The Open Road

There are companies like Intel, Canonical, Novell, etc., that are desperately trying to make Linux-based personal computers easier to use. Unfortunately, as Ubuntu fan Steven Rosenberg points out, there are often far too many decisions a lay user must make to make Linux just work for the average user.

Rosenberg was struggling to play music on his Ubuntu machine (you know, one of those obscure activities that only the geek elite do ;-), and struggled because of Canonical's efforts to balance ease of use with free-software purists' desire to have no proprietary codecs. The result is a mess:

But for a project/distro/movement that wants to preach not to the choir but instead to the unwashed, Windows-using masses, either let 'em play MP3s out of the box, make it easy to add that functionality (i.e. don't make 'em Google it, for heaven's sake) while at the same time educate them as to why MP3s, MOVs, Flash and all that other royalty-carrying, proprietary crap is bad, or just say right out front: "If you're geeky enough to figure out how to play multimedia, go ahead. But otherwise, re-install Windows and everything will be fine."

Amen. Using one's computer shouldn't be a religious experience. A computer is a tool, and it should just work. Mixing ideology with a utilitarian tool like the personal computer is an exercise in futility...for the developer and for the average end user.

This isn't to suggest that the Linux "desktop" can't work. It can, as the Linux Foundation's Moblin distribution proves: it's the most Mac-like Linux experience yet. It doesn't require me to resort to a command line to make Linux work for me. It recognizes that I have better things to do.

So, the Linux "desktop" can work. But to do so, I think we need companies involved, companies that are trying to scratch a very different itch than the one developers may be inclined to scratch themselves. That itch is usability for average end users. It's an experience that is high on ease of use and trades away choice. This is not a bad thing.

Indeed, it's the start of giving Linux a fighting chance against Windows and Mac OS X on the "desktop."

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

In open source or in product development generally, one of the biggest mistakes is to take on a deeply entrenched incumbent on its own turf. Almost inevitably, if you play someone else's game, even if you're a little cheaper/faster/better, you're going to lose. Inertia favors the incumbent, and there's a whole lot of inertia involved in switching vendors.

For this reason, I agree wholeheartedly with Bill Weinberg's suggestion that Linux's opportunity in Netbooks is to focus on the mobile side of the market, rather than bringing a traditional, personal computer bent to the market.

Weinberg writes:

...(O)ne strategic error made by purveyors of Linux Netbooks was to covet the volumes of the global mobile telephony market while following the business models and channels of the legacy notebook marketplace. Linux fans--.orgs, Linux ISVs, and device OEMS--unfortunately approached the Netbook opportunity as a downward extension of the desktop and portable PC business, with volumes of 297M units in 2008 (IDC).

Instead, the Linux ecosystem needs to envision Netbooks (and MIDs and tablets) as building on the worldwide mobile handset business, with its 1.28B annual unit shipments (Gartner) the most lucrative slice of which, smartphones, constitutes 14 percent (ABI) with 20 percent annual growth rates.

Microsoft owns the traditional personal computer market, and probably will forever. But don't lose hope: the best strategies going forward are disruptive, in the Clayton Christensen sense. Microsoft is weak in mobile. This is where Linux proponents should focus their "desktop" strategies.

Apple is gaining on Microsoft in personal computers as much because of its iPhone revolution as its beautiful laptops. If Linux wants to win in Netbooks, and it can, it must do so by undermining Microsoft, not by confronting its desktop dominance directly. Netbooks must be more "Net" than "book," just as mobile phones are more about "mobile" than "phone."

If this is true, Google's Android, which is targeting smartphones first and Netbooks second, may have the upper hand on Intel's Moblin, which aims at Netbooks first, and is largely designed as a Windows replacement.

Malcolm Gladwell recently reminded the world that David beats Goliath with a sling, not a sword. Linux-based Netbooks, playing David to Microsoft's Goliath, should approach the market with a mobile bias, rather than with a personal computer bias.

"Hit 'em where they ain't," said Willie Keeler, which is as true in hitting baseballs as it is in competing with Microsoft.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Revolutions don't always roil and boil toward a noisy, violent fracas. Sometimes they don't even ripple the surface.

