Is Ubuntu Linux slowly dying?

[hailgautam]

Shamelessly Copy/Pasted from Here (aka Source)



Ubuntu Linux was started in 2004 by Mark Shuttleworth: an entrepreneur that made his fortunes [to the tune of 600 million US] by selling his company Thawte to VeriSign; and is famous for having purchased a flight to the IIS [International Space Station, not the web server] via one of the Russian Soyuz missions.

Ubuntu is a Linux distribution that primarily focuses on the average end-user.

Everything about Ubuntu screams "desktop" -- from the website design, to the slogan "Linux for Human Beings". The goal of Ubuntu is to create a Linux distribution that "just works" for the average joe.

According to distrowatch.com, Ubuntu has held the number 1 spot for several years as the most popular Linux distribution. It receives media attention often, and has an ever-growing community base.

Canonical Ltd. are the official sponsors of Ubuntu Linux, with Mark Shuttleworth providing the funding, via Canonical, to move Ubuntu forward. So far, about $15-20 million has been spent.

And even at this point in time, with the top Linux distribution, the future is very uncertain. Mr. Shuttleworth has stated himself that it might take another two years before he even knows whether Canonical/Ubuntu has a chance to become profitable.

Users are simply not converting to paid customers... And why would they? The product is always free with the GPL, and the support is optional.
Now think "Red Hat"...

Red Hat figured out that all the money with support and services was server-side and moved away from the desktop as fast as possible. They cut the dead weight, gave up that #1 desktop distribution standing completely, never looked back, and turned a profit.
Since then, many have tried to capitalize the Linux desktop, and all have failed miserably.

Is Ubuntu really any different? Does that even matter?

To answer my own question "Is Ubuntu Linux slowly dying?", I would have to say "Yes." For the simple reason that there is no money to be made offering support on the desktop. For a Linux distribution to be profitable, it has to cater to businesses. Businesses will purchase support contracts as a safety cushion, to have someone to blame, and for real support issues [and sometimes in that exact order]. The average end-user will not. This lesson has been learned many times, and even I'm starting to see the light with the direction of DeveloperSide.NET.

Simply put, Ubuntu cannot compete with Red Hat server-side: Red Hat is simply too well established and no one is going to deploy Ubuntu Server, over RHEL, and keep their job at the same time.

Losing money can only be fashionable for a limited time. Ubuntu will survive, as Gentoo Linux has, but profits will not be made. At some point, the paid team that develops, supports, and markets Ubuntu will be out of the job, and things will go down hill fast afterwards

[eddie]

Another one of those articles spreading FUD
-- Ubuntu is dying
-- Linux is dying
-- Sky is falling

Take your pick and write an article. People love to read them.

[gxsaurav]

Actually, he is not wrong. Ubuntu on desktop is good, but compared to Windows it seriously lacks in 3rd party application support & features such as

1) Gaming, despite of having a full OpenGL core

2) Office use, remember most of the Ubuntu support is via web. Companies do not have time to hunt for a solution online; they prefer calling someone

3) Usability, Linux is nothing without an Internet connection. Most of the companies do not have Internet connection in all the nodes due to security reason, just at the server. Due to really bad offline package management abilities Ubuntu cannot be used in a scenario or office with just one server having net access while all the other nodes are on LAN. I have said it any times & saying it again, package management like RPM or Slax Modules should be made the de-facto standard out there. Instead of 10000 Linux just make & develop one, so that the admin can download a module or deb package & deploy it easily. For god sakes....remove user side complication all together. if a package is a tarball then make some compiling application so that U can simply open the .tar file in it & it will compile it, download the dependencies etc automatically or at least inform u

4) Application, they are "Reaching & developing" but with the current pace it will take years to reach at the point where PC & Mac applications are today. Linux seriously needs Open Source Media codec like FFDShow bundled in it. By default it can't even play mp3, don't tell me to search on net instead tell a Average Joe to do so & he will prefer pirating Windows better

5) Marketing, Why are the paid Linux distros are not publicized. Why can't Ubuntu charge $50 for it & bundle some codec & usual stuff etc. What the hell are they doing to attract the average Joe...nothing. Mandriva is doing so....but again it's not that popular

6) GPL needs to be re-written, seriously. They want open source nVidia\ati drivers...oh plz, no company will provide it for free for competitors to see. Instead make standard that each driver must have 80 features out of 100 to be Linux certified & rest 20 features are optional. If this is done then there is no need of open source drivers. The companies will make it themselves. Why do u need open source drivers anyway? I understand about open source applications but drivers I do not understand

[kalpik]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

... Ubuntu on desktop is good, but compared to Windows...

