose..? I hope the answer is no. In fact, I hope the answer extends to "Bill Gates is welcome to use my code without compensating me. Obviously it'd be nice if he did, though." I'm willing to bet an imaginary nickel that the OSS devs I know would actually be pretty surprised if they received anything at all.
batgaijin 14y ago
I'd like to, but I think if anything I'd donate to Debian first.
- akurilin 14y ago
  Can you explain the reasoning behind that?
  - scarmig 14y ago
    Debian has done a lot, maybe the majority, of what makes Ubuntu possible? Debian is an actual nonprofit that can accept donations, while Canonical is a for-profit company to which you can only give voluntary payments masquerading as donations?
  - ivan_ah 14y ago
    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.
    - snogglethorpe 14y ago
      Well, you could support both, apportioned however seems reasonable to you ... e.g. "Ok, Debian provide the bulk of the core system, so $50 to Debian, and Ubuntu does some good work tweaking the UI, adding shiny, and holding users' hands, so $5 to them."
    - mekoka 14y ago
      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 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.
fingerprinter 14y ago
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.
- JadeNB 14y ago
  According to the article (with accompanying screenshot at http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-Ubuntu-worth-640x895.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-mu...), "Pay what you think Ubuntu is worth" is the text of an actual message (sometimes) displayed to users.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  The headline doesn't seem awful considering the actual screen which speaks for itself. http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-Ubuntu-worth.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-mu... Also, it's not a traditional donation in the Mozilla Firefox sense because you cannot deduct it from your taxes because Canonical is a for-profit commercial organization.
  - dfc 14y ago
    It seems that the appropriate comparison would be donating to Debian: http://www.debian.org/donations http://www.debian.org/donations
  - fdr 14y ago
    In this form, Canonical overstates an appropriate objective in the tips: support more hardware? How about supporting any, thoroughly? I have done my best to buy hardware that I thought was to be well supported (on the desktop! because I thought power management would be "too hard", so I've given up on laptops), but as far as I can tell, nobody is home doing the QA and holding back releases (or, by any other means, making sure they work) because of regressions, specifically in the area of hardware/driver issues. I don't need more half-broken crap. I need at least one thing that does work, all the time, across several releases, for three years at a stretch. I will pay for it. This is not represented among any of their available choices: even the one saying "support more hardware" suggests there is any level of support that is adequate. There is no such thing in end-user Linux-land (and I mean the kernel quite specifically) right now. That's not to fault Linux (although it may deserve it): nobody is withholding releases on the basis of quality on any one integration of hardware. As much as I despise their corporate philosophical direction, Apple does this very well. I say these things as a long time Ubuntu user (and still using it) who was pleased with the strides they were making in the mid-2000s, and still thinks they are the only Operating System seriously doing something about about omnibus Free-software usability today. I still have two Ubuntu workstations that are my primary sites of use, but now use it in begrudging concession to my professional needs and personal philosophy: not out of preference in any other dimension, least of which would be "quality." This makes me sad, but I'm getting too old and impatient to put up with this.
jakubw 14y ago
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.
- hakaaak 14y ago
  I think it would be a much better idea to have people give in the beginning, but instead of asking them where the money should go, tell them that their name will be included in the next release as a contributor on their site and in an "About Ubuntu" dialog in the desktop version and /etc/contributors on the server version where it lists the various levels of contributors and their names. This would encourage more businesses to give.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  True, the issue in particular with "hardware support" is that the biggest problems desktop users seem to run into with Ubuntu is video drivers for nvidia/ATI and it doesn't seem like there's much canonical can do about those anyway.
  - dfc 14y ago
    ATI drivers? The open source ATI drivers have progressed wonderfully recently. I never even flirt with the idea of tainting my desktops or laptops with proprietary drivers. The situation is different with nvidia but I am still happy with the machine I have with an old nvidia card I purchased for mining btc. What problems do people have with the free ATI drivers?
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      This is from June, here are some benchmarks of the proprietary Catalyst driver vs the open source driver built into ubuntu. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600g_compete12&num=3 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r... I'd be shocked if they'd made up that huge gap in 3 months.
comice 14y ago
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 :)
systematical 14y ago
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....
- joe_the_user 14y ago
  I think Unity is the least worthwhile part of Ubuntu but since it's already here, I'd like them to fund an alternative, not remove funding and keep it as it is. Edit: The page should a "make the desktop less awesome" side of the slider. If Unity is what they mean by "awesome", it should be slid back.
  - gknoy 14y ago
    I realize it's not part of the default distribution, but installing xubuntu-desktop is a nearly-painless way to ditch Unity for XFCE. I've been very happy with it.
    - cpearce 14y ago
      You can install Cinnamon (the window manager used by Linux Mint), and it's very good. It behaves "traditionally" (i.e. like Windows 7), and it's much prettier than XFCE.
      - buster 14y ago
        I recently switched to Cinnamon and couldn't be happier. I never really liked Unity, i used Gnome Shell and it was usable ok. But for my work nothing seems to beat the good old taskbar-based design.
xthexinternetx 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
bitwize 14y ago
This made me want to find the donate button on Slackware's page.
madrona 14y ago
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 14y ago
  The repository maintainers seem pretty shy, but I'm pretty sure that the original author behind apt is this guy: https://github.com/jgunthorpe https://github.com/jgunthorpe, and you could send him a few dollars using gittip: https://www.gittip.com/ https://www.gittip.com/
  - jarek 14y ago
    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/ https://www.gittip.com/about/
don_draper 14y ago
I'd pay for a light laptop with XUbuntu (xfce) and 3 years of support so that everything just works.
jrockway 14y ago
"Tip to Canonical - they help make it happen" That's why the packages end in .cpg: "Canonical PackaGe"?
- munchhausen 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      unset -f command_not_found_handle
    - vacri 14y ago
      On the wait-to-run-commands thing: I've been starting to familiarise myself with the redhat ecosystem and... it's crazy. Want to get yum to provide some installation info on a package on your system? Please wait while we check the servers for any updates...
jfb 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
mekoka 14y ago
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.
sciurus 14y ago
"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.
jaipilot747 14y ago
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 14y ago
It would be interesting if they upload donation statistics on what people want Ubuntu to do.
sandGorgon 14y ago
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 14y ago
  You can select which areas of development your payment goes to. http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-Ubuntu-worth.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-mu...
  - sandGorgon 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      Yes, there are... in fact, the unity developers are working in better multi-display support
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  Don't Ubuntu publish company accounts?
mikelward 14y ago
How do I contribute while discouraging Unity? Doubtless they will interpret "Make the desktop more amazing" as an encouragement rather than the opposite.
- UntitledNo4 14y ago
  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.
mariuolo 14y ago
It sounds like OSS panhandling.
buro9 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.
beloch 14y ago
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.

