Linux Shedding Indie Status is a Good Thing

by Joe Brockmeier - Apr. 21, 2010Comments (14)

Fedora Logo

Having watched people advocate the Linux desktop for more than 10 years, it's always surprising to see the same people arguing against the things that will help bring Linux (and software freedom) to a larger audience. But like the fanboys who pine for the days before indie bands went to major labels, there's a loud minority in the Linux community protesting the commercial offerings that come along with success.

Take for example Bruce Byfield, who complains in his review of Fedora 13 about the "troubling" addition of free software from corporate interests. Specifically the Zarafa collaboration suite and GNOME's Déjà Dup, which can back up user files to Amazon S3.

Here's Byfield's complaint with the inclusion in Fedora of these packages:

For many users, including me, one of the features of the free desktop is its absence of commercialization. You may see an Oracle logo when booting OpenOffice.org, but you do not see heavily branded applications or wizards. Or, if you do, the brands are for free software projects.

Now, with Fedora adding links to Amazon S3 and Zarafa (and Ubuntu to UbuntuOne and its new music store), the two most popular Linux distributions are changing. Instead of being a refuge from commercialization, they are becoming new venues for it.

Byfield further complains that the tenuous ties to commercial services are "are a jarring intrusion into a world that we have come to take for granted."

Maybe for users who enjoy doing things the hard way and using a desktop system that hasn't been able to crack double-digit market share. For those of us who want to use a free desktop to get work done it's a welcome addition to the community. For those of us who advocate the free desktop to friends and family who not only don't want to hassle with their systems but also lack the technical skills to do so, seeing Zarafa and Déjà Dup in Fedora is a great thing.

I'm not arguing that all commercial features are good for the community or the users. But after more than a decade of lobbying companies to support Linux, it's amazing to then see people complaining about their involvement or interest. Fedora's offense? Linking to corporate services that users can opt to use.

Zarafa is "open core" software, so its appearance in Fedora means that it might lead to some non-free software. However, what's in Fedora is strictly open source. The software that is in Fedora represents a net increase in the amount of open software, and is therefore a good thing. Arguing that Fedora or other community distros should only accept software if it's part of a non-commercial offering with no proprietary services in sight is myopic. All that will accomplish is decreasing the companies interested in investing in open source.

The packages Byfield complains about do nothing to decrease the freedom or quality of Fedora. They do nothing to impinge on his enjoyment of the Fedora desktop except exist. And Byfield fails to articulate what's actually wrong with "commercialization" beyond an apparent indie sensitivity that "commercialization is bad."

If Byfield considered Ubuntu or Fedora a "refuge from commercialization," he must be unaware of the deep investment in the distributions made by their respective corporate parents. The reason for so many rapid improvements in the Linux kernel between releases? Because Red Hat, Novell, IBM, and many other companies have seen fit to pour money into Linux kernel development to further commercial opportunities. The reason that X.org continues to improve every release? Because Red Hat, Novell, Intel, Canonical, and other commercial entities pour money into X development because it furthers their commercial opportunities.

Saying that 2010 is "the year in which commercialization became embedded in the free desktop" ignores most of the last decade. The Ubuntu and Fedora communities exist because of commercial interests. If it weren't for Red Hat and Canonical believing that those efforts would produce some return on investment, they wouldn't pour the millions of dollars into community building, software development, and distribution of the community distros. That isn't the sole reason for their existence, and certainly not the key reason that so many contributors devote time to those projects, but it's also something that users and contributors need to keep in mind.

Byfield recommends CentOS and Debian for users seeking "refuge" from commercialization. Both fine projects, and they're great for a lot of users. But Ubuntu exists in part because Debian doesn't make a very good distro for mainstream users. CentOS is simply a re-packaging of a commercial Linux distro. If it weren't for Red Hat's work, CentOS likely cease to exist. So what's to gain from avoiding all hints of commercialization? Refusing to acknowledge the contribution that companies make to the production of free software?

Linux is evolving and becoming more suitable for mainstream users. Commercialization means more opportunity to expose a wider audience to free and open source software. It also means more people will be paid to produce more free and open source software. If that's off-putting for a minority contingent that can't abide "commercialization," then there's always OpenBSD...

