Ubuntucat

Mark Shuttleworth’s vision
I know I’m not the only Ubuntu user blogging about Mark Shuttleworth saying he wants to make Ubuntu better-looking than OS X in the next two years. He also says

I can’t say we will succeed at this, but we will make a significant attempt to elevate the Linux desktop to the point where it is as good or better than Apple. We’ll also open up the debate to a broad community, rather than just software engineers—we’ll preserve the bazaar, but also redefine what success means for this particular crowd, so things are not just stable but also lovely. We can’t outspend Microsoft or Apple in terms of user-interface studies or the like, but we can invest in this.

I have a lot of respect for Mark Shuttleworth. He made a lot of money off open source, saw and filled a niche in the Linux community, and recognized the need for a balance between being a total corporate sellout and a total free software zealot.

But I think he’s either, in recent interviews, not sharing his total vision for Ubuntu, or not realizing why people like Mac OS X.

What’s so great about Macs and Apple anyway?
My wife is a Mac user. She has her Macbook Pro (recently traded up from a Powerbook), her iPhone, and her iPod (now a portable hard drive, since the iPhone is now her music player). I love Ubuntu and my Eee PC on which I’ve loaded it. I know, though, that no matter how much I like Ubuntu, my wife is having a better computing experience. It doesn’t have to do with software quality or availability, pretty looks, or hardware peripherals support.

In one of his recent MacWorld Expo keynotes, Steve Jobs talked about recognizing the importance of tightly integrating software and hardware. I don’t like how he’s locked people into his hardware with his software (right now Apple has already filed suit against Psystar, which recently began selling Mac OS X-preinstalled non-Apple computers), but he is right about how important that tight integration is.

What Apple offers you, and you realize this the moment you walk into an Apple store, is a total experience. You want a computer? They’ll sell you computers that are designed to work with the software on them. You want a portable music player? They’ll sell you one that’s designed to work with the music software on the computer they just sold you. You want a TV accessory for watching YouTube videos and renting movies and TV shows? They’ll sell you that, too. The software programs all talk to each other, and the software talks to the hardware, and the hardware is all meant to complement well the other hardware.

Yes, I have my criticisms of Apple and Mac OS X, just as many Ubuntu fans do. I don’t find Mac OS X intuitive at all. I don’t like DRM in the iTunes music store. I don’t like how they actively fight against people trying to use non-iTunes software to sync iPods. I don’t like how their end user license agreement makes you use only Apple computers with Mac OS X. Nevertheless, they’re doing something way beyond making good or beautiful software.

The Canonical store
This is what I would love to see, Mark Shuttleworth, and maybe it might take more than even your hundreds of millions to get set up, but I’m dreaming here. It’s okay to dream, I hope. For Ubuntu to surpass Apple, there should be a Canonical store—a brick and mortar store. You can start with a couple of them—maybe one in London, one in New York—and expand from there.

A Canonical store would be much like an Apple store. There would be computers on display that ran Ubuntu and were guaranteed to work with Ubuntu in every way (no non-working resume-from-suspend, or no it-worked-in-a-previous-version-but-after-you-upgrade-there-might-be-a-sound-problem). There would be portable media players that were designed to work well with Rhythmbox and vice versa. These would also be on display. There would be Canonical cinema displays that played nice with Xorg, so all you would have to do is plug it in, click on an icon on the Gnome panel to auto-detect displays and have an extended desktop with proper screen resolutions on both your Ubuntu laptop and the Canonical cinema display. You would be able to buy Ogg and MP3 songs from major and independent music labels through a Rhythmbox plugin (the Magnatune and Jamendo plugins they have now are a good start). More importantly, all the printers and other peripherals sold at the Ubuntu store would be guaranteed to work with Ubuntu.

Ubuntu’s fruit would be free
How, some of you Ubuntu users are wondering, would this be any different from the Apple store? It sounds like an exact clone of Apple. We don’t want to be Apple. We want to be Ubuntu. We want to be different. We are not Windows. We are not Mac OS X. We are a Linux distribution. If people want a Mac, they should get a Mac. Leave them to their iPods and Apple TVs. This would be different, though, my dream Canonical store. It would be different in the only important way that Linux is different from OS X and Windows—the software would be open source.