Such is the Ubuntu Netbook revolution, which makes waves in the Linux community--and really nowhere else. Not publicly, at least.

I was fortunate to spend two hours on Tuesday night with Chris Kenyon, head of Canonical's Ubuntu business for original-equipment manufacturing, or OEM. Kenyon, in addition to being a fellow Arsenal fanatic, is also Ubuntu's point man for its quiet, but nonetheless dramatic, Netbook revolution.

Kenyon, who appeared a placid, affable chap when we first met outside Arsenal stadium to witness a shattering of Hull City's FA Cup hopes, eventually let his competitive side out during the match, cheering the team and jeering the referee. Brilliant. It was then that I got a taste for what Canonical's competitors, and particularly Microsoft, might be in for when competing with Ubuntu.

In the Netbook market, Ubuntu is the clear winner, with Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and the other major hardware OEMs shipping Ubuntu-based Netbooks. But it's not yet clear what "winner" means. Microsoft, after all, still apparently claims 90 percent of all Netbooks shipped with Windows.

Therein, however, lies the seed of Ubuntu's revolution. Ten percent market share for Linux is pretty incredible. We rightly cheer Apple for its steady onslaught of Microsoft in the personal-computing market, and that's as Apple struggles toward 10 percent market share. Linux is already there in Netbooks, and Ubuntu claims the bulk of those installations.

There are indications that this could accelerate. I won't comment on the royalties Canonical currently earns on its Netbooks, except to suggest that its competitive price point must be extraordinarily expensive...to Microsoft. Manufacturers continue to ship Windows XP and pay Microsoft virtually nothing for the privilege due to discounts, rebates, and other incentives. With Ubuntu exerting downward pricing pressure, Microsoft doesn't stand to gain much in the growing Netbook market.

Let's say Microsoft earns $8 per copy of Windows XP shipped, which might actually be high, at least with the larger OEMs. At that point, the price differential between shipping Ubuntu or Windows XP is slim. But once Microsoft eventually turns off the XP spigot and requires OEMs to ship Windows 7, will Microsoft be able to command a hefty premium on its brand alone?

I doubt it. Canonical has permanently reset the Netbook operating system price point in its favor, at a level where it can compete vigorously while Microsoft must compete reluctantly. Microsoft, in short, is now playing by Ubuntu's terms.

Now let's compound the problem for Microsoft. Taiwanese original-design manufacturers are actively deploying Ubuntu for their OEMs (HP, etc.). They are now gaining experience and expertise in testing and quality assurance for Ubuntu. The mechanics of shipping Linux, in other words, are beginning to be well-understood. This, coupled with consumers' growing comfort with Linux in the Netbook form factor, make it hard to justify the inertia of staying with Microsoft just because it's Microsoft.

Netbooks are disruptive, in part, because they define productivity in terms of the Web, not Microsoft Office. The more users want to spend time in a browser, or instant messaging, or e-mail, the less Microsoft Windows is required. The less Windows is a requirement, the less that OEMs are going to be willing to pay for Windows licenses. Microsoft suffers (indeed, it may already be suffering), OEMs gain (because they earn better margins on their Netbooks), and customers gain (all the functionality they need at an attractive price).

And, of course, Canonical gains. There's a revolution going on. It's quiet, but it's happening.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

While evangelists of Linux distributions built for personal computers (i.e., "Linux desktops") point to Netbooks as an indication of renewed life in their chances to compete for consumers, new data suggests that this may be a fool's hope.

Instead, such advocates would do well to follow the leads of Canonical and Red Hat, as they respectively extend the desktop with cloud services and deliver desktop functionality from the cloud.

Although it's true that roughly 30 percent of Dell Inspiron 9s Netbooks run Ubuntu Linux, it's equally true that about 90 percent of Netbooks run Windows, as Computerworld recently pointed out, while Linux had started with 30 percent of the Netbook market.

And while Dell is now saying that the return rate on Linux Netbooks is no longer four times that of Windows, as it was reported in October 2008, it's unclear how or why Linux will be able to take a greater share of the Netbook market, given that Microsoft has reduced its pricing to compete with Linux.

