Hide Your IP Address

Hide your IP address and Protect your Identity Online




The Two-Tier Internet – Fighting for Control Of the Web’s Future 2010-08-26 21:14:14 (2 days ago) Posted by: Intellpuke (Read 307 times || 0 comments)

As data volumes continue to grow, it’s clear that the Internet’s infrastructure needs upgrading. What’s not clear is who is going to pay for it. Web activists fear the development of a two-tier Internet, where corporations have priority and dissenting voices get pushed to the margins.

The group that had gathered in front of Google headquarters in Mountain View, California was relatively small. only around 100 protesters had turned out to lend offline expression to their anger at the corporation’s latest plan.

the online community, however, reacted with far more alarm. Bloggers in the United States, Europe and Asia warned of a threat to Internet freedom, while consumer protection agencies said they feared interference with data traffic that could have unforeseeable consequences for media diversity. Germany’s consumer protection minister, Ilse Aigner, declared that she had “no sympathy” for companies “distorting competition at the expense of the consumer.”

The cause of all this commotion was seemingly minor, a joint statement issued by Google and telecommunications giant Verizon that outlined in seven brief bullet points the two companies’ proposal for a future regulatory framework for the Internet.

Most of the suggestions were hardly spectacular, but one in particular packed a significant punch: the two corporations called for governments to leave it up to the market to determine whether telecommunications companies should be allowed to charge an additional fee for certain data-intensive services – especially if customers want speedy access. Examples could include medical services, online games or power grid management.

(story continues below)

No Discrimination

Until now, the Internet has remained largely neutral, with no one discriminated against and no one given preferential treatment. Blog posts are transmitted just as quickly as Google’s data. But the flood of information continues to swell. American technology corporation Cisco predicts that annual data volumes will quadruple by 2014 to around 767 exabytes (one exabyte is equivalent to 1 billion gigabytes) – a capacity equivalent to 12 billion DVDs per month.

In other words, many billions of euros will need to go into upgrading the Internet over the next months and years. Telecommunications companies fear this will hardly be possible if they continue to play by the conventional rules. they have been flirting for some time with the idea of a two-tier Internet, in which users could pay to have their data transmitted more quickly. Google’s latest advance suits these companies quite well.

The Internet, which has been a work-in-progress for the last 30 years, is transforming itself into something new yet again. more and more people access the Internet on the go from their cell phones. Instead of browsers, they prefer a quick click on an app – a small additional program – that lets them, for example, listen to the radio via their cell phone.

A Growing Cloud

The Web is also being used to transmit increasing volumes of videos and music, both of which put enormous strain on networks. At the same time, the proportion of Internet traffic related to old-fashioned e-mail is shrinking. Instead, vacation videos and birthday photos – things that in the past were more likely to be stored at home – are now being shuffled back and forth online, uploaded to services such as YouTube, Flickr and Picasa (see graphic).

This relatively new approach is known as cloud computing. Thanks to the globally accessible “cloud,” home computers have lost their previous importance – users are increasingly able to store their data on central servers run by telephone or Internet providers.

This development increases the value of the global network, but it also raises some questions. who, for example, should call the shots in the future? who should profit from which aspects of the system – the service provider, the content provider or the customer portal? And which laws should apply to these channels, which are vital to both private individuals and entire economies?

This discussion sees the collision of two very different concepts of freedom. one side insists that individuals should be able to freely access information at any time. the other calls for the companies operating the system to have the freedom to devise new business models.

Best Effort no Longer Enough

Until now, the Internet operated following the so-called “best effort” principle, explains Wolfgang Kopf, head of regulation at the German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom. This means that any information sent over the Internet by any customer is treated more or less equally, each data packet directed through to its destination regardless of the identity of the customer or the importance of the information.

But as data traffic increases and services grow more sophisticated, this method becomes more difficult. Choppy video transmission, breaks in Skype conversations and incomplete transmission of televised musical events are all possible consequences.

Many telecommunications companies say it will be necessary to invest many billions of euros into the Internet in order to continue to ensure uninterrupted service. they also point out that the ones to profit so far have been providers such as Google, Apple and YouTube, who pay nothing while raking in profits. Investment costs fall instead to the telecommunications companies, who are simultaneously seeing more and more of their traditional business segments collapse. René Obermann, CEO of Telekom, doesn’t want his company’s role reduced to just providing Internet access for others.

