Comment 86 for bug 375345

Maybe I will come across as someone with "a pitchfork and regrets in the morning", but I still don't get a few decisions.

I can see there are a few issues here.

1. The name: It obviously creates confusion for some people and it will most certainly be ammunition for all the Ubuntu/Canonical bashers. Which the community has to deal/live with.
2. The commercial side. I don't see the big issue other than with the current name it kind of contradicts the Ubuntu promise (maybe only if you don't look too closely but still ..)
3. The closed source nature of the server side. I don't really get why it has to be closed source. If for example file sharing with friends only works if you login through Canonicals login servers than the solution with the most users will be the most popular. It will be hard for competitors to use the code and offer a similar experience. Or is the login and sharing federated?
And anyways I think Mandriva has its own solution. Novell/Red Hat are unlikely to offer it. Fedora even more so. So why exactly does it have to be closed? Understandable reasoning for that decision would be cool.
Debian or some other big FOSS project might get a few EC2 hosts for free to give to devs. Where is the harm in that?

Landscape being closed I can understand, U1 not so much.

BTW: I read all the IRC logs and liked the "Would you think KDE One is a service from Nokia?" question, which as far as I can see was dodged a few times. It might not be 100% applicable here, because KDE owns its own trademark and Nokia "only" provides Qt + a few devs (or just Aaron IDK) but an answer would have been nice nonetheless.