Sure, this means lower profit margins for Microsoft, but that's a hollow victory for Linux, isn't it?

Linux has a much better chance of succeeding on personal computers, if it starts from a position of strength, not weakness. Two areas of strength for Linux are mobile and servers. The mobile Linux market, however, remains somewhat fragmented, making it difficult to mount a near-term desktop challenge.

The Linux server, however, is ripe to creep down into the desktop, and that's precisely what Canonical (Ubuntu) and Red Hat are doing.

The two companies are going in opposite directions, but they end in similar positions. For Canonical, which, with Ubuntu, arguably has the strongest claim to innovation and leadership on "the Linux desktop," the trick is to move more personal-computing services into the cloud.

Canonical's Mark Shuttleworth told me last year that his Ubuntu desktop strategy would increasingly include cloud services. Recently, Canonical started to deliver on this vision by Amazon EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud) hooks to its server edition, which has the added bonus of giving Canonical a compelling revenue model.

Red Hat, for its part, is starting with the server, where it's the undisputed market share and value leader. Recently, Red Hat told Computerworld that it plans to grow its so-called desktop footprint with a "desktop" that isn't: it's a virtual machine running remotely on a server and sitting side by side with Windows.

There may be flaws in this strategy, as some have pointed out, but as Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens told me on Wednesday, Red Hat's approach makes a lot of sense for CIOs who want to increase manageability of desktops while simultaneously reducing costs:

The target we are designing for is not the legacy model of thick Windows clients or terminal services. Open source is about driving innovation and new paradigms of use, not just to make a cheaper alternative to proprietary (software).

So the desktop target model we are designing for has several elements:

• Enable open-source solutions to help lower the OpEx costs of Windows environments by allowing Windows desktops to be virtualized within the data center;
• Open up the interoperability and technical advancement of the desktop remote-protocol space by open sourcing the Spice protocol for building VDI infrastructure on. This will have impact not just on virtual desktops, but also remote display of physical desktops;
• Through our ovirt.org effort, build an open-source implementation and reference architecture for building clouds, on which servers and desktops can be instantiated on demand;
• Bring virtualization to the client through our KVM technology, putting a hypervisor directly on the desktop. Enable the client to not just plug into VDI environments, but to be able to run desktops within the cloud or locally, seamlessly, and with full mobility;
• Through this new model, which enables multitenancy of desktop environments, enable a virtualization-optimized Red Hat Enterprise Desktop to be run from the same pane of glass as Windows.

In sum, Red Hat is not merely looking to join the Linux game for personal computers; it's also seeking to completely change the desktop market--Linux, Windows, or otherwise. This is an ambitious goal--one that Red Hat's Linux server strength puts it in a good position to deliver.

Linux desktop advocates should take a cue from two leading Linux companies, Red Hat and Canonical. The point isn't to replicate the Windows desktop. The point is to completely change the way desktops are delivered and their services consumed. Anyone still worried about Linux on Netbooks is fighting the wrong battle.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

Linux guru Keir Thomas, in a blog post for PC World, argues that the Linux distribution and Mozilla's Firefox browser have forgotten themselves in the rush to popularity. Or, rather, they've forgotten their core values which, in both cases, translates into forgetting the importance of end users.

I can't agree.

Thomas' biggest complaint about Firefox is that it has slowed down, which seems an odd complaint, given how much faster Firefox 3 is (and Firefox Minefield is mind-numbingly fast).

But his complaints about Ubuntu seem even wider off the mark:

It seems there will be almost no new end-user features in the 9.04 release of Ubuntu...The most exciting thing is OpenOffice.org 3.0 and, well, that's not actually very exciting...It appears that, apart from a snazzy graphical boot, the desktop experience will be left to stagnate once again.

As with most Ubuntu releases, there will probably be furious tweaking under the hood, or in the back-room support services, but this means nothing, if it isn't visible, and if it doesn't improve the end-user experience. Ubuntu has, above all, always been a 100 percent end-user distro, which arguably makes it unique in the world of Linux.