As profit margins for pure Internet service providers grow ever narrower, companies are focusing instead on NGN, or next generation networking. Along with a platform for transferring data, NGN offers a separate control level which creates a simple, long-awaited ability to provide – and charge for – express services.

Are Customers willing to Pay?

Alongside traditional data traffic, it would allow the establishment of paid services which the customer could decide to activate by clicking, for example, on a “high-speed” button. Medical and video applications, for example, could receive a special right of way, while certain search queries could be carried out more quickly and extensively – provided, of course, that customers are willing to pay for this service, as they are already accustomed to paying for ringtones or apps.

Since Apple’s iPhone conquered the market, telecommunications companies and service providers have been experiencing firsthand what happens when network capacity is insufficient. American telephone giant AT&T has been struggling for months with quality issues in its cellular network that have led to dropped calls and sometimes even complete service blackouts, especially in population centers.

Service flat rates provided along with smartphones such as the iPhone are one cause of these problems, as is content, especially radio programs and videos, that pushes networks to their limits. both customers and providers are getting fed up.

“No one benefits from conditions like these,” says Harald Stober, vice president of the Association of Telecommunications and Value-Added Service Providers (VATM), an interest group representing the other German telecommunications companies that compete against former monopolist Deutsche Telekom. all these competitors find themselves in agreement, for once, on the question of redesigning the Internet. it could allow the creation of new business models in the Internet, Stober suggests, and companies shouldn’t be denied the opportunity.

Stuck in the slow Lane

Torsten Gerpott, a professor of telecommunications studies in the German city of Duisburg, doesn’t see Deutsche Telekom’s plans causing massive changes to the system. Consumers already pay different prices for different types of access, he says, and in principle he has few objections to differentiation if the Web is truly experiencing capacity problems.

Nevertheless, critics see this as precisely where freedom for businesses collides with diversity of opinion. they envision, for example, large companies renting out a virtual fast lane for their services and content, with innovative start-ups and critical bloggers relegated to the channels for regular data, the online equivalent of a rough dirt road.

“Companies such as Verizon want to determine which data are transmitted faster, which slower and which not at all – and who pays how much for it,” says Gundolf S. Freyermuth, a professor of applied media studies at the International Film School in Cologne. “That amounts to attempts to colonize the new public sphere of the Internet.”

Organizations for data protection and consumer rights have collected examples of situations in which Internet and telecommunications companies may have abused their power over data. in one 2004 case, according to German consumer rights centers, German Internet provider Freenet blocked its clients’ access to certain websites that had expressed criticism toward the company’s business practices. the proposed two-class Internet, these organizations say, would open the floodgates for this type of abuse.

Already a Reality

Instead, critics want to legally codify the principle of “Net neutrality.” Computer experts such as Kristian Köhntopp, though, warn that this buzzword is too imprecise. “Already, the Internet is often not neutral,” Köhntopp explains. many flat rate packages are shams, he adds, and “providers reduce speeds selectively without informing customers.”

“Activists and companies tend to talk as if the two-class Internet were a vision of the future, but it already became reality long ago,” says Bernd Holznagel, director of the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law at the University of Munster.

It especially bothers him that some companies selectively choose what to block. T-Mobile, for one, long kept its competitor Skype from being used on the iPhone. now, says Holznagel, the competitor is penalized with a separate €10 ($12.60) fee.

“We need an anti-discrimination clause to make competition and innovation possible,” says Holznagel. he also suggests that basic services should be openly available, as is currently the case with postal services or radio. That could create a compromise, something like a “one-and-a-half tier” Internet.

Distracted by Smaller Issues

“Rather than symbolic politics, we need definitions of what Net neutrality really should be – and this is where the Google/Verizon proposal is very helpful,” says Holznagel. now, he adds, politicians need to take the next step.

Holznagel has long been waiting for a draft version of an amendment to Germany’s Telecommunication Law (TKG) that the federal government is required to submit by the middle of 2011, according to E.U. guidelines. “The amendment to the Telecommunication Law is extremely important and there are billions of euros involved,” he says.

He feels, however, that attention is being distracted by other, less important debates, such as the ongoing controversy over Google’s Steet View service,which will be launched in Germany later this year and which has been criticized because of privacy concerns. “Politicians would rather jump on smaller issues like Google Street View,” says Holznagel. “After all, photographing buildings is easier to understand.”

