4 ms·

Elementry's Dev team doesn't pay for Ubuntu, they don't pay for the Kernel or GNU Tools This attitude is why we don't see Linux startups -- just volunteer effo

Elementry's Dev team doesn't pay for Ubuntu, they don't pay for the Kernel or GNU Tools This attitude is why we don't see Linux startups -- just volunteer efforts, run on peoples spare time that they eventually get burnt out on and give up. They are asking for $10. They aren't asking for a huge sum of money. $10 could be a very reasonable amount of money for the effort they've put into it. Yes, it's built on free software... but when I (and many other people too) build their start up on free software and charge money.. we don't ask how much of that is going to Nginx, Linux, etc... we say, they're charging for the time/effort required to build that service. And just like how many startups would be forced to charge higher prices if they had to redevelop nginx, etc... elementaryOS wouldn't be $10 if they had to duplicate all of that work.

icebraining 12y ago
orik isn't criticizing them for charging, though, but for calling some users "cheaters" for doing essentially the same they are doing - getting Free Software for free.
pjmlp 12y ago
This is why after my open source phase as university student back in the mid-90's, I ended up doing mostly commercial software. Unless one hits jackpot a la RedHat, or is doing consulting/teaching/web paywalls, open source seldom pays bills.
- couchand 12y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. Some of the best open source work has been done by folks who do pull in a salary from a commercial venture. A few of those are designated open-source positions, but the vast majority are just people who contribute on the side. And I hope you can appreciate how demeaning it is to call your time contributing to open source a "phase".
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    What I call a phase was the idea that I would be able to live just from open source no matter which type of business area. I still work with open source tools and do contribute occasionally with bug reports, bug fixes, advocacy and money. Just don't believe any longer that all types of business are possible with open source. Many just don't go along with it, at least for those that want to their their bills.
- zxcvcxz 12y ago
  Being a Chef seldom pays bills too, but it doesn't mean you should stop so you can get a job at McDonalds. (And once you get that McDonalds job, it doesn't mean you have to stop cooking good food).
  - pjmlp 12y ago
    Actually it does, as I only equate Chefs with restaurants that tend to be on cuisine magazines.
    - zxcvcxz 12y ago
      > Actually it does, as I only equate Chefs with restaurants that tend to be on cuisine magazines. But sadly this isn't true in the real world. When I think of a Chef I think of a great cook, someone who doesn't need someone else to tell them how to mix ingredients. It's a disservice to the chef to go and waste their time at McDonalds, but it's pretty rare you become successful a la Gordon Ramsey or something. It's not a very smart decision to put all that time and effort into learning to be a master chef just to throw it away at some corporate place where no one appreciates you. But hey if you need the money and your food isn't all that great anyway...
      - pjmlp 12y ago
        Life is made of choices.
adekok 12y ago
> They are asking for $10. They aren't asking for a huge sum of money. $10 could be a very reasonable amount of money for the effort they've put into it. It's a matter of marketing. Everyone knows it's based on Ubuntu, so they feel cheated when they're asked to pay for a free OS. A marketing solution is to sell it as: * base system $0 - VM with free download, no whines about "cheating". And the base VM gets you an Ubuntu image which boots to a shell prompt. * Elementary additions: $$. The base system plus our less-filling, weight-loss inducing proprietary magic! People are happy to pay money for linux application. Not many people, and for not a lot of money. But people do pay. Having happy paying customers is a lot better than calling your potential customer base "cheaters". That's just stupid .
- SunShiranui 12y ago
  Surely one can already download the "base system" from the Ubuntu website?
  - adekok 12y ago
    That's not the point. The point is right now, they are asking people to pay for a free version of Ubuntu. This annoys people. They should change their pricing model to make it clear that the base OS is free. And that their additions are a product which should be paid for.
- csense 12y ago
  Base system: $0. You have to manually edit a bunch of config files and compile some things from source. Easy point-and-click installer: $$.
zxcvcxz 12y ago
>This attitude is why we don't see Linux startups What are you talking about? A startup that sells Linux distros? There are A LOT more reasons we don't see people selling Linux distros than just this. So what does this have to do with anything? If your argument is that people don't use Linux in the start up world that's wrong too. Plenty of start ups use Linux and I'd say it's about 50/50 when it comes to share between OS X and Linux. We already know from stack overflow surveys that OS X and Linux are neck-and-neck when it comes to developer use, and we already know that Linux is almost always the choice when it comes to servers for start-ups. Is your argument that people don't want to buy Linux software? There are plenty of people paying for Linux software (especially enterprise) and you can just look at the humble bundle for evidence that Linux users are more than willing to pay for software. I don't know many Mac only start-ups that are very successful.

