Is Canonical overly paternalistic with Ubuntu?
It's time for Mark Shuttleworth to cut the apron strings to Ubuntu, making it pay for itself.
On Monday,, and that this success is beginning to cut into Microsoft's OEM licensing business.
Tuesday there is a chorus of voices calling out that Canonical is not cash-flow positive, with .
Is this cause of optimism or concern?
On the positive side, CEO Mark Shuttleworth is able to run Canonical toward mass adoption, not mass monetization. This means he can avoid trade-offs that might help the Canonical business but hurt the Ubuntu Linux distribution.
On the negative side, it is profit and the thirst for it that tends to separate great companies from paltry ones. Yes, the quest for revenue and profit can turn good companies into shady ones--witness Microsoft's unlawful exercise of monopoly power for many years--but on balance the quest for profitability and self-sustainability tends to force companies to be pragmatic and build to suit near-term needs, not long-term aspirations.
I personally believe Canonical would be the better for taking a hard-headed approach to the business side of Ubuntu, and the sooner the better. Shuttleworth, of course, has this in mind with.
But he needs to hurry before his organization grows lazy in the expectation that "Mark will provide." Canonical should start funding itself, rather than relying on Shuttleworth. It will be a better organization as it seeks self-sufficiency. Talking to Shuttleworth, it's clear that he can handle the business aspect of Canonical in spades. He just needs to start doing so.