Intellpuke: You can read this article by Spiegel journalists Frank Dohmen, Martin U. Muller and Hilmar Schmundt in context here: www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,713835,00.html This article was translated from the German for Spiegel by Ella Ornstein.


last fall, we covered Tor’s successful porting to the Android platform. at that time and to this day, continuing to protect users’ privacy occupies a lot of time for Tor’s volunteers and developers. from the Google blog post:

“Why is anonymity online so important? Companies like Google have privacy and opt-out policies, but not everyone has this stance. Corporations, nations, criminal organizations and individuals want your information. Companies collect information on your web browsing habits and sell it or are sloppy when it comes to protecting it from identity thieves. Others can threaten lives, from repressive nations tracking down outspoken journalists, to abusive spouses or stalkers who want to find out where their victims are hiding; from enemy military forces trying to find a communications link, to criminals who know when law enforcement is watching online[...]

Even people living in countries where free speech is protected by law need anonymity for political activities. People blogging about political views that differ from the prevailing attitudes in a small community may lose a job or face boycotts if they run a business. In a company town, writing about the misdeeds of the company that employs your neighbors may be dangerous. Telling people about corruption could lead to harassment from guilty officials.”

This graph shows how, in 2009, use of Tor grew as users scrambled to circumvent firewalls during the elections and subsequent protests and violence in Iran, and in China, as well:

Is this blog post a clear and direct “Screw you” to Chinese authorities who would censor Internet access and search results? Or is it a continuation of Google’s commitment to protecting the users they profit from? Or a bit of both? let us know what you think in the comments – and stay tuned for our upcoming chat with Chinese political activist Ai Weiwei and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey.

Related Articles


Adoption stories and influencesby eldavojohn (898314)“Every so often I see an adoption story about so-and-so taking up some open source solution and sometimes I think ‘Wow, French government? now it’s really going to take off. This is it. It’s time.’ And then I wait. And wait. Are these stories at all positive for the project? I mean, you would think with states and governments using Ubuntu or Red Hat that it would catch on like wildfire if the savings are there so why isn’t that happening? I know Microsoft sends out a lot of Wormtongues to stick in the ears of important people. do you plan on targeting governments in a similar manner? Does/will Canonical work on making a presence in things like the EU Commissions where we’ve seen corporations collecting members in their pockets?”Matt:No, we have no plans to turn Wormtongue. we do, however, have aspirations to play Frodo. :-)

Ultimately, governments (good ones, anyway) are established to reflect the voice of their citizens. At Canonical, we believe that real, lasting change happens from the bottom up, as citizens within government and IT and those served by it clamor for change. we try to help this along by working with government organizations, including open source-friendly lobbying groups, to promote free markets and expanded choice through free and open-source software, but I personally believe that individuals will make the difference.

Change can be expensive, whether in terms of cost or bother, and so as individuals or organizations we generally try to avoid it. But people are now starting to feel enough pain – be it software costs, inefficient use of hardware, viruses and other malware, etc. – that Linux and open-source software, generally, are getting plenty of attention. The cure, in other words, now outweighs the effort of applying it. yes, Microsoft will do its part to thwart this progress,but even so I’ve seen broad and ever-increasing government adoption of open source. It’s just that most of it doesn’t get reported.

Don’t lose heart and, in particular, don’t lose “voice.” We’re being heard. The worst thing we could do is to slacken our pace now.

Revenueby Enderandrew (866215)“Shuttleworth is still funding Canonical. At some point however, this needs to turn into a profitable venture to endure. How does Canonical create lasting revenue streams, and will those decisions come at the cost of usability and freedom in the distro, such as the recent decision to use Yahoo search (powered by Bing) as the default)?”Matt:First off, it’s critical to understand that Canonical doesn’t make decisions at the cost of usability. Ever. Usability is our cardinal virtue.

The Yahoo! deal is not at the cost of usability. Yahoo! is an excellent and wildly popular search engine with many many millions of users. we are very pleased to have reached an agreement that will pump additional revenue into the community compared to the existing default. For those worried about Microsoft’s involvement with Yahoo!, it is trivially easy to switch to Google or other alternatives.

We will make more commercial for-pay services available to our users, but we will never make then a requirement to have a full experience of the Ubuntu desktop. If you don’t like them don’t buy them and nothing will make you need to.