It’s about software freedom, and that’s what the Canonical store would provide you with. Yes, there would be a limited number of default and recommended hardware combinations available at the Canonical store, but if Psystar (provided it still exists after the Apple lawsuit) wanted to sell Ubuntu preinstalled computers, instead of suing Psystar, Canonical would partner with Psystar. People could buy hardware from the Canonical store if they wanted their hardware to be guaranteed to work well with Ubuntu, but nothing would stop geeks from buying Linux-friendly hardware from NewEgg or TigerDirect (they could scour the out-of-date entries in Ubuntu Wiki entry on hardware support while the general public would walk into a Canonical store and not worry about doing all the research). Rhythmbox would be designed to work well with whatever portable media player Canonical sold, but the specs would be open so that anyone could use a regular MSC transfer on other portable media players.

If Ubuntu sets that up, I think they might actually have a chance of beating Apple, but it also means getting into the hardware business (or setting up a very close partnership with a hardware vendor).

What direction will Canonical go?
Of course, one could argue that Canonical could go the way of Microsoft and stay a software company (only with free software instead of proprietary software), but Windows can work that way because vendors support it instead of Windows supporting itself. You end up having to install a lot of drivers and software after a Windows installation just to get basic functionality. An Apple approach would be much more in line with a Ubuntu user experience, especially since the Linux kernel provides the drivers for hardware and package management provides all the software for the end user.

The Microsoft approach is “We make the operating system and very little else. All you hardware and software companies better just make sure your stuff works with our operating system.”

The Apple approach is “We make the operating system and the computers and the software. We’ll bundle it all together and make sure it works well together. It’d be awesome if you third-party people made your stuff work with our stuff, too.”

What should Canonical’s approach be? In my dream world (and I hope Mark Shuttleworth agrees with this), it would be “We make the operating system and highly recommend these computer configurations in order to work well with our software and will bundle everything together, but we have opened up the source code and specs for everything, so if you want to go a way other than our way, go for it. We fully support you in branching off and using something else.”

That might take care of Bug #1, or at least help Canonical surpass Apple.

I’m very glad my wife waited a year to get the second-generation iPhone. It has been quite difficult to actually get one, though. For a while, I thought it was some ploy by Apple to generate more demand and hype by pretending to have a limited supply and thus make the iPhones appear harder to get than they really are. After all, that worked for the Wii, except that Nintendo couldn’t get its act together even a year after demand for the Wii had swelled.

The long lines were a big put-off, and I kept thinking, “Why is there such a long line? Don’t they just sell whatever stock they have and then just tell people they’re sold out?” This thought came to me especially when I called one Apple store to ask if they had iPhones in stock, and they said, “Yes, we have them, but there’s a line, and it’s about a four- to five-hour wait right now.” Excuse me? Four- to five-hour wait? Who would do that? That’s crazy! I waited in line for three hours for the Uffizi in Firenze, but that’s because my friend who was studying there at the time said the Uffizi was the only tourist trap worth going to.

Well, today, my wife finally got her iPhone. She went to the Apple store downtown, and they said they didn’t have it. Then I suggested she try the new Apple store in the Marina, and she got there just as a truck full of iPhones was pulling up to the store. A line immediately formed in front of the store, and she was about the fourth in line. What was this line for? Why did the process take so long? Well, first they had to individually “pre-screen” each customer to make sure they had an AT&T account (yes, we’re in America, and AT&T is the only provider you can use with the iPhone) or knew the appropriate account information to switch from another provider. Then they had to take each customer and set up an account and activate the phone specifically for that account. In other words, it was all this AT&T business that made the lines so long. The entire process of waiting to be pre-screened, being pre-screened, getting the iPhone set up, and purchasing the iPhone took about an hour and a half… for one customer (my wife, in this case). Talk about inefficiency. But, hey, at least AT&T knows Apple isn’t selling iPhones to people who will just unlock it and use it with another provider. No, you’re locked into their two-year contract. They have their claws in you.

That said, the iPhone’s pretty slick. I wish they had a Linux-based (and pay-as-you-go) phone that was this slick. The only things I don’t like about it (user experience-wise) are

• You can’t easily remove apps you don’t care for.
• You can’t easily install random apps, and a lot of the specifically-made-for-iPhone apps cost money.
• A lot of the menu items do not have a back button to return to the main menu. I prefer a back button to pressing the main menu button.

