Ubuntu Will Save Linux

Overview

The video argues that although Canonical “lost” the Linux desktop race (Mir/Unity/convergence failed), Ubuntu may ultimately save Linux by providing a counterweight to Red Hat’s (and later IBM’s) growing industrial influence.

---

1) Why open-source direction becomes power-driven

The creator explains that open-source allows anyone to fork, but:

• The cost of supporting a fork over time is huge (bug fixing, security updates, hardware compatibility, and long-term maintenance).
• Organizations with dedicated funding can make long-horizon decisions and hire specialized staff.
• That sustained investment can translate into influence over shared upstream components.

This dynamic helps explain why certain core Linux technologies become dominant and harder for alternatives to displace.

---

2) How Red Hat built influence over time

The speaker traces Red Hat-linked contributions that shaped foundational parts of Linux/desktop systems:

• freedesktop.org / X Desktop Group (2000): standardized collaboration for interoperability across desktops.
• NetworkManager (2004): broadly reusable infrastructure.
• Wayland (begun in spare time at Red Hat; continued at Intel): formed through cross-organization coordination.
• systemd boot work (“Rethinking PID 1,” 2010): affects how services start/coordinate, impacting many stakeholders.
• PipeWire (introduced 2017; originally Pulse Video → … → PipeWire): designed for modern graphics/audio pipelines (including Flatpak/Wayland integrations), later adopted widely (e.g., Fedora).

Point: Red Hat’s “advantage” isn’t just individual projects, but sustained coordination across core fundamentals—so later vendors must build on (or around) that foundation.

---

3) Why Canonical’s bids failed on desktop

A key example from September 2013:

• Intel graphics driver patches were temporarily added to support Canonical’s XMir approach for running X11 apps on Mir.
• Those patches were removed within three days after Intel decided it wouldn’t implement Canonical’s direction upstream.

Broader interpretation:

• Mir required more than a display server: compatibility, tooling, hardware support, and ongoing testing/maintenance.
• Canonical’s strategy (Mir/XMir, then Unity/phone/convergence) demanded coordination with upstreams that would not commit to Canonical’s path.
• Because Linux components become deeply integrated over years, alternatives must “compete with accumulated workload,” making divergence increasingly expensive.

---

4) Canonical pivot: “cutting” the expensive bet

Key turning points described:

• 2014: Debian chooses systemd by default; Ubuntu follows after Shuttleworth (“Losing with dignity”).
• 2017: Shuttleworth announces divestment of Unity 8, phone, and convergence, with Ubuntu refocusing on GNOME, cloud, and IoT.
• The speaker argues cloud capabilities weren’t invented in 2017; early “Ubuntu Server” cloud work existed earlier.

Conclusion: Canonical stopped funding a converged desktop gamble and concentrated resources where it could compete commercially—Ubuntu Server/cloud/operations.

---

5) Ubuntu’s “save Linux” thesis: industrial competition over priorities

The creator claims Linux faces a serious risk: industrial power concentrating around the software most people rely on.

• In 2019, IBM acquired Red Hat (~$34B), further consolidating that power.
• The video mentions downstream effects such as CentOS → CentOS Stream, which forces enterprises to treat direction changes as operational issues.
• It also references other efforts to preserve compatibility alternatives (e.g., OpenELA).

Ubuntu’s counter:

• The speaker proposes Ubuntu can offer plural enterprise options—alongside Red Hat Enterprise Linux—so corporate users and upstream needs aren’t forced to align with a single industrial owner.
• Canonical can build an enterprise platform on Debian, with its own cadence, support offerings, and commercial relationships.

---

6) Financial argument: Canonical can fund influence

The video provides revenue figures to show Canonical’s capacity:

• Canonical 2025 revenue: ~$344.6M (up from ~$291.5M in 2024)
• Net income up to ~$22.8M
• Over 80% of Canonical’s revenue comes from software/support subscriptions (e.g., Ubuntu Pro)

For context, the video cites:

• IBM/Red Hat revenue as much larger (~$6.5B in 2024),
• with OpenShift revenue growth mentioned.

Creator’s model:

• Ubuntu adoption → professional use → support contracts → resources to fund development → further adoption.
• Ubuntu Pro and related offerings support long-term maintenance/security and management needs, including ecosystem infrastructure (Kubernetes/OpenStack/Ceph, in the video’s framing).

---

7) Real-world “market wins” as leverage for shared upstream work

The video presents customer migration examples as evidence Ubuntu can win deployments:

• Red Hat → insurer (2005): 8,500 workstations migrated.
• Ubuntu → same company (2011): 10,000 desktops/laptops migrated, with ads quoting the same CIO—suggesting competitive switching at the enterprise level.

It also claims Canonical can feed customer support work back into shared code. Example described in the subtitles:

• A customer incident where systemd behavior involved very high RAM usage.
• Canonical investigates, reproduces, develops a fix, gets it into mainline kernel, then delivers it to Ubuntu kernels.

Argument: corporate-funded troubleshooting can yield upstream improvements that benefit everyone, not only paying customers.

---

8) What the creator wants Canonical to influence

The speaker calls for more Canonical influence in shared areas, especially:

• systemd
• NetworkManager
• PipeWire
• freedesktop.org specifications
• the graphics stack

Overall conclusion: Canonical should convert enterprise revenue into upstream joint work and architectural proposals that Red Hat/IBM may deprioritize—so the Linux ecosystem can resist vendor-driven direction changes rather than follow them by default.

---

Presenters or contributors (as mentioned)

• Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical founder/CEO; referenced for decisions and announcements)
• Havoc Pennington (Red Hat; referenced for starting the X Desktop Group)
• Christian Hegsberg (Wayland starter; referenced)
• Lennart Pöttering (systemd-related “Rethinking PID 1” article)
• Christian Schaller (PipeWire introduced)
• Wim Tymans (PipeWire’s original developer)
• Werner Schmidt (quoted CIO in enterprise migration examples)
• IBM and Red Hat (organizational contributors; acquisition context and strategy referenced)
• UBports community (mentioned as continuing Ubuntu Touch development)