We have very healthy revenue coming from our various businesses, the most visible of which is providing support for our OEM partners like Dell as they roll Ubuntu-based devices globally. less visible, but also fast growing, include our enterprise business (providing support and other services for Ubuntu in cloud and traditional server deployments) and our Ubuntu One services for Ubuntu client users.

I like to think of our guiding principle as “make money because of the Ubuntu community, not from it.” At the scale where we operate, all sorts of financial opportunities become possible, opportunities that don’t require us to hold back Ubuntu bits to goad people into purchasing. As we roll new services out, I hope you’ll let us know how we’re doing, and ensure we never sacrifice usability for financial gain.

Freedom, second?by TheModelEskimo (968202)“Matt, you were intensely criticized by members of the Free Software community for your critical stance facing ‘vague concepts’ like software freedom and ‘no vendor lock-in.’ Reading your blog, it seems to me like you are still a fan of focusing on ‘high quality software at a compelling price’ rather than these other concepts. How will this position affect your work with Canonical and more specifically, its relationship with freedom-first software advocates?”Matt:I’ve never considered myself at odds with the goals of freedom-first software advocates, though I sometimes disagree with the means and the timing. some, for example, have criticized Canonical in the past for including non-free bits (codecs and such).

I’m not among that number, because I believe that if we ever want to see mainstream adoption of Linux, we need to provide solutions, preferably short-term, that map to users’ requirements. How likely is it that the mainstream could adopt a Linux desktop, for example, that doesn’t offer support for Flash so that people can watch YouTube videos, as just one example?

It’s easy to demand that everyone be like us, right now. But that, to me, is the antithesis of freedom. I’m not interesting in forcing people to make a choice. That’s no choice at all. I believe the best way is to consistently offer a better experience, and invite prospective users to try it.

Here’s a personal example. In my new role, I have switched from using Mac OS X to Ubuntu Linux. I’ve been using a Mac since 2002 when I switched off Windows. This switch would have been painful but for the fact that Firefox runs so well on Linux, and gives me access to a range of online services (like Google Calendar) that I was using before on the Mac. It would have been doubly so if I couldn’t keep using Tweetdeck and other software to which I’d grown accustomed on my Mac.

Over time, I’m sure I’ll migrate to open-source alternatives, for the same reason I used Adium, not iChat, on my Mac: the open-source alternatives are often the best available.

But to force-feed “freedom” on me or anyone else is a foolish, losing proposition. Especially in the short term.

I believe that Canonical and the Ubuntu community are creating software that people will want to use, not that they have to use. In the three weeks I’ve been with Canonical, I’ve used my Mac exactly once (still moving music out of old, DRM-encrusted iTunes songs). I haven’t missed it.

Your version of their visionby eldavojohn (898314)“Late last year, you heralded some moves by Shuttleworth and you said:

This, I believe, is an opportunity for Canonical to tighten its focus. While Shuttleworth suggests that Silber’s appointment ‘doesn’t mark a change of direction,’ perhaps it should. with over 300 employees and products that span mobile, Netbooks and other personal computers, cloud computing, enterprise servers, and more, Canonical has its fingers in a lot of pots.

As COO, what are you going to do to improve the products you highlighted above? I’m not looking for a soft answer like ‘I’m going to promote Ubuntu on netbooks’ but more so an itemized list of measurable goals, with milestones, dates and areas of focus (for instance, power minded ARM distributions). is there anything about their vision you intend to change or influence the most?” Matt:I don’t want to offend you with a “soft-ball” answer, but it would be inappropriate for me to provide the level of detail you request, in part because much of this information is confidential to Canonical and our partners, but also because a big part of our strategy is to undergird and rely upon the community to take Ubuntu into devices that we as a company cannot or choose not to cover.

That said, two things have impressed me in my three weeks with the company. First, there are, as you point out, a lot of things going on with the very real potential for inefficiency and lack of focus.

But two, the company is remarkably consistent in what it does choose to go after. In particular, we are relentlessly focused on improving the Linux user experience. Canonical, in conjunction with the Ubuntu community, builds the industry’s best Linux distribution, one that even a (former) Mac user like myself can easily digest.

We intend to take this emphasis and expertise in user design into a wide array of devices, but importantly will continue to focus on those that require a general purpose operating system. The good news is that even despite the increasing diversity of devices, the world is actually converging on fewer platforms, not more.