So, buying experience—lame. Actual user experience—pretty cool. I think my wife will have a lot of fun with it. I’m happy with my crappy Virgin Mobile phone, though. I don’t need all that fancy stuff. I just want to make phone calls and occasionally check when the next bus is coming.

Warning, for those who know me in person: This is an extremely geeky post. Proceed with caution.

Just as forum users will sometimes fling the label troll against anyone who argues with them, many forum users (particularly in computer-related discussions) will throw around the term fanboy without making the term meaningful. Most of the time, when I see the term fanboy used, it’s basically used as a way to avoid having meaningful or logical discussion and to shut the other person up, even if she has valid points. It’s basically a way of saying, “Since you clearly are a fan of this operating system, nothing you say has meaning.”

But being a fan alone doesn’t invalidate what you have to say. fanboy goes beyond fan. I think the folks over at Urban Dictionary have it right. Here are some of top-voted definitions for the word:

• A passionate fan of various elements of geek culture (e.g. sci-fi, comics, Star Wars, video games, anime, hobbits, Magic: the Gathering, etc.), but who lets his passion override social graces.
• A person who is completely loyal to a game or company reguardless[sic] of if they suck or not.
• An arrogant person who goes into an outburst every time something he likes is questioned.

Since I am a regular on the Ubuntu Forums, the context in which I see fanboy is often in relation to operating systems. Linux fanboys. Mac fanboys. Windows fanboys. Just so people know, though, a Linux user defending Linux is not a Linux fanboy, just as a Mac user defending Mac OS X is not a Mac fanboy, and likewise for a Window user defending Windows.

What really sets a fanboy apart is saying only positive things about her operating system of choice and never acknowledging anything negative about her operating system of choice. Frankly, I haven’t found too many people like that on the Ubuntu Forums. Sure, if you speak mistruths about Linux or spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt without real concrete examples, then Ubuntu users will speak up and correct you. But if you ask them what’s wrong with Ubuntu or Linux, you’ll get a very, very long list of replies. I don’t think you’ll find many Ubuntu users who will say Ubuntu or Linux can do no wrong.

Further Reading
Mac Zealots, Linux Zealots, and Windows Zealots

Introduction
I want to bring iTunes-loving Linux users back to reality. As you can see from the following Ubuntu Forums threads, some Ubuntu-ites are deluded about the idea of Apple porting iTunes to Linux:
Why Apple doesn’t want to release iTunes for Linux
Petition – iTunes for Ubuntu
Should Apple port iTunes to Linux?
The iTunes Linux Project

If you’re too lazy to read those links, I can sum up how the iTunes discussion usually goes among Linux users:

Hi. I’m new to Linux. How do I install iTunes on it?
iTunes is a bloated piece of crap. Use a real music application like AmaroK.
I really like iTunes, though.
I installed iTunes on Ubuntu with Wine.
iTunes installs with Wine, but it isn’t fully functional. Don’t bother.
Why do you have an iPod anyway? Use a Cowon player instead. It’s more Linux-friendly.
I kind of like the iTunes music store. Will the songs I bought from there be able to play on a Cowon player?
No. Pop music sucks these days. Don’t support the big labels. Support independent artists.
But I like pop music. Can’t we convince Apple to port iTunes to Linux?
I’ve put together a petition for it. Go to this link to sign it.
I hate iTunes, but I signed the petition because it’ll help bring more users over to Linux.
Apple can keep its proprietary applications. We have better iPod-management software on Linux anyway.

I think I got all the major arguments in there.

Philanthropic Apple porting iTunes?
Now imagine you’re an executive at Apple—Steve Jobs or somebody else. If you read that kind of back-and-forth, would you (even if you were more philanthropic- than profit-oriented) port iTunes to Linux? I know I wouldn’t. Even if I didn’t care about profit, I wouldn’t, because there are too many anti-proprietary software and/or anti-Apple elements in the Linux community. With the number of Linux users not buying iPods, buying iPods and installing Rockbox onto them, and using non-iTunes Music Store services like Jamendo, eMusic, or Amazon, I wouldn’t see a very compelling case for putting any resources into porting iTunes to Linux.

