If you’re not paying for the product, then you’re the product.
(I don’t believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I’m not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)
No, random Internet forum users and whoever is lurking in IRC/Matrix are the support. Kind of like that 2 by 4 in my basement is supporting the entirety of my house’s main beam.
Canonical already maintains security patches for paying customers so they aren’t actually doing any extra work, but putting it behind a subscription gives them an option to start charging more for desktops, gives clear cost for server use, and maybe is marketing for “look at the premium work we do”.
In any case, the company who makes the vaccines doesn’t pay it. Ubuntu could make the argument you get the security upgrades if the government wants to pay for them
From my look at it, Ubuntu is making it clear that they guarantee support for 10 years, rather than just the standard 4 of LTS releases. And they are also guaranteeing compliance for enterprise uses, saving the paperwork load and time. This could make Ubuntu Pro attractive for enterprises and the IT department. Everyone wants to limit the paperwork checks. Us plebes, can make do with the free standard 4 years of LTS support if that’s what you want.
I’m quite sure that any distro that offers enterprise solutions is doing similar things just for the money. RedHat does it for sure. But us plebes don’t ever see it because we use Fedora instead.
Requesting? Last I heard they had patched all methods of not creating an account barring using the command line, for windows users that’s pretty forceful
You mean a free Ubuntu pro account for personal use?
b-but that requires signing up. too much effort 😅
If you’re not paying for the product, then you’re the product.
(I don’t believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I’m not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)
If you’re not paying for the support, then you are the support.
No, random Internet forum users and whoever is lurking in IRC/Matrix are the support. Kind of like that 2 by 4 in my basement is supporting the entirety of my house’s main beam.
Yeah, but Canonical locks security patches behind payment or signup, not just support.
you are the security patch.
sudo apt uninstallCanonical already maintains security patches for paying customers so they aren’t actually doing any extra work, but putting it behind a subscription gives them an option to start charging more for desktops, gives clear cost for server use, and maybe is marketing for “look at the premium work we do”.
Seems really dodgy to me making your business model holding security features hostage for either money or sign-ups, honestly.
Kindof like charging people for vaccines against deadly diseases or something.
But then again, my craw may be extra susceptible to sticking when it comes to such things.
How do you think research for vaccines is funded? Someone pays for vaccines for deadly diseases eventually
Preferably taxpayers. Not that that part of the analogy relates to Ubuntu.
In any case, the company who makes the vaccines doesn’t pay it. Ubuntu could make the argument you get the security upgrades if the government wants to pay for them
From my look at it, Ubuntu is making it clear that they guarantee support for 10 years, rather than just the standard 4 of LTS releases. And they are also guaranteeing compliance for enterprise uses, saving the paperwork load and time. This could make Ubuntu Pro attractive for enterprises and the IT department. Everyone wants to limit the paperwork checks. Us plebes, can make do with the free standard 4 years of LTS support if that’s what you want.
I’m quite sure that any distro that offers enterprise solutions is doing similar things just for the money. RedHat does it for sure. But us plebes don’t ever see it because we use Fedora instead.
Also making people familiar with your system makes it more likely that they’ll want to use it at work, too
It you are a business then you pay for the product.
I’m not paying for Lemmy.
I think it looks like Microsoft is requesting a ms account to use/install Windows, I think it’s weird to request registration for non-commercial users
Requesting? Last I heard they had patched all methods of not creating an account barring using the command line, for windows users that’s pretty forceful
happy cake day
ty