For areas that require expertise or focus beyond ours, we encourage our community to take Ubuntu into such opportunities, and they have. You might be surprised to learn just how many of the devices out there are powered by Ubuntu, often without Canonical involved. I see this as very healthy. It’s the only way to compete with much bigger competitors like Microsoft: beat them with a bigger community like Ubuntu.

This isn’t to say that we couldn’t focus more. But that was already underway through Mark’s and Jane’s guidance. My job is to accentuate it and ensure that we stay on track.

Gaming and driversby HungryHobo (1314109)“I like Linux, I like programming on a Linux machine, I like learning on a Linux machine but I can’t really game on a Linux machine and that’s a big thing in the home PC market. What are the plans to induce game makers to port their games to Linux? What moves are being made to try to encourage graphics chip companies to create good drivers for Linux?”Matt:You’re asking the wrong man! My favorite game is Rogue, originally developed for Unix and still going strong in the guise of Qt NetHack and other variants. I’m easy to please, I guess.

As for the general gaming market, yes, gaming is a weakness on Linux, but addressing that is not a priority for Canonical. Games developers will make their decisions based on their market dynamics and those dynamics are pointing more and more towards dedicated consoles rather than the general PC market.

We work very hard with the Linux Foundation and others in the Linux community to encourage component manufacturers to either open source their drivers or make them available for Linux and with considerable success. This is not to enable gaming per so but to make Linux a peer experience on all machines.

Proprietary productsEnderandrew (866215)“You often praise proprietary, closed-source products on your blog (especially products from Apple and IBM). What is your stance on mixing proprietary and open products?”Matt:Ubuntu is about choice. While we believe that an operating system is best developed with the source code openly available, that does not mean that the applications running on it need to be restricted to only those using the same development method. our own users tell us, in large numbers, that they would like to see apps become available from the likes of Adobe and the games developers. on server the case is even more apparent where there are excellent proprietary applications that we would love to make available to Ubuntu users and we work to do that.

We can’t boil the ocean. we want people to adopt Ubuntu Linux, and part of that requires us to support the applications that the mass market requires. our focus is to continue to provide the industry’s best Linux experience, and to make that Linux experience superior to any other platform. This process is well underway, and will encourage more and more application developers to port their software to Ubuntu.

Along the way, we hope that others will follow our lead and open source their software, but we intend to lead by example, not force-feed the industry. Google, for example, is arguably putting more pressure on Microsoft’s closed-source approach than any amount of lobbying ever has or will. You can argue that Google is only doing this out of self-interest, to which I reply, “Exactly.” once the industry recognizes its self-interest in open sourcing software, we’ll have even more from which to choose.

I love great software, whatever its license. But I joined Canonical because I believe the open-source development model can create better software than closed alternatives, and I’m determined to prove that.

Enterprise versus desktop emphasisby eldavojohn (898314)“You used to write a lot about desktop Linux distributions but now that you’re COO of Canonical, the revenue comes most from enterprise support. do you plan on trying to change that or maintain any value in pleasing the at home Ubuntu user? Your blog post talks about your kids achieving basic tasks with Ubuntu, will you still keep them in mind despite the fact your new employer doesn’t see a dime from them? Any plans to make it more user friendly or make it more mainstream and less server room?”Matt:Actually, the majority of Canonical’s revenue does not derive from providing support to enterprises, though I of course hope and expect us to continue to grow that area of our business. our revenue will be a mix of making Ubuntu available to everyone on a wide range of hardware, from selling services direct to users (e.g., Ubuntu One), enabling hardware manufacturers to deliver a solid, supported Ubuntu experience on a wide range of devices, and from selling support and other services to enterprise IT.

Our market opportunity derives from Ubuntu’s global user community, but it’s a matter of making money with or around that community, not from it. all sorts of business opportunities are possible once a platform becomes ubiquitous, which business opportunities don’t depend on charging users for the right to use that platform. That’s a 20th-century model that we eschew.

So, yes, you’ll see Canonical putting a great deal of effort into making the Linux experience even more user friendly: the more users, the better our revenue opportunities from ancillary services. It’s in our interest to have millions upon millions of people happily running Ubuntu, and our unwavering focus is on improving the usability and design of Ubuntu to ensure that they do just that.

