Is Canonical going to have an IPO?

It's best to keep the company private so as to maintain control over the destiny of Ubuntu. Yes, there's the community, and if they're truly important, keep the company private. If you take it public, then no longer will there be the ability to create the next Unity or Mir for that matter. Just my opinion.

I second your opinion, private, that's where complete freedom is.

I think it's time. They need more capital if they want to scale and make the phone really happen.

> I think it's time. They need more capital if they want to scale and make the phone really happen.

Ah yes, the phone. Next move (to make it Android compatible and thus marketable at this stage) will be the deal with the Google devil, signed in Mark's blood.

Don't you think Mark Shuttleworth is tired of dumping money into the Canonical pit? So while I grab the popcorn, who do you think will be standing first in line to buy shares? I'll give you a hint: Their CEO is named Nadella, they're based in Redmond, Wash., and the company name begins with an "M" . . . .

Monkeys?

Not Monkeys; BABBOONS! As in M$huttleworth's Baboontu running alongside Android.

Just as seatex wrote "Next move (to make it Android compatible and thus marketable at this stage) will be the deal with the Google devil, signed in Mark's blood."

2c

I don't get it. The phone has zero chance against the Google juggernaut Android. What exactly is Ubuntu's angle? I mean Android also has a linux kernel so while it is nice that Ubuntu is open source in the main, I hardly see that as a selling point for the ordinary consumer..

Shuttleworth keeps playing catchup and dabbling rather than aggressively seeking a niche. Ubuntu is beginning to resemble a vanity project for flushing a billionaires money.

Great for me as I use it (and Mint) but not a sound business strategy.

montezuma: I respectfully disagree. While Android does use the Linux kernel, its user space is designed in such a way as to make it difficult for the user to "own" his own device. I have several examples I could bring to illustrate this point if anyone is interested.

I for one insist that MY devices are MINE and not owned by the vendor. (My phone is a Nokia N9, designed before they were seduced by Microsoft.) I think that I am not alone in this, and therefore I believe there is a niche (maybe not so small) of people who would like to be running Linux on their devices not only in the kernel but also in the user space.

I applaud Canonical for leading the path toward this goal. Keep up the good work.

@penguinist

> While Android does use the Linux kernel, its user space is designed in such a way as > to make it difficult for the user to "own" his own device. I have several examples I could > bring to illustrate this point if anyone is interested.

Please do.

(I'm not disputing your statement, and I'm pretty sure you're right -- but concrete examples never hurt. Personally, I've only encountered some networking stuff, easily dealt with using free apps -- but I haven't really tried to do anything with my tablet besides play games, surf a few sites, and (mostly) read books and documents.)

>I applaud Canonical for leading the path toward this goal. Keep up the good work

Agree 200%

> The phone has zero chance against the Google juggernaut Android.

When Android will be outrageously locked down, these devices will be better perceived. I plan to buy a new tablet for work next year. If an Ubuntu tablet appears by that time, I'll seriously consider that.

I'm certainly at least interested in a Linux tablet, and possibly a phone at some point (my current phone is decided by my company more than me; that is, I get to choose between a couple of different predetermined phones).

Of course, just because I'm interested doesn't mean I think the devices will do well in the marketplace. What I would like to see is hardware that is not locked down so that I could put whatever system I wanted on it, like we have with PC's (although these days they are looking for ways to lock some of it down).

Just don't forget that, historically, it has been the carriers who lock the phones down more than the manufacturers - shouldn't be as much of a problem with unlocked phones though.

Also, I believe that no matter the OS used on a phone, it's the encryption that matters most. Secondly, the carrier's government disclosure policies.

Some people misread my post. I did say an open tablet/phone would be great. The real issue though is whether it can commercially compete with Android. I am highly doubtful and no one answered this point above.

If we consider seeing Ubuntu on commercial phones and Dell laptops, we can just hope for a wider adoption, it's different from total rejection. Yet handheld devices where you can swap distros like on current desktops will remain a myth presumably. Drivers/modules for every new hardware are not readily made available by component manufacturers. If we have an Ubuntu phone/tablet where we can at least have root access without counting on a third party, that would yet be a major step. Whether we like Canonical or Shuttleworth is secondary, he's the only guy burning his own money to push his Linux distro everywhere.