126 points by recoiledsnake 14y ago

zobzu 14y ago

I'd rather donate to individual projects than the guys packaging stuff and making unity. Oh wait, that's what I do.

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?

octopus 14y ago
The donation step is optional, so I see no "ethical" dilema here. If you can afford to donate some money to the project you could do it. If not, no problem you should use the product as you see fit. I suspect that most Ubuntu users can donate 16$ for the project.
baddox 14y ago
Obviously, the implication is to pay what you think it's worth to you. They're not asking for you to pay the entire industrial value of the Ubuntu ecosystem divided by the number of users.
furyofantares 14y ago
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 14y ago
  >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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      >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".
NegativeK 14y ago
At a higher level: In my view, when it comes to open source software, beer-free is a part of libre-free. If you can support the open source projects you use and want to stick around, that'd be good. At a shallow level, it will make them better. But if you ask an open source maintainer whether a cash-strapped college student or a third-world citizen should avoid using their software because they their donation money could be used for a different purpose..? I hope the answer is no. In fact, I hope the answer extends to "Bill Gates is welcome to use my code without compensating me. Obviously it'd be nice if he did, though." I'm willing to bet an imaginary nickel that the OSS devs I know would actually be pretty surprised if they received anything at all.

batgaijin 14y ago

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

akurilin 14y ago
Can you explain the reasoning behind that?
- scarmig 14y ago
  Debian has done a lot, maybe the majority, of what makes Ubuntu possible? Debian is an actual nonprofit that can accept donations, while Canonical is a for-profit company to which you can only give voluntary payments masquerading as donations?
- ivan_ah 14y ago
  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.
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    Well, you could support both, apportioned however seems reasonable to you ... e.g. "Ok, Debian provide the bulk of the core system, so $50 to Debian, and Ubuntu does some good work tweaking the UI, adding shiny, and holding users' hands, so $5 to them."
  - mekoka 14y ago
    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 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.

fingerprinter 14y ago

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.