Ubuntu and KDE and GNOMEby Enderandrew (866215)“I loathe Gnome personally but don’t begrudge people the freedom of choice. however, with Ubuntu becoming almost synonymous with Linux, do they have a responsibility to try and put out a quality KDE desktop along with a quality Gnome desktop?”Matt:I’m new to the Ubuntu party, but I believe we already do this with Kubuntu. No?

Ubuntu and KDE and GNOME (cont.)by Anonymous Coward“More importantly, we see GNOME falling further and further behind KDE. we need to know exactly when Matt will be pushing for GNOME to be deprecated in favor of KDE (or even XFCE). he really doesn’t have a choice; GNOME needs to go, and it needs to go very soon. We’re seeing the GNOME community fragmenting, and quite badly. some people still advocate using C, others are saying that Mono is the way to go. And yet others are pushing for Vala. Frankly, the internal strife will tear the GNOME project apart, much like happened to XFree86. I, for one, sure hope that Ubuntu has moved away from GNOME far before then.”by Enderandrew (866215)“I think Ubuntu is actively hurting the KDE community by giving it a bad name. When Canonical works on new features for each Ubuntu release, they work independently of the Kubuntu team. Kubuntu is constantly trying to play catch-up on base issues. even worse, they [Ubuntu] put out unstable, buggy, and sometimes flat-out broken KDE packages. Almost every I’ve talked to that has had really bad experiences with KDE complain about bugs and constant crashes they had when testing KDE packages from Ubuntu. Read KDE forums, mailing lists, etc. You’ll see some serious hate and vitriol from users who blame KDE devs… They don’t realize it is their distro that is causing their problems. I’ve seen several KDE devs walk away and stop contributing because of all the hate they’re getting. If Ubuntu wasn’t putting out broken packages, it would remove a lot of this backlash. That is not to say that 100% of KDE backlash is Ubuntu-created. … But Ubuntu certainly hasn’t done KDE any favors the past two years with the packages they’ve put out.”Matt:I remember my first taste of the KDE/Gnome divide when I was involved in the Linux Business Office at Novell. It was fractious then and, judging from your “question,” it remains so. I don’t want to add to this rancorous debate, but do hope you’ll continue to talk actively and openly with Canonical and the Ubuntu community to ensure your views are heard and the Ubuntu distribution remains one that you will enjoy using.

Quality controlby davidm2005 (1453017)“I have been using Ubuntu as a software developer for the past several years. I have been extremely disappointed with the most recent release of Ubuntu, 9.10, as it has been extremely buggy and seems like a step backwards. The conclusion of this review also expresses a lot of my thoughts about Ubuntu 9.10. I had so many problems in using 9.10, that did NOT exist in 9.04, that I switched one of the two computers I use at work to Windows 7, for stability (yes, these are crazy days). do you have any plans to increase quality control in Ubuntu, even if it comes at the cost of delaying the every-six-month release schedule?”Matt:We are not complacent about bugs or quality. far from it. In fact, I’ve been surprised by the level of attention it gets within the company.

You can criticize Canonical and Ubuntu for many things, but the work of the engineers and community in making an incredible operating system for servers and desktops on a huge array of hardware available for free to all is not one of them.

Every release of Ubuntu gets more users and is used on a wider choice of hardware. This creates complexity. Making an operating system entirely independent of the hardware that it is run on is hard and it’s harder again when you are trying to push the performance of that product with each release.

As for Ubuntu 9.10, I’ve heard people call it a buggy release but that has not been my personal experience, and it’s an accusation that the data do not support. yes, we’re constantly trying to improve, as Canonical CTO Matt Zimmerman calls out. But I look at this as a very good problem to have.

Because it’s a symptom of a very positive thing: growth. there are more users using Ubuntu on more hardware than any previous release. Millions upon millions of users. Importantly, with our hardware partners we are providing certified, pre-installed, and supported Ubuntu on an ever-widening array of hardware. Dell’s XPS 13 is just one awesome example.

For those who prefer to go off the beaten track and install Ubuntu on alternative hardware, as I did recently with a ThinkPad X200s, there may be some manual labor involved, just as there would be if you were running Windows or Mac OS X on unsupported hardware. In my personal experience, however, everything “just works.” I’ve yet to have a single problem. Coming from a former Mac user (motto: two buttons are too hard – just give me one button on my mouse! :-) , that’s high praise.