Oh well..

[mehulved]

Oh well no point in wasting time over such things.
There's no mention of ubuntu-server which was introduced with dapper. So, that's the first step that ubuntu have taken to reach server space, it's still a long way off though.
Then, they will be introducing mubuntu, or ubuntu-studio which can be used in music making so there will be people in the industry who will be ready to buy that in the future.
Still these 2 projects are in the nascent stage.
And as to those questioning gpl, debian package management system and marketing. Well I'd like to say half knowledge is very dangerous.

[gxsaurav]

i mentioned about offline packages. Like in Windows we have EXE based installer which we can download in a cyber cafe, bring to our home & install

In case of Mac we have .dmg, same procedure as above

In case of Slax linux, we have .mo

so why are there so many packages, all in compatible with each other. I do remember that I asked u once to install GAIM 2 b6 & I was said to compile it on Slax\Ubuntu...I am an average joe of linux, & I would prefer a application which automatically compiles insted of learning 1000 commands to compile it

[mail2and]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

so why are there so many packages, all in compatible with each other. I do remember that I asked u once to install GAIM 2 b6 & I was said to compile it on Slax\Ubuntu...I am an average joe of linux, & I would prefer a application which automatically compiles insted of learning 1000 commands to compile it

It looks like you've never heard of Synaptic or apt-get or aptitude.

Edit- Oh, you're GX. Never mind.

[mehulved]

Or of dpkg either. I had asked to compile cos the latest version wasn't available. You want a CVS version pre-compiled?
To install a deb file on ubuntu,

sudo dpkg --install <location of the package>

But, dpkg doesn't manage depenancies that's why apt is there.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

i mentioned about offline packages. Like in Windows we have EXE based installer which we can download in a cyber cafe, bring to our home & install

In case of Mac we have .dmg, same procedure as above

In case of Slax linux, we have .mo

so why are there so many packages, all in compatible with each other. I do remember that I asked u once to install GAIM 2 b6 & I was said to compile it on Slax\Ubuntu...I am an average joe of linux, & I would prefer a application which automatically compiles insted of learning 1000 commands to compile it

Windows?I used it three months back due to me being forced to.afterwards i got serious numbness all over my head due to its propreitory nature

regarding easy install for .exe,
In Linux,there are lot of libraries installed and packages wants many of these libraries as dependencies.

but distros commonly dont carry All these libraries.that's why..
Nyways there is a common platform coming/came for GNU/Linux distros.
LSB or Linux Standard Base--> http://www.linuxbase.org/

Only ignorance points a Newbie Linux/Bsd user to try compiling from source unless otherwise he knows what he is doing.Y-coz for that only pkg managers exists and distros repositories do carry most softwares.
Dude,Debian's apt and dpkg are the best pkg management tools available for Linux.And Ubuntu derived from Debian GNU/Linux.everyone serious with Linux knows about how better Ubuntu is with pkg management.Only N00b's will look for those rpm based distros like Open Suse for its content AND when they really uses-they got hurt by rpm-i have to say.for eg;distros like open suse installs by default all the packages!more than 5-6 GB! and afterwards these ppl things users dont want to customize/remove distro packages.what is the use,on the other side,Debian-Ubuntu etc provides a clean Desktop with basic packages needed for a casual user packed on a CD.and u want a package-just apt-get install it.that's all.

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by andy

It looks like you've never heard of Synaptic or apt-get or aptitude.

Read again, I was clearly talking about "Offline Package management" Synaptic & apt-get are Online. They need internet connection. Don't tell me Ubuntu\Debian can survive without Internet

[GNUrag]

Are you talking of a sysadmin in a company who has no clue how to setup caching repository for ubuntu packages so that they can be downloaded on the server once and applied on all the nodes at the same time? Such caching repositories can be used offline as well when the packages are cached once. And yes, they can be used along with apt-get, dpkg, aptitude, synaptic anything, take your pick.

GX, you got to be seriously kidding me

[desertwind]

Originally Posted by gx_saurav

Read again, I was clearly talking about "Offline Package management" Synaptic & apt-get are Online. They need internet connection. Don't tell me Ubuntu\Debian can survive without Internet

Probably ubuntu can't. But debian, with 3 DVDs and no internet connection (I've commented out the default debian repos and have only 3 dvds with me), i am able to install almost anything and everything.

GNU/Linux is modular and it uses libraries a lot for packages. Thats why the dependancies exist, and so does online package management systems.

[mehulved]

gx also debian package management system allows to add from cd/dvd's which contain repositories in proper format. See apt-add cdrom.
And what to say of a person who hasn't read GPL and says it needs to be re-written.