Does Ubuntu Have First Party Support?

[hyperlinxe]

So guys, it's very simple. If you spoke to people that develop, and use Ubuntu, I'm sure we could all agree that there is a general consensus.

In the context of using the Ubuntu Operating System, which is made up of all the components that provide us with our entire system! The first party source for "Linux" for example briefly, if you want to start with one simple example, is clearly Linux, and specifically the Linux kernel, developed by Linus Torvalds.

edit: and the first party source for Ubuntu, is clearly, Ubuntu! In that same light.

[Paddy Landau]

@hyperlinxe, I simply don't understand what you are after.

Nothing whatsoever stops you from customising Ubuntu, or indeed any other distribution. In fact, that's exactly what many people have done. As examples, Xubuntu and Lubuntu are official customisations ("derivatives") of Ubuntu. Pop!_OS and Mint are unofficial (and popular) derivatives of Ubuntu.

Ubuntu itself is a derivative of Debian.

If you want to customise Ubuntu, go ahead to your heart's content. You are perfectly welcome to do so. The only restriction is the use of Ubuntu's copyrighted name and logo, which you would have to replace (just as Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Pop!_OS and Mint have done). There is no other restriction. If you're customising only your personal copy, not for distribution, then you don't even have to worry about that.

If you want first-party support — which means Canonical's support — you would have to persuade Canonical that it's worth doing. Lubuntu went through that process: Originally, it was an unofficial derivative of Ubuntu, but after a few years, Lubuntu persuaded Canonical that it was worth supporting, and so now Lubuntu is an official derivative supported by Canonical (but still with an independent team).

Alternatively, you can pay for support for this sort of thing, but as Canonical's target market is larger organisations, you'll find it expensive.

[Paddy Landau]

the first party source for Ubuntu, is clearly, Ubuntu!

No, that's incorrect. The first party for Ubuntu is Canonical. Ubuntu is nothing more than a distribution. The team behind Ubuntu is Canonical.

[hyperlinxe]

Sure, so Ubuntu is Canonical, and Canonical is Ubuntu. I can agree with that. (even though they actually make a distinction about that, and say that is not how they would like to refer to the situation, they want to be referred to separately)

But, I'm sure you would agree with me, that Linux, is also Linux, such as the Linux kernel, the first party source, for Linux, the Linux kernel, developed by Linus Torvalds.

and that component, for example, is separate from Ubuntu. Which is why, if we want to talk about sources, we would refer to the linux kernel as being derived from the first party source: the people that actually develop the linux kernel.

[yancek]

Canonical is a for profit business which makes money primarily by selling support for the system. Ubuntu forums is simply a group of volunteers which has NO control or input any more than anyone else regarding the development of Ubuntu. I understand that these forums are supported by Canonical hosting the servers but I don't believe the company interferes with the operation.

[QIII]

Not a request for help with the operating system. Moved to ULOSC.

[hyperlinxe]

Actually it is a request for help, because I want to understand how we can use the Ubuntu operating system.

That's what my line of thinking, is all about! How can we take advantage of it's advertised modularity? What is the extent of it's modularity?

It's fine if you don't know. But why would you start arguing with strangers about definitions, if you simply don't know!

That's great you guys are volunteers. Me too. You're the people I'm seeking to speak to!

[QIII]

Let me clarify something for you: Ubuntu is an operating system developed and distributed by a company called Canonical. They are not the same.

Is your purpose here to deliberately attempt to exasperate the entire community with your obtuse inanity?

[Paddy Landau]

Ubuntu is Canonical, and Canonical is Ubuntu.

No, that's incorrect. Ubuntu is just a distribution, a software component. Canonical is the organisation that creates and maintains Ubuntu.

It's the same with Windows and Microsoft. Microsoft isn't Windows, and Windows isn't Microsoft. Windows is a software component. Microsoft is the organisation that creates and maintains Windows.

Microsoft creates and maintains other software and services as well.

The same with Canonical; Canonical creates and maintains other software and services as well.

How can we take advantage of it's advertised modularity?

Any way you like! It's FOSS.

What is the extent of it's modularity?

Everything is modularised. That's the Linux way. Maybe you're new to Linux, and don't understand how it all hangs together?

[hyperlinxe]

Look, I get it guys. I work with linux every day, and have worked with linux every day for more years than I can even count! It's frustrating. It's frustrating that the developers of our operating systems make decisions, that are independent to our desires!

So, with an academic lens we can attempt to better understand the overall design of the Ubuntu Operating System!

What Does First Party Support Mean?

Does Ubuntu Have First Party Support?

What Does Third Party Support Mean?

Which Components Of The Ubuntu Operating System Are Well Characterized As Modular?

Does Ubuntu Have First Party Support For Modular Components Of The System? Which?

These are fantastic questions! I love thinking about this stuff! I hope you do, or could, too!