Quality control (cont.)by bcrowell (177657)I’ve been using ubuntu since edgy eft, and I’m really dismayed by the quality of jaunty and (especially) karmic. The biggest issue is that sound, which worked for me in edgy through intrepid, started working poorly in jaunty, and is now essentially completely broken for me in karmic. I’ve spent a lot of time surfing ubuntuforms.org, collecting information, trying to write useful and well documented bug reports, etc. But the upshot is that there have been major, major regressions in sound for me.Matt:I’m sorry to hear that (no pun intended). But see my response above.

Is there a time to fork?by nine-times (778537)“I’ve been thinking about the relative lack of success of Linux on the desktop lately. By ‘relative lack of success’ I don’t mean to bash the quality of Linux, but only that it doesn’t seem to be very widely used in spite of being pretty good for a lot of purposes. so first, to what do you attribute the relative lack of success, and what plans do you have, if any, to do something about it. It seems to me that a fair amount of the problem isn’t the OS itself, but the associate applications. For example, lots of people have complained about GIMP for reasons ranging from lack of specific functionality to an unconventional UI, and even to the awkward connotations of the name ‘GIMP.’ even having personally gotten some graphic designers to try the GIMP, I have yet to know any professional designers who find it adequate. I’d like to use Linux, but don’t find I can come close replicating an equivalent workflow to what I have available using tools like Microsoft Office, Adobe Creative Suite, and Sound Forge. (those are the applications I’m personally stuck with, though I’m sure other people have other applications on their personal lists.)”Matt:As to the relative lack of market share, it comes down to inertia. I didn’t give the Linux desktop much attention until I joined Canonical. I had used it off and on over the years, but there was never a compelling reason to change.

Now that I’ve switched, I’m surprised by how much my ignorance of desktop Linux was coloring my opinion of it. I’ve been using it as my dedicated OS for three weeks, and have had only one (minor) reason to revisit my old Mac machine. I simply haven’t missed it, and I thought that I would struggle.

Until someone has a compelling reason to shift, however, they’re unlikely to discover this. For those picking up new machines, for example, a low-cost netbook, they won’t have to overcome this inertia. Email, Internet, IM, etc. all work just as well on Linux as they do on Windows or the Mac. these are the applications we spend 99.9999% of our days in (most of us, anyway). As a result, I think we’ll start to see barriers come down.

The irony in this is that these application incompatibility concerns are the exact same ones I had when I started using a Mac in 2002. Years later, application support on the Mac is much better, though still not at the same level as Windows. And yet 99 percent of the time it doesn’t matter, just as it doesn’t on Linux. As more applications move to the Web and as application developers improve their support for Linux (a trend I’ve noticed happening), it will matter even less.

In the interim, if you are happy to pay for and need these specific Windows-only applications then Windows is probably the right OS for you. Microsoft Office, however, is not a compelling reason to keep paying the Windows tax for many people. It’s one of those applications that we think we use more than we actually do, and which OpenOffice (or Google Docs, if you wish) more than adequately handles.

We would love Creative Suite to be available for Linux but the open source or web-based alternatives are satisfactory for many users.

Mobile platform plansby abhikhurana (325468)“What are Canonical’s plans for mobile platforms? with Maemo, another Debian based distro, now available for smartphones, would Canonical also get involved with either that or maybe develop a completely new Distro? with the desktop Linux market being extremely small and server markets being dominated by Red Hat and Novell, mobiles probably are the sweet spot for Canonical, with its strong focus on usability. Additionally, the lack of standardization means that users are more willing to experiment with interfaces. so what is the relative priority of Mobile, Netbook, Desktop and Server platform in Canonical’s roadmap?”Matt:Mobile is a top priority for Canonical, especially as it looks less and less like the traditional embedded market and more and more like a general-purpose OS market. That’s our sweet spot, and given our concern for and expertise in user interface design, we will be leaders in this market.

We will do a lot of work on ARM and Intel platforms this year that will see Ubuntu popping up all over the the computing landscape. Ubuntu is a platform: it is not a desktop product or a server product or a mobile product. so where there is a requirement for an OS you will find Ubuntu. You’d be surprised by the kinds of devices you already own that run Ubuntu today.


Hot Products

StatPress

Visits today: 100

Calendar

September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
Powered by Yahoo! Answers