Profit-oriented Apple porting iTunes?
But that’s also assuming Apple isn’t, like almost all corporations, motivated by profit and pleasing the shareholders. Apple is a hardware company focused on hardware sales. They do earn some money from iTunes Music Store purchases, Apple Care subscriptions, and software sales, but their big cash cows are iPods, iPhones, and Macs. That’s what their efforts are focused on: How do we get people to buy more iPods, iPhones, and Macs?

Why did Apple port to Windows?
Apple ported iTunes to Windows, because they knew Windows users wouldn’t otherwise buy Macs in order to have their iPods sync properly, which meant Windows users wouldn’t otherwise buy iPods. And if Windows users hadn’t bought iPods, iPods wouldn’t have taken off. Creative or Sandisk might have instead dominated the portable music player market. The supposed “halo effect” that has Windows users gradually moving to more Apple products is the main reason for the iTunes port to Windows.

What would porting to Linux gain for Apple?
Could a similar effect be achieved by porting iTunes to Linux? I doubt it. My general sense from three years of active participation in the online Linux community is that those who want an iPod will get an iPod, regardless of whether iTunes is available for Linux or not, and those who won’t get an iPod won’t get one anyway. Not to mention that there aren’t (relatively speaking) that many Linux users to begin with.

As a matter of fact, porting iTunes to Linux is counterproductive to Apple’s goals. Porting iTunes to Linux might make Windows users take more seriously Linux as an alternative to Windows, which means they might keep their old Dell or HP computers and install Linux on them instead of saying, “Hey, I want a Windows alternative. Maybe I’ll get a Mac.” People generally do not think of Linux as a viable alternative to Windows, which is fine by Apple. Remember—it’s “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC,” not “I’m OS X, I’m Windows, I’m Linux.”

It wouldn’t even help community relations
And porting iTunes to Linux wouldn’t even build good will in the Linux community. As a PR move, it would fall flat on its face. I don’t know whether it’s large percentages of users or just the vocal minority, but you know the second Apple ported iTunes to Linux, there would be cries of “Do not infest my system with your proprietary, bloated crap” and “Why don’t you just GPL iTunes instead?”

Personal story time
My first portable audio player was an iPod, and I used iTunes for Windows with it. When I moved to Linux, I dual-booted with Windows just for iTunes. Eventually, I weaned myself off iTunes and the iPod and used Rhythmbox and a Sandisk player instead, mainly because iPods don’t have FM radios. My wife (also a former Windows user), on the other hand, bought an iPod, used iTunes on Windows until she had to buy a Mac for school (the school mandated students in her line of study buy a Mac), and then she used iTunes on the Mac. There was a time when she considered getting a non-iPod portable music player, but the information on what non-iPods worked well with Macs was too difficult to find at the time, so she stuck with iPods. I had one dalliance with Cowon’s crappy players (the iAudio 7, which busted after only three months of use), but I’m back to Sandisk.

Now, if Apple had ported iTunes to Linux when I was dual-booting just for iTunes, I would have found it convenient to have iTunes on Linux (and I’d have ditched Windows sooner), but I’d have probably still moved to Sandisk just because of the lack of radio in the iPod. So Apple wouldn’t have sold our families any more iPods or Macs. And I think that’s a pretty typical scenario.

Conclusion
With regard to Apple products and Linux users, I’d say Linux users generally fall into these categories:

• I have no problem with Apple products. I own them and use them in addition to Linux.
• I have no problem with Apple products. I own them and install Linux or Rockbox on them, or mod them in some other way.
• I’ll use an iPod, and I wish Apple would port iTunes to Linux, and I’d be grateful to have better integration, but in the meantime I’m coping fine with AmaroK, GTKPod, and other native Linux applications.
• I’ll use an iPod, but I hate iTunes and much prefer native Linux applications.
• I realize some people like Apple products, but I don’t really need them. I prefer non-Apple products.
• I hate Apple products. I think they’re overrated and overpriced. Apple locks users in more than Microsoft does. Down with DRM! Down with proprietary software!

Some of the expressions in there might be exaggerated, but those are the major demographics in the Linux community with regard to Apple, and I don’t really see how any of them would be buying more Apple products than they already are if Apple ported iTunes to Linux.

iTunes on Linux—not going to happen.

Further Reading
The Futility of Online Petitions