Such criticism misses the mark, because it misses the point of what the desktop operating system has become or, rather, what it's becoming. Canonical's latest Ubuntu release may not have added new menus or graphics, but it made big news on the server side by making Ubuntu friendly to cloud computing. That is the point.

Whether you prefer Mac, Windows, or Linux for your desktop client, when was the last time that you saw big improvements? I'm a big Mac fan, but it has been years since Apple introduced something (Expose, in my case) that really wowed me and changed the way I use my computer.

This is why Apple's next Mac release, Snow Leopard, is mostly focused on the same under-the-hood tinkering for which Thomas rejects Ubuntu's Jaunty Jackalope release. Microsoft's Vista had its problems, but perhaps the biggest was that it gave no compelling reason to leave XP.

I believe we've tapped out the desktop metaphor.

If this is correct, Canonical should get plaudits, not criticism, for recognizing the desktop operating-system stalemate and pushing Ubuntu into the cloud, where there's still a great deal of room to innovate by tying desktop performance into cloud services flexibility.

The Linux desktop is dead, and has been dying for a long time. That's OK because it's not alone. Windows and the Mac are also tenants in the desktop's senior care center.

As users, we should expect more "under the hood" tinkering in Windows, Mac, and Linux releases, as each gears up for the next wave of cloud services competition. Desktop competition, in other words, isn't dead. It's just entering a new phase.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

One of the great challenges to Linux adoption is inertia. Many Windows users, for example, have spent decades learning and using the operating system: they don't want to be bothered with moving to and learning another.

Those are fogies like you and me. Kids, however, are a tabula rosa.

Taking advantage of that concept is Qimo, a desktop operating system geared toward kids that is based on the Ubuntu distribution of Linux. Developed by a husband-and-wife team Brian and Michelle Hall, Qimo was released in mid-February.

Getting kids into a new operating environment lets them, not Microsoft or any other company, define its boundaries. But getting Qimo going likely will require convincing parents who are already into Linux to install Qimo for them--in other words, the very sort of parents who probably already have their kids running the "grown-up" Ubuntu.

Even so, I like the idea of Qimo and would love to hear feedback from those who have installed and evaluated the system, especially if you're under the age of 12. :-)

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

I admit that I nearly got caught up in my former colleague James Urquhart's excellent analysis of Canonical's Ubuntu 9.10 release, code-named Karmic Koala. I saw the word "open" laced heavily through the post, and given Canonical's commitment to fully open-source Ubuntu experience, I played along.

Ubuntu in the clouds

(Credit: Ubuntu)

But something doesn't quite fit in Canonical's story.

It's called Amazon.com. Yes, Ubuntu 9.10 will give users an option to build its own Elastic Compute Cloud-style service, using open-source Eucalyptus (or another cloud provider), but the intent certainly seems to seamlessly plug users into Amazon's closed cloud:

Ubuntu aims to keep free software at the forefront of cloud computing by embracing the APIs of Amazon EC2, and making it easy for anybody to set up their own cloud using entirely open tools...During the Karmic cycle, we want to make it easy to deploy applications into the cloud, with ready-to-run appliances or by quickly assembling a custom image...Wouldn't it be apt for Ubuntu to make the Amazon jungle as easy to navigate as, say, APT?

Or is Ubuntu simply making it easier to navigate one's way into the Amazon jungle but not to get out of that jungle?

This isn't meant as a criticism. After all, I've increasingly seen that the best way to monetize open-source software is with the careful inclusion of proprietary software. I told The New York Times' Ashlee Vance that Mark Shuttleworth would eventually have to grapple with this same strategy, basing it on my own conversations with Shuttleworth about how to effectively monetize Ubuntu.

That strategy increasingly points to tethering an open server (and desktop) with closed cloud services. That's not a critique. It's a fact.

Unfortunately, it's also a fact that once Ubuntu hands off its customers to a closed cloud, it depends on that cloud vendor to offer open data policies. The delivery of such policies is out of its hands. It won't have much say in the matter.

It's ironic, in many ways, that the key to Canonical monetizing Ubuntu will be proprietary software. There's a very good reason that Canonical isn't leading with a link into open-source software like Eucalyptus: just as Red Hat depended on proprietary Oracle to drive its early business, Canonical's best chance of driving open-source revenue from Ubuntu is likely to be closed-source Amazon.