Previous: IBM Cozies Up to SUS...Next: What Were the Headli... Browse Blog

by jospoortvliet on Apr. 21, 2010

openBSD wouldn't advance if there was no commercial involvement either... I fully agree with your sentiment, btw, companies building FOSS have my full support. As long as they play by the rules, obviously ;-)

0 Votes

by chazbro on Apr. 21, 2010

Idiots! Imbeciles! Too many people are confusing the term Free when they speak about Linux. Look "Free" as in free beer should always be viewed as a major plus for Linux, not a requirement. Linux should always be "Free" as in _Freedom_ to view, write, edit, and ultimately alter the source code, and the source code of any and all software that each distro uses. FREEDOM should always be mandatory for Linux. FREE (as in no charge) should not be. Commercial software is just fine, provided it is open source. Come on, people! What about all those Commercial Enterprise Linux distros? Are you going to complain about those, too? Gosh, I really thought that we covered this already.

0 Votes

by Ian Monroe on Apr. 21, 2010

And its not like 100% community distros don't exist, like he even points out. (Though pretty hilarious that he gives CentOS as an alternative!) Arch Linux, Gentoo, probably many others.

But personally I think the community/commercial partnerships we see with Ubuntu, Fedora and openSUSE work out pretty well.

Also commercial or not, Amazon S3 is probably the best tool desktop open source has to do cloud computing. Unlike Google's cloud offerings, S3 is offering infrastructure at a very basic level that doesn't take away the users right to their data. Add on encryption and you have full privacy.

0 Votes

by chazbro on Apr. 21, 2010

0 Votes

by Bruce Byfield on Apr. 21, 2010

Zonker, I'm not talking about commercial investment in the desktop. Everybody knows that has gone on a long time, and anyone who stops to think must realize that free software wouldn't be where it was without this investment.

However, until recently, investors have been content to make their contributions with no return except the advantages that bring a project along has brought them. What has changed is that these investors are now being named on the desktop. In effect, they now have a commercial on the desktop.

If you want to see where this sort of thing might lead to, spend some time on a Windows desktop.

And before you start slamming my misgivings, have you ever used an ad-blocker in your web browser? If you have, then you are no fonder of commercials than I am, and have no right to deride my preferences for a commercial-free desktop.

The fan-boy analogy is nice and pithy, but misrepresents the misgivings I expressed. I'm simply someone who prefers to get on with his computing without having someone trying to sell me something. This seems a sane preference to me, and it's surprising to me that anyone can see anything wrong with it.

0 Votes

by El Spamolito on Apr. 22, 2010

i had not used linux before.i know little about it.Linux is a one the most usable operating system.

http://www.articlesbase.com/finance-articles/automated-forex-trading-sys...

0 Votes

by Joe Brockmeier on Apr. 22, 2010

@Bruce "What has changed is that these investors are now being named on the desktop."

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Deja Dup only mentions Amazon S3 if you choose it from the other options. (You neglect to mention that it supports backing up over SSH, FTP, etc... users aren't forced to chose S3.) Users have to seek out Zarafa. It's not even in the default install. If your threshold for rampant commercialism is "we have an open source package in the repository that's the core of a larger product that contains some proprietary bits" then why haven't you objected to OpenOffice.org all these years?

"have you ever used an ad-blocker in your web browser? If you have, then you are no fonder of commercials than I am, and have no right to deride my preferences for a commercial-free desktop."

Have *ever used an ad blocker? I'm sure I have at some point to test for an article, but I don't use one out of habit. Seeing as I understand the connection between ads and funding for sites that pay writers, I don't think it reasonable.

You also write for sites that display plenty of ads. If the users who read your column had your attitude, you'd be out of a job pretty quickly.

I don't think I've misrepresented anything - you're content to reap the benefits of commercialism and use a distro without any return. At the first sign of overt ties to commercial products, you complain. If it makes you happier to use Debian, then go do so.

But users who complain about "commercialism" over the incidents you cite get no sympathy from me. It sounds like the same people who complain that the free t-shirts at a show have sponsor logos on them.

0 Votes

by GreyGeek on Apr. 22, 2010

This is a tempest in a tea kettle. With hundreds of distro to choose from, and at least a couple dozen or more that are world class, if one doesn't like the commercialism of the distro they are using they can vote with their feet and move to another one. This voting has been going on for years and will continue to do so.

