Ubuntu Server Edition: Where's the Official Support?
There’s no question that Ubuntu dominates the desktop-Linux world. With commanding market share and a huge user community, it’s by far the most well supported and documented open-source platform in the desktop world. On servers, however, the situation is different–and Canonical needs to address it if it wants to become a real player in the server market.
When I entered the Linux world in 2006, I started with Mandriva. It was easy enough to use as long as I stuck to officially supported channels, but trying to find RPM packages or Mandriva-specific documentation for third-party applications was a hit-or-miss affair, since Mandriva’s user base was not large enough to ensure attention from all developers.
One of the things I liked most about Ubuntu after switching to it a year later was its ubiquity in the free-software world, which meant that finding installers and ensuring compatibility with my distribution was no longer a struggle–no more downloading random packages from RPMforge, double-clicking and hoping for the best. I won’t say Ubuntu was objectively better than Mandriva, but it was more popular, which in itself goes a long way towards improving usability.
Server challenges
While Ubuntu’s dominance of the desktop ensures strong support by developers of desktop applications, its less commanding presence on servers, where it faces competition from well entrenched companies like Red Hat, Novell and Sun, works in the opposite direction.
Rare is the third-party server-application developer who officially supports Ubuntu. More often, support is limited to license-based Linux distributions like Red Hat and SUSE Enterprise. For example, here’s a short list of non-Ubuntu-friendly software I’ve needed to install lately on servers:
- SiteMinder plugin for Web-application authentication: supports only Red Hat and SUSE
- IBM Blade Center Management Module: documentation mostly only refers to Red Hat; binaries available only as RPMs
- QLogic fiber-channel modules: distributed in RPM-form only
Granted, the examples above are anectdotal, and the software referred to can be made to work on Ubuntu with enough effort. Nonetheless, having to hack apart RPM packages in order to get enterprise servers working with Ubuntu is not reassuring to server administrators.
If Canonical wants to expand its foothold on the server market, it needs to work harder to gain official support for Ubuntu from developers and hardware manufacturers. That’s no easy task, especially since it means competing with companies that have had a decade to forge relationships with channel partners. But until server administrators can install Ubuntu and be sure that whatever software they want to run on it will be officially supported, Canonical will be fighting an uphill battle against Red Hat and friends.
hi.i really like your posts about Ubuntu, keep it up. Learned a lot through your posts which i have linked to on my blog. great work.
Commanding marketshare in the Desktop? Show me actual numbers as to market penetration for Ubuntu. Failing that show me an estimate that is backed up with communicated methodology on how the the estimate was calculated. Stop preaching to the choir and provide objective information.
All I’ve seen are numbers pulled out of thin air. Canonical execs have NEVER deemed it necessary to explain how they come up with the estimated 8 million users. They don’t explain how they track that or what they track. Until they go on record and explain how they come up with that estimate..that estimate is fantasy. Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes true.
-jef
@ Jef Spaleta:
1) Your’s is a strong accusation. You are saying that Canonical is lying (or are you directing the last sentence at Chris?). Either way, do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your accusation? Surely the burden of proof is on you to show that Canonical or Chris are repeating lies.
2) chill out, man. You could have made exactly the same point without coming across as a strident, opinionated troll. Surely you appreciate civilized conversations? We are all friends here.
Jef: I’m as curious as you to know the methodology behind the precise numbers that have been put forth by Canonical and others as the size of Ubuntu’s user base. But the point made in the article is simply that Ubuntu is by far the most popular Linux distribution on desktops, and I’ve never heard that being a matter of debate in the last several years. I’ve seen a range of numbers for Ubuntu’s actual market share, but they’ve all placed it substantially higher than competing distributions. If you’ve read anything different, I’d be interested to see it, but as far as I know there’s no reason to doubt that Ubuntu has a significant lead over Fedora, SUSE, etc.
sinaisix: thanks for the comment and glad you enjoy the posts. I’m checking out yours right now.
