Lately, there’s been a growing global backlash against Big Tech - especially US-based software and platforms - driven by concerns over privacy, forced online accounts, telemetry, and increasing corporate overreach.
I’ve seen this frustration reflected in Reddit communities, Mastodon, and even casual tech circles. Many people are actively seeking alternatives to US products and other US-made tools, especially in privacy-conscious regions like the EU. The sentiment is clear: users want control, transparency, and sustainability without feeling locked into opaque ecosystems.
Given all this, I’m left wondering: where is Canonical in this conversation?
Ubuntu is well-positioned to be the “safe, sane” default alternative - a user-friendly Linux distro with real long-term support, backed by a company based in the UK. It’s not a privacy-first distro per se, but it’s far less invasive than Windows, and Canonical isn’t in the data-harvesting business.
So why isn’t Canonical leaning into this more, either in messaging, participating in the public debate, or in strategy?
I’d love to hear thoughts from Canonical folks or others close to the community. It feels like a missed opportunity - unless there’s something bigger happening behind the scenes?
You raise an interesting point about the current sentiment towards Big Tech and Ubuntu’s potential positioning. I think there are a couple of key factors contributing to Canonical’s current approach.
Canonical collaborates closely with many of the large tech companies that might fall under the “Big Tech” umbrella. These partnerships are essential for Ubuntu’s success across various sectors:
Cloud - Ubuntu is a major player on AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure, requiring deep technical and business collaboration.
Hardware - Certifying Ubuntu on laptops and workstations involves collaborating directly with companies such as Dell, HP, and Lenovo.
Software & Development - Collaborations exist for projects such as WSL (with Microsoft) and Flutter (with Google). Aggressively positioning against “Big Tech” as a category could jeopardize these essential relationships, which are fundamental to Ubuntu’s reach, compatibility, and revenue streams, especially in the enterprise and developer markets.
Historically, Canonical’s public communication and marketing strategy has tended to focus on the practical benefits of Ubuntu, including its stability, security features, developer experience, enterprise support, performance, and open-source nature.
They generally maintain a pragmatic, business-focused voice rather than heavily engaging in broader ideological or socio-political debates, even if those debates touch on areas like privacy, where Ubuntu often compares favourably to proprietary alternatives.
They seem to prioritise showcasing their technology and business value over capitalizing on potentially transient anti-establishment sentiment. Their continued presence on platforms like Twitter reflects this pragmatic approach to reaching their audience.
Thank you very much for your reply - I really appreciate it.
Canonical’s partnerships with Big Tech are essential for Ubuntu’s success in cloud, hardware, and developer ecosystems. But I don’t think staying silent on broader topics like digital sovereignty, autonomy, and cost is just “pragmatism” - to me it looks a bit more like passivity.
As an example OS2borgerPC is a Danish public-sector project building standardized desktops - based on Ubuntu. The fact that this exists in a Microsoft-heavy country, is notable in it self. It’s the kind of initiative that feels like it should live inside Canonical - aligned with Ubuntu’s mission, support model, and business potential. That it’s happening independently shows demand is real, and highlights a missed opportunity for Canonical to be more visibly involved.
Add Canonical’s hardware certification program, and you’ve got real advantages in public procurement: supportability, predictability, and compatibility - critical factors in institutional IT.
This isn’t about going anti - Big Tech. It’s about showing up where the values align and the opportunities are real. Participating in European procurement conversations and partnering with the hardware resellers public institutions already use would be a smart, low-risk way to say:
Hey, we exist too - and we’re already helping