For example, my distro of choice is Kubuntu. IF Canonical makes Kubuntu dependent on MONO I will simply move to another, equally good distro, like PCLinuxOS, Fedora or a dozen others.

0 Votes

by Ken Z on Apr. 22, 2010

Commercialism has not increased in Linux at all. What you are seeing is distro-providers coming up with new ways to fund their business--something beyond the traditional sales of services related to FOSS. There have always been commercial ties behind Linux and the many parts that make it up. For example, how long has Google, RedHat, and IBM provided support and improvements for Linux--many many years. Corporate interests have been feeding it for many years and will continue to do so. The very same corporate and private entities who contribute to it also receive much from it. For example how many FOSS driven servers make up the Google network and how much do they save annually because they are avoiding the license fees that so many business pay the typical corporate software monopoly. --they have saved $billions by using FOSS and will continue to do so.

Let's just hope that Linux and underlying applications remain FOSS and the corporate powers to be do not hijack it for their own selfish and monopolistic purposes. Hopefully healthy competition and the powerful GPL will keep this from happening. The GPL is a brilliant piece of work and has provided what was needed to create and advance Linux and FOSS in general.

BTW - we do not really understand what the market share is for Linux--no one does. There is no good way to measure it. Don't believe what you read in the press because it is usually slanted heavily and defined specifically to making Linux look insignificant. I believe that Linux use and market penetration is actually is far more than reported. It matters significantly -how- you define the 'Market". If you define it in dollars, then you will be WAY off.

I have read that one third of all netbooks sold are provided with Linux. So that is, just for netbooks, about 10M or so in 2009? How do you measure how many systems have Linux installed on them--even systems that were originally sold as Windows systems? Consider these kinds of issues when you read the silly market estimations in the press. ...Linux market share in my home is 100%!

0 Votes

by Bruce Byfield on Apr. 22, 2010

Yes, the current trends are relatively minor. If I seem to exaggerate, it's because I am extrapolating to consider what might happen. Personally, I think the issue is worth considering now, before it gets firmly established.

As for the question of using an ad blocker, I commend you for having thought the issue through (For the record, I follow the same logic as you do, but very uncomfortably, because of my distaste for advertising). But even if you don't personally use an ad blocker, many people do, and from a number of online conversations, I suspect that many ad blockers would feel the same way that I do about ads on the desktop.

Where your misrepresentation lies is in your leaping to the conclusion that I must object to all commercial involvement in free software. I don't, and nothing in what I wrote suggests that -- it's an idea that comes entirely from you. You're setting me up as a straw man by attributing opinions to me that I have not expressed, but can be vaguely lumped in with what I am saying so long as nobody looks too closely.

What I am questioning is not commercial involvement, but the fact that the terms of that involvement appear to be changing. Where commercial companies have been content to be involved for intangible benefits, they now seem to edging towards wanting more than their logo on a briefly seen splash screen. If that is so, then the terms of their involvement are changing, and I think it's worth considering that change, and what the limits of the benefits received should be.

Oh, and BTW - when I'm offered a free T-shirt covered in logos, I make a habit of refusing it. Before I turn myself into a walking billboard, I am at least going to be well-paid -- and representing a cause or company that I respect.

0 Votes

by paul on Apr. 22, 2010

Not to mention all the old systems still running thanks to GNU/Linux and OSS.

I feel the same way re Linux/OSS market share. I think it's much more than we or any market analyst can know.

Even so, I don't mind when someone is concerned about seeing a commercial presence that might not have been there before. I think it's important that we stay vigilant re the non-commercial status of GNU/Linux and OSS. Just as Ken has mentioned, we don't want to see the corporate powers hijack Linux/OSS.

But we are fortunate to have many choices re distros. So as Greygeek pointed out, vote with your feet. If a distro seems to be changing in a way you don't like, move to another.

0 Votes

by Me on Apr. 22, 2010

I agree with this article, without commercial support I don't think it will be that usable. Ubuntu is put out there by a corporation. A lot of open source software is backed by corporations. If they can find a way to make it profitable for them great! Why not? They aren't charging us for it.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Apr. 22, 2010

OpenBSD is advancing ... :-)

0 Votes

by Antony on Aug. 14, 2010

They say when you star using Linux, you also become a programmer. The most important point that there would not be monopoly.

http://hubpages.com/hub/trading-strategies-forex

0 Votes