Amazon's service is popular. It's also proprietary. Depending on an open but weak cloud service would be futile; building bridges to proprietary Amazon will likely not.

Canonical, just as Google has done in search, is helping its users build habits. I am sure that there will be positive financial remuneration to Canonical, the more that Ubuntu users indulge their Amazon EC2 habit--a habit that Canonical therefore will have an interest in feeding.

Is this bad? No, it's business. Even Canonical needs to make money, and it's really, really hard to make a lot of money by giving everything away.

Some things need to be closed. In this case, it's the cloud that Ubuntu will feed.

Follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

In reading through "Top 10 Responses to Why I Should Use Linux? A Linux Evangelists' Reference," I couldn't help but think that Linux needs better evangelists for its desktop crusade.

Take this one:

"Linux is easier to use than Windows. Using the Terminal is not necessary, in most cases."

You don't start by proclaiming Linux easier to use than Windows, then follow that up with the assurance that you won't normally need to use the terminal/command line.

The fact that you might ever have to do so should be enough to scare off most would-be Linux desktop adopters. If the desktop requires a command line (and in my experience, it sometimes does), it's not ready for prime time. Period.

Or how about this one?

"Your porn collection is safe with Linux.

Now there's a winning argument for the mainstream adopters of the desktop. I can just hear my grandmother sighing with relief at this assurance from her local Linux evangelist.

There are some very good reasons to use Linux on the desktop, but I can't help but feel that its protagonists continue to miss the mark in their evangelism. Normal people don't care about things like this. They just want the desktop to work and not make a spectacle of itself. They want to be able to install their preferred applications without thinking about the operating system.

For this reason, Linux in the cloud makes a lot more sense right now than Linux on the desktop. Now, that's something worth evangelizing.

Microsoft's hegemony depends upon two cash cows: Windows and Office. Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, has his sights firmly set on Windows, and has both the means, the chutzpah, and the community to credibly commandeer an assault on Fortress Redmond, as suggested by Ashlee Vance in The New York Times over the weekend.

Others have tried to beat Microsoft at its own game and have failed miserably. The difference with Shuttleworth, however, is that he's not necessarily trying to beat Microsoft at its game. He's hoping to "fundamentally change the operating system market," something that might wrong-foot Microsoft and give Ubuntu a fighting chance.

There are signs that Ubuntu is already stealing a march on Microsoft, as noted in the article:

• Roughly half of Google's 20,000 employees run a version of Ubuntu. With this crowd of early adopters standing behind Ubuntu, a crowd with a massive profit machine behind them, anything can happen;
• IDC estimates that 11 percent of American businesses have systems based on Ubuntu, with even broader penetration likely in Europe and elsewhere;
• Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, is approaching $30 million in annual revenue, which may seem like a gnat on Microsoft's bison-esque backside, but this revenue represents multi-million dollar commitments from Dell, IBM, and other large parties with an interest in unshackling themselves from Microsoft. In other words, the nature of the revenue is more telling than the amount;
• Ubuntu commands the fealty of tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers globally, despite Canonical only employing 200 or so employees. Ubuntu has leverage well beyond its means.

So, game on. However, the big test for Ubuntu will be whether it's prepared to make some concessions to business reality in order to succeed. I've talked at length with Shuttleworth on this topic and, while I remain convinced that he has his community's best interests at heart, I believe that Ubuntu's community is going to need to mature beyond the "free as in beer and freedom" mentality to also include "free as in market and profit."

Those that think that there is some fundamentally new way to make money with the Web and open source haven't been paying attention. There are certainly new ways to distribute software and associated services, but whether in the cloud or on the desktop, there's always some element of control, and that control may jar the faithful.

The big question is how Ubuntu will make its money as it goes from $30 million to $300 million. If it can find a credible cloud strategy that separates desktop development from revenue development (cloud), Shuttleworth will have managed to accomplish the nearly impossible: making gobs of money without upsetting his community. If anyone can, he can. But don't be foolish enough to believe it's going to be painless.