The Ubuntu Software Store debuted last month in the latest alpha release of Ubuntu 9.10.  Since its announcement, however, there has been more than a little debate over the application’s name, if not the concept behind it, with many commentators questioning the implication of the word “store.”  Here’s the scoop.

Free-software hackers like to brag about the robustness of their code.  But a less-celebrated area where open-source programmers also shine is coming up with names for their applications.  Developers don’t often receive the credit they deserve for the clever and fitting titles they apply to their software, so here’s a quick and lighthearted look at some of the more adroitly named applications familiar to Ubuntu users.

Launchpad, a Web application developed by Canonical for managing software development, was finally open-sourced last week.  But with a number of its other products remaining proprietary, what are Canonical’s real intentions towards living by the free-software ideology that drives projects like Ubuntu?

Like many multinational corporations, Microsoft has embraced social networking as a means of making customers feel like participants, not just end users, in a Microsoft community.  When it comes to community-building, however, Microsoft is fighting an uphill battle against the open-source world, which was built around social networking before it was called social networking.

Mark Shuttleworth made some interesting comments recently about the role of the Wine compatibility layer in fostering the migration of Windows users to Ubuntu.  Shuttleworth views Wine, and binary compatibility with Windows applications in general, as a distraction from the real goal of making the free-software world “thrive on its own rules,” not those borrowed from the proprietary ecosystem.  I disagree.  Here’s why.

The Linux Foundation, a nonprofit organization created in 2007 to promote Linux, recently assumed control of the linux.com domain.  This is a good move, as it helps consolidate the image of Linux, making it easier for new users to find and understand the operating system–in other words, it brings greater centralization to Linux, which is badly needed if free software is to become ubiquitous on the desktops of the world.

I wrote a post a few days ago about the bits and pieces of proprietary software that are still a necessary part of my technological life.  As a follow-up, I thought it might be interesting to look at the other side of the coin, by considering how many people would be able to survive without free software.

Someone on the Ubuntu forums started an interesting thread today asking, “Can you manage to use only free software on your pc?“  It got me thinking about my dependency on proprietary software, and whether I’d ever really be able to get it out of my life entirely.

Earlier this year, madwifi.org, which had previously been home to the madwifi project, was “hijacked” (for lack of a better word), leading to much confusion for Linux users looking for wireless drivers.  This unfortunate event highlights the legal and organizational vulnerabilities of free-software projects, which need to take steps to prevent such abuses if they want to be perceived as serious and reliable.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer brought up some interesting points last week when he displayed data showing that Linux, according to Microsoft’s research, enjoys higher desktop market share than Apple.  This observation not only contradicts claims that Linux use remains stagnant, but has the potential to redefine the tired “Mac vs. PC” discourse that has obscured Microsoft’s real challenge–open source–for a decade.