JadeNB 14y ago
According to the article (with accompanying screenshot at http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-Ubuntu-worth-640x895.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-mu...), "Pay what you think Ubuntu is worth" is the text of an actual message (sometimes) displayed to users.
cooldeal 14y ago
The headline doesn't seem awful considering the actual screen which speaks for itself. http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-Ubuntu-worth.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-mu... Also, it's not a traditional donation in the Mozilla Firefox sense because you cannot deduct it from your taxes because Canonical is a for-profit commercial organization.
- dfc 14y ago
  It seems that the appropriate comparison would be donating to Debian: http://www.debian.org/donations http://www.debian.org/donations
- fdr 14y ago
  In this form, Canonical overstates an appropriate objective in the tips: support more hardware? How about supporting any, thoroughly? I have done my best to buy hardware that I thought was to be well supported (on the desktop! because I thought power management would be "too hard", so I've given up on laptops), but as far as I can tell, nobody is home doing the QA and holding back releases (or, by any other means, making sure they work) because of regressions, specifically in the area of hardware/driver issues. I don't need more half-broken crap. I need at least one thing that does work, all the time, across several releases, for three years at a stretch. I will pay for it. This is not represented among any of their available choices: even the one saying "support more hardware" suggests there is any level of support that is adequate. There is no such thing in end-user Linux-land (and I mean the kernel quite specifically) right now. That's not to fault Linux (although it may deserve it): nobody is withholding releases on the basis of quality on any one integration of hardware. As much as I despise their corporate philosophical direction, Apple does this very well. I say these things as a long time Ubuntu user (and still using it) who was pleased with the strides they were making in the mid-2000s, and still thinks they are the only Operating System seriously doing something about about omnibus Free-software usability today. I still have two Ubuntu workstations that are my primary sites of use, but now use it in begrudging concession to my professional needs and personal philosophy: not out of preference in any other dimension, least of which would be "quality." This makes me sad, but I'm getting too old and impatient to put up with this.

jakubw 14y ago

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.

hakaaak 14y ago
I think it would be a much better idea to have people give in the beginning, but instead of asking them where the money should go, tell them that their name will be included in the next release as a contributor on their site and in an "About Ubuntu" dialog in the desktop version and /etc/contributors on the server version where it lists the various levels of contributors and their names. This would encourage more businesses to give.
jiggy2011 14y ago
True, the issue in particular with "hardware support" is that the biggest problems desktop users seem to run into with Ubuntu is video drivers for nvidia/ATI and it doesn't seem like there's much canonical can do about those anyway.
- dfc 14y ago
  ATI drivers? The open source ATI drivers have progressed wonderfully recently. I never even flirt with the idea of tainting my desktops or laptops with proprietary drivers. The situation is different with nvidia but I am still happy with the machine I have with an old nvidia card I purchased for mining btc. What problems do people have with the free ATI drivers?
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    This is from June, here are some benchmarks of the proprietary Catalyst driver vs the open source driver built into ubuntu. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r600g_compete12&num=3 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_r... I'd be shocked if they'd made up that huge gap in 3 months.

comice 14y ago

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 :)

systematical 14y ago

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....

joe_the_user 14y ago
I think Unity is the least worthwhile part of Ubuntu but since it's already here, I'd like them to fund an alternative, not remove funding and keep it as it is. Edit: The page should a "make the desktop less awesome" side of the slider. If Unity is what they mean by "awesome", it should be slid back.
- gknoy 14y ago
  I realize it's not part of the default distribution, but installing xubuntu-desktop is a nearly-painless way to ditch Unity for XFCE. I've been very happy with it.
  - cpearce 14y ago
    You can install Cinnamon (the window manager used by Linux Mint), and it's very good. It behaves "traditionally" (i.e. like Windows 7), and it's much prettier than XFCE.
    - buster 14y ago
      I recently switched to Cinnamon and couldn't be happier. I never really liked Unity, i used Gnome Shell and it was usable ok. But for my work nothing seems to beat the good old taskbar-based design.

xthexinternetx 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

bitwize 14y ago

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

madrona 14y ago

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 14y ago
The repository maintainers seem pretty shy, but I'm pretty sure that the original author behind apt is this guy: https://github.com/jgunthorpe https://github.com/jgunthorpe, and you could send him a few dollars using gittip: https://www.gittip.com/ https://www.gittip.com/
- jarek 14y ago
  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/ https://www.gittip.com/about/

don_draper 14y ago

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

jrockway 14y ago

"Tip to Canonical - they help make it happen" That's why the packages end in .cpg: "Canonical PackaGe"?

munchhausen 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    unset -f command_not_found_handle
  - vacri 14y ago
    On the wait-to-run-commands thing: I've been starting to familiarise myself with the redhat ecosystem and... it's crazy. Want to get yum to provide some installation info on a package on your system? Please wait while we check the servers for any updates...

jfb 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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.

mekoka 14y ago

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.

sciurus 14y ago

"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.

jaipilot747 14y ago

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 14y ago

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

sandGorgon 14y ago

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 14y ago
You can select which areas of development your payment goes to. http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-much-is-Ubuntu-worth.png http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/how-mu...
- sandGorgon 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Yes, there are... in fact, the unity developers are working in better multi-display support
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
Don't Ubuntu publish company accounts?

mikelward 14y ago

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

UntitledNo4 14y ago
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.

mariuolo 14y ago

It sounds like OSS panhandling.

buro9 14y ago

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 14y ago
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.

beloch 14y ago

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.