icebraining 12y ago

orik isn't criticizing them for charging, though, but for calling some users "cheaters" for doing essentially the same they are doing - getting Free Software for free.

pjmlp 12y ago

This is why after my open source phase as university student back in the mid-90's, I ended up doing mostly commercial software. Unless one hits jackpot a la RedHat, or is doing consulting/teaching/web paywalls, open source seldom pays bills.

couchand 12y ago
This is a false dichotomy. Some of the best open source work has been done by folks who do pull in a salary from a commercial venture. A few of those are designated open-source positions, but the vast majority are just people who contribute on the side. And I hope you can appreciate how demeaning it is to call your time contributing to open source a "phase".
- pjmlp 12y ago
  What I call a phase was the idea that I would be able to live just from open source no matter which type of business area. I still work with open source tools and do contribute occasionally with bug reports, bug fixes, advocacy and money. Just don't believe any longer that all types of business are possible with open source. Many just don't go along with it, at least for those that want to their their bills.
zxcvcxz 12y ago
Being a Chef seldom pays bills too, but it doesn't mean you should stop so you can get a job at McDonalds. (And once you get that McDonalds job, it doesn't mean you have to stop cooking good food).
- pjmlp 12y ago
  Actually it does, as I only equate Chefs with restaurants that tend to be on cuisine magazines.
  - zxcvcxz 12y ago
    > Actually it does, as I only equate Chefs with restaurants that tend to be on cuisine magazines. But sadly this isn't true in the real world. When I think of a Chef I think of a great cook, someone who doesn't need someone else to tell them how to mix ingredients. It's a disservice to the chef to go and waste their time at McDonalds, but it's pretty rare you become successful a la Gordon Ramsey or something. It's not a very smart decision to put all that time and effort into learning to be a master chef just to throw it away at some corporate place where no one appreciates you. But hey if you need the money and your food isn't all that great anyway...
    - pjmlp 12y ago
      Life is made of choices.

adekok 12y ago

> They are asking for $10. They aren't asking for a huge sum of money. $10 could be a very reasonable amount of money for the effort they've put into it. It's a matter of marketing. Everyone knows it's based on Ubuntu, so they feel cheated when they're asked to pay for a free OS. A marketing solution is to sell it as: * base system $0 - VM with free download, no whines about "cheating". And the base VM gets you an Ubuntu image which boots to a shell prompt. * Elementary additions: $$. The base system plus our less-filling, weight-loss inducing proprietary magic! People are happy to pay money for linux application. Not many people, and for not a lot of money. But people do pay. Having happy paying customers is a lot better than calling your potential customer base "cheaters". That's just stupid .

SunShiranui 12y ago
Surely one can already download the "base system" from the Ubuntu website?
- adekok 12y ago
  That's not the point. The point is right now, they are asking people to pay for a free version of Ubuntu. This annoys people. They should change their pricing model to make it clear that the base OS is free. And that their additions are a product which should be paid for.
csense 12y ago
Base system: $0. You have to manually edit a bunch of config files and compile some things from source. Easy point-and-click installer: $$.

zxcvcxz 12y ago

>This attitude is why we don't see Linux startups What are you talking about? A startup that sells Linux distros? There are A LOT more reasons we don't see people selling Linux distros than just this. So what does this have to do with anything? If your argument is that people don't use Linux in the start up world that's wrong too. Plenty of start ups use Linux and I'd say it's about 50/50 when it comes to share between OS X and Linux. We already know from stack overflow surveys that OS X and Linux are neck-and-neck when it comes to developer use, and we already know that Linux is almost always the choice when it comes to servers for start-ups. Is your argument that people don't want to buy Linux software? There are plenty of people paying for Linux software (especially enterprise) and you can just look at the humble bundle for evidence that Linux users are more than willing to pay for software. I don't know many Mac only start-ups that are very successful.