| From: Dhaval Giani via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | https://ubuntu.com/pricing/pro Thanks. That helps clarify things. It is kind of tough trying to make a business as a Linux distro. And we all benefit from those who try. Some businesses are more open than others, possibly because they can afford to be. We need several to thrive. If all followed the debian model, I don't think Linux would be nearly as rich an ecosystem. I have never really liked Canonical -- some bad vibes that may be my problem, not theirs. But they have enriched us all. They've made Linux easier for ordinary folks.

| From: Evan Leibovitch via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | | It's become interesting to follow what appears to be a re-invention of the | model taking place as CIQ <https://ciq.co/> seeks to be for Rocky Linux | what Canonical was for Ubuntu (hopefully, better!). There are, to be sure, | significant differences between the two pairs' interrelationships; but it | will be interesting to see the differences in approaches between the two. | Might even make it worth exploring the Red Hat Universe again. | | If I want to leave Ubuntu-world for my (nominally-headless) server, what | would be the path of least resistance? Debian? I followed that link and got, front and centre, a video full of aspirational market-speak. No usable info. Canonical has done a lot of work creating Ubuntu. Of course they stand on the shoulders of the rest of us, but it has been real and respectable work. Now they are trying another way to make some money off this. Rocky Linux appears to be just a copy of RHEL (as was CentOS). I guess CIQ is selling support for it (the front page doesn't say). Just like RHEL. It will likely be cheaper and not as good since the vast majority of the engineers are at Red Hat. (My understanding is Oracle Linux is kind of similar, but with more engineers. And some tie-in with Oracle's other products. Oracle does some innovation in their Linux too.) So these models seem quite different, based on the amount of engineering. BTW small doses of RHEL are "free" (as in beer). But you have to register and I assume that the product phones home to make sure you don't exceed the limits. I like to think that my Linux installations don't phone home. Of course that is false because they do phone home for updates. And all web browsers spray DNA everywhere.

| From: William Park via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | When I click "Get Ubuntu Pro now" button, I see $500/year at the bottom, which | is a bit too much for Linux. At least, Apple owns the hardware and software. | But, with Linux, you have to get the hardware yourself, and install the | software yourself. If you click Dhaval's link, it is all laid out clearly. <https://ubuntu.com/pricing/pro> Unless you have requirements beyond my idea of normal, you qualify for the free tier of Ubuntu Pro (infra-only) Desktop. I assume that a Desktop can act as a server -- that's always been true. It doesn't really say that you are not allowed to have dozen's of machines. But Stewart says that there is a limit of five. Stewart is usually right so this document is suspect. Ohh. Maybe the dashes mean "not available". I thought that they meant "no charge". Not so clear after all. | On 2023-01-31 09:22, Stewart Russell via talk wrote: | > I should really stop running Ubuntu for the good of my health. This morning, | > my various Ubuntu systems announced that a whole bunch of packages would be | > unavailable unless I registered for Ubuntu Pro — https://ubuntu.com/pro | > <https://ubuntu.com/pro> | > | > Ubuntu Pro is free-of-charge for "personal" users for up to five machines. | > Otherwise, pay up. I didn't see rates listed: you have to contact Canonical | > to find out. Whenever I see that, I expect an Oracle-style shakedown in the | > absence of transparency. Looking at Stewart's link <https://ubuntu.com/pro> ... If I remember correctly, free Ubuntu LTS was supposed to have 10 years of support. It now seems to be down to 5. So they've taken something away that they promised (RH did too when it chopped off CentOS.) "Reduce your average CVE exposure time from 98 days to 1 day with expanded CVE patching, ten-years security maintenance, optional support and operations for the full stack of open-source applications." Really? Ubuntu security updates have been that bad? I don't really know what the Ubuntu Universe is. It seems to be very big -- ten times the number of packages in Ubuntu Main. The logo ranks suggest some pretty important things are only in Universe: Python, Go, Perl, Docker, Ansible, Rust. Maybe base customers get Universe but with no promised maintenance. That sounds like a legal liability if they know about a security problem, and have fixed it, but not for LTS customers.

| From: Kevin Cozens via talk <talk@gtalug.org> | I saw that reference to "infra-only". What does that mean? Look at "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE" down a little bit on the pricing page.