If you’re not paying for the product, then you’re the product.
(I don’t believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I’m not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)
No, random Internet forum users and whoever is lurking in IRC/Matrix are the support. Kind of like that 2 by 4 in my basement is supporting the entirety of my house’s main beam.
Canonical already maintains security patches for paying customers so they aren’t actually doing any extra work, but putting it behind a subscription gives them an option to start charging more for desktops, gives clear cost for server use, and maybe is marketing for “look at the premium work we do”.
If you’re not paying for the product, then you’re the product.
(I don’t believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I’m not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)
If you’re not paying for the support, then you are the support.
No, random Internet forum users and whoever is lurking in IRC/Matrix are the support. Kind of like that 2 by 4 in my basement is supporting the entirety of my house’s main beam.
Yeah, but Canonical locks security patches behind payment or signup, not just support.
you are the security patch.
sudo apt uninstallCanonical already maintains security patches for paying customers so they aren’t actually doing any extra work, but putting it behind a subscription gives them an option to start charging more for desktops, gives clear cost for server use, and maybe is marketing for “look at the premium work we do”.
Seems really dodgy to me making your business model holding security features hostage for either money or sign-ups, honestly.
Kindof like charging people for vaccines against deadly diseases or something.
But then again, my craw may be extra susceptible to sticking when it comes to such things.