Whither with Ubuntu?

In the Autumn of 2004, I was searching the net and came across this new Linux distribution called Ubuntu Linux. It was based on Debian and was supposedly easy to use. It promoted these seemingly humanitarian concepts and touted itself as shipping with over 1000 pieces of software. Overtime, the colors of the site remained odd, and the default color scheme of the desktop did as well. The word "Linux" was made less and less a part of the website through the few years I followed it closely. By 2009, Linux was only one word in relatively small font size as part of the description of Ubuntu. One of the coolest things about Ubuntu was that you could the install discs for free via snail mail. This also stopped.

Over the 6 years of life that Ubuntu has had so far, it has changed drastically. At first, it was just a quick and convenient way for me to install Debian. It started becoming more and more popular, and then was like a tidal wave through the Linux community. Today, it is the world's third most popular operating system. Windows, OSX, Ubuntu, then everything else. There is, however, an untold story.

Ubuntu wasn't revolutionary. There were plenty of systems already extent that were easier to use than were the first versions of Ubuntu. A chief among those was Mandrake Linux (which was purchased by Connectiva in 2005, becoming Mandriva). What was different? An initial investment of $10 million is one major difference. Another big difference is the era in which Manndrake was first released. With Mandrake, most people were on dial-up connections. In 1998, you really were limited to either 28.8k, 56k, or 64k-128k (basic DSL). In the USA, Mandrake Linux was available in boxes at the local Walmart. You got a disc, a manual, and a few other slips of legalese for around $20 to $50 ($20 for a disc, $50 if you wanted the manual). At the time, it was probably the most user friendly system I had seen. Due to the limits of bandwidth, early Linux systems had a hard time taking off. If you couldn't find it on a store shelf, people were unlikely to obtain it.

By 2004, cable internet services, DSL, and satellite internet were becoming popular. This allowed much greater immediate uptake. People had also become more accustomed to downloading software over the internet, as well as purchasing goods and services over the internet. Both of these things helped Ubuntu gain success and popularity. It didn't hurt that Ubuntu was based upon Debian, which was widely popular among the Linux community, and which had the incredibly popular APT system for package management and dependency resolution. The incredibly active community on the Ubuntu Forums also contributed to Ubuntu's success.

In 2013, if Canonical has not turned a profit, it will cease to exist (or so it sounds). If this is the case, would Canonical and Ubuntu be sold? Would Mark just turn Canonical into a non-profit organization? Would he simply let it all die? Either way, open source software never dies. Someone almost always picks up the pieces and continues the project.

Canonical Ltd. (Ubuntu's company of origin) has yet to turn a single dollar in profit. Mark Shuttleworth, the founder and main funder of Canonical and Ubuntu, stated in 2008 that the company would wait for the business to become profitable for another 3 to 5 years. We are currently approaching 2 years. If funding for Ubuntu is pulled would Ubuntu continue? Most likely. The biggest changes would be in the way it is developed and maintained. The development of Ubuntu would become far more a collaborative community effort, and the kinds of outrage we saw over the movement of window buttons would likely all but disappear. Another possible downfall would be the return of Linux to obscurity in the mindshare of the world's populace. Before Ubuntu, most people had never even heard of Linux. Those who had heard something about Linux considered it incredibly nerdy, difficult to use, and something more for programmers and tinkerers than anyone else. Ubuntu has changed all of that.