Free Software makes Ubuntu possible 

I’ll get straight to the main point: I appreciate the emphasis Mr. Shuttleworth makes on Free Software in his post, especially in acknowledging GNU and other projects that make Ubuntu’s very existence possible. I like that he does not shy away from talking about Free Software. 

I hesitate to use the word “failing”, but a major issue I have with the Ubuntu community is the casual or occasionally hostile dismissal of Free Software philosophy. There is a very vocal segment of users flying under the Ubuntu banner that are extremely vocal and hostile to Free Software, especially when it comes to the FSF and Richard Stallman. 

I’m not talking about valid criticism or difference in philosophy either, I’m talking about people who personally attack rms and/or simply lie about the FSF (ala recent attempts to suggest the FSF supports software patents to attack non-GPL software [1][2]). 

I’m not sure how the Self-Loathing Free Software User gained traction in Ubuntu (or in any community for that matter), but it seems at odds with the messaging coming from Mr. Shuttleworth.   

Ubuntu as a standard-bearer 

Currently, Ubuntu is the both the most popular and most likely to be recommended distro for Linux newcomers. Whether or not it “deserves” this is largely irrelevant – it is what it is, and what it is is Ubuntu==Linux for a lot of people. 

Ubuntu has a responsibility – a debt, even - to acknowledge and respect the foundation that made it possible. That doesn’t mean Ubuntu can’t explore how to make its own mark (it’s doing that quite well I’d say) nor does it mean that Ubuntu can’t differ in philosophy or degree to any given figure in Free Software — it just means Ubuntu doesn’t need to engage in disrespect or ridicule directed at its own foundations. 

Now, I don’t think this disrespect is coming from the top down – Mr. Shuttleworth is often quite clear and articulate, but I do think it is fostered at a lower level, where people with a Anti-Free Software agenda can fly somewhere below the “Official Statement” radar, but still in the “Ubuntu Community” airspace. 

When Mr. Shuttleworth talks about “a project like Ubuntu needs constant care in order to defend its values” he is so very right. Consider the Ubuntu Philosophy in contrast with the very common “we care more about it just working than freedom” theme that runs through the Ubuntu Forums – often with someone saying something like “All the free software purists are off using Debian or Fedora. We use Ubuntu because we want our systems to work”[* - Just one example pulled at random.] 

umad or ujealous? 

Personally, I think a lot of the criticism Ubuntu gets on the “doesn’t contribute enough” front is based in simple jealously. Ubuntu is the “hot” distro, and for a variety of reasons some people don’t like that. 

It is simple, understandable human nature. People are jealous and petty creatures by nature, and do varying successful jobs of hiding it. 

It’s easy to see this in the areas people choose to beat up Ubuntu on – code contributions to GNOME or the kernel, as if Ubuntu has declared those projects unfit and the focus of their efforts or something. Preposterous. The whole point of building on top of something is so you can just use what’s there and focus your efforts on something else. 

The criticism is even more offensively absurd when it fails to account for the size and age of the entities being compared. 

Think on it for a moment: if Ubuntu concentrated on matching, say Red Hat’s contributions to the kernel, then who exactly is going to do the things that Ubuntu is doing that Red Hat is not? The whole damn purpose of the bazaar is so people can collaborate. Collaborate means you do this, while I do that. 

By the way: it’s not like Ubuntu has some “covenant” that is specific to Canonical, specifically excluding other platforms, distributions or software licenses.  If you like what Ubuntu is doing, take it and use it. If you don’t like it, then what do you care that it’s not being contributed upstream? 

Fail to see the problem here, and this whole line of criticism towards Ubuntu seems weak and petty. 

Keep Emphasizing Free 

I generally like what Mr. Shuttleworth has to say on Free Software, including this specific post under discussion. I just wish that same thoughtfulness permeated the larger community a bit. 

I grow weary of people using “Open Source” and “Free Software” as synonyms when they want to praise the benefits of Free Software, yet distinguishing the two when they disagree with the responsibilities or philosophy that makes those benefits possible. 

What I don’t agree about 

Of course, I can’t go without pointing out at least one thing is disagree with Mr. Shuttleworth about, lest people accuse me of being an unthinking Ubuntu fan-boy myself (believe it or not, I have been so accused more than once). 

Mr. Shuttleworth makes this questionable assertion: 

But still, if you *really* care about design in free software, the Canonical design team is the place to be. 

I think if you *really* care about design in Ubuntu, the Canonical design team is the place to be, but I honestly don’t see the Canonical design team as any exemplary team in Free Software, judged by either working methods or results. 

That’s not an entirely bad thing, mind you (and I certainly do not think it is malicious in any way) – they are turning out some very nifty things for Ubuntu indeed; it’s just the suggestion that there is some overarching “design in free software” going on that I’m not so ready to swallow.

Open to hearing different, though.

But I’m not here to punish Microsoft, or hate them, I’m here to build a better way, if I can. It will be hard, but we can. And in the cases where we have common cause, I am happy to work with Microsoft. That may be a hard concept for people who think that life is easier to understand if you have an enemy to make your own cause right, but I find that attitude leads to bigotry and bad results, and makes it impossible to get past the wrongs of the past.

A small request

I just have one small request: can someone please give a detailed example of a case where Microsoft and “we” have “common cause”?

Assuming that the “we” here refers to Ubuntu users, and further assuming that Ubuntu users subscribe to the Ubuntu Philosophy, I’m not sure what “common cause” Microsoft shares with the belief that “every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees“?

It seems to me that Microsoft vigourously opposes this “core philosophical ideal” of Ubuntu. I fail to see how you can have a “common cause” with an entity that is diametrically opposed with your core philosophical principles.

This is why I am always disappointed when people attempt to frame opposition to Microsoft as “hate” – because that falsely implies the difference is irrational and emotional instead of the philosophical difference it is. I appreciate my freedom and want to increase my freedom. Microsoft appreciates controlling me and wants to increase its control. There’s not much room for “common cause” there, and it’s not because I hate Microsoft or Microsoft hates me – it’s a fundamental difference of philosophy and goals.

I’m certainly not going to compromise my philosophy to accomodate Microsoft’s profit margin.

Condemnation

I’m also quite disappointed to see Mr. Shuttleworth break out this:

I think it is as wrong to demonise the people who work at a company as it is to demonise people of a particular colour, nationality or other demographic

Excepting the very top-level executives – people who are personally responsible for Microsoft’s actions -  I question the premise that anyone is demonising people who simply work at Microsoft. Criticism of Microsoft as an entity is most certainly not demonising its workers.

I draw special attention to this point because it is a 2-for-1 fallacy: not only is the premise incorrect, but if it were true the converse would be true – yet the converse is never acknowledged.

That is: it is just as wrong to condemn the worker for the company and it is to pardon the company for the worker. Yet, one often hears the “Microsoft has lots of good workers” line as it is some sort of defense for Microsoft. If it were a valid defense, then it would be valid to personally condemn those same workers when Microsoft committed an offense.

But it’s not. And so, the converse is not true either. Judge Microsoft the company on Microsoft the company’s actions. Period.

Building a Better Way

Mr. Shuttleworth states that he is “here to build a better way”. I applaud that sentiment. I also think that building a better way, by definition, means rejecting and avoiding the worse way.

It doesn’t mean “hating” and “demonising” Microsoft, because rejecting and avoiding Microsoft isn’t a matter of hatred or demonisation – it’s simply the most effective and rational action to take based on a factual and historical review of Microsoft’s actions.