Civilized conversation? That’s impossible to have when hearsay is what passes for factual information. Canonical reps will not go on record with how they come up with the estimated install base. Until someone explains how Canonical counts Ubuntu installs…the issue of marketshare dominance is very much debatable.
When Shuttleworth is on record as saying that Canonical has no idea what the actual Ubuntu clients in the wild…the burden of proof is on anyone making the claim that Ubuntu is a dominate linux desktop marketshare. Methodology matters. Stop repeating hearsay like its unassailable fact and start producing credible objective information which supports the claim.
Chris, if you don’t think its a matter of debate then you aren’t talking to the right people. If all you do is talk to people who want to believe that Ubuntu is dominate so badly that they don’t care about whether the available data supports the claim or not.. then no of course you aren’t going to find yourself in a debate. I’m not one of those people however. Neither is the Xandros CEO:.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/03/xandros_custom_linux/print.html
“We have the largest paid installed base of consumer Linux users,” boasts Smith. “We’ve got millions of these things out there, and while Ubuntu has a lot, too, most of theirs are free.”
Unlike Canonical..when Xandros CEO’s says millions he’s talking about actual paid-for installs…installs he can count without hand-wavy estimating. When Canonical talks about millions they are talking about installs they can’t count, they can’t track. And they sure aren’t talking about their OEM pre-install figures…numbers they know without hand-wavy estimation.
-jef
Jef: thanks for that link. I wouldn’t be surprised if Xandros has the largest install base among for-purchase Linux distributions, but I don’t find the CEO’s claim that there are “millions of these things out there” any more convincing than Canonical’s unqualified numbers. That’s a pretty nebulous statement.
In any case, this is an interesting topic and I’d like to explore it further–maybe in another post. Looking forward to your continued thoughts.
Everything associated with the number of Ubuntu installs is nebulous.. that’s is entirely my point! Canonical has made zero effort to explain how the come up with their install base numbers. The size of the Ubuntu install base is nebulous and noone should suggest otherwise.
It’s much easier for Canonical to let you and others repeat inaccurate estimates like they are gospel fact than it is for Canonical to submit to any level of transparent scrutiny of how the count. If you care about accurate deployment numbers you need to convince Canonical to at a minimum explain how they are making their estimate. A number without methodology has no meaning.
-jef
[…] 20, 2009 Christopher Tozzi at the WorksWithU blog states, #8220;There’s no question that Ubuntu dominates the desktop-Linux world.nbsp; With […]
who cares… ubuntu sucks anyway… stupid newb distro… get a real linux os. slackware, debian, mandriva, ect
…and then the real trolling comes out.
The Qlogic Fiber drivers are definitely a problem. Maybe Canonical thinks that Fiber SAN’s are a thing of the past……
Dave
It’s like I keep saying. Canonicals’ natural market is the Linux desktop. That is were the vast majority of their success seems to be. Well at least the stuff us mere mortals get to read about at any rate.
I think a company dedicated to providing a Linux based desktop OS is essential if we want to see Linux move forward. We need a company the OEMs like Dell and HP and Asus etc can work with and get behind to provide a quality desktop Linux OS.
It’s great that Ubuntu is completely free to use. But even free to use needs to be funded some how. Developers need to eat. Canonical have proven with Ubuntu and it’s many branches it has the chops to deliver a quality user experience on the desktop.
Taking the desktop would also open up the server market for Canonical. Sort of like a right of passage. A Canonical OS would be on the desktop. Then on the servers of SMBs. File servers and print servers etc. And from their the worlds your oyster if you get it right.
Yes I know everything is meant to be headed for the cloud. But that won’t happen. And even if it does. We still need our desktop PC or terminals to host access to the cloud.
By the way. I know the vast majority of people think taking the desktop from Microsoft is impossible. I don’t think it is. I might be insane but I consider such a defeatist attitude pitiful. I think all that is needed is the right incentive for business and consumers to make the leap. That incentive is applications.
When a Linux distribution can provide the full range of applications the desktop market needs. Linux will take the desktop. It doesn’t matter if those applications live in the cloud or are native to Linux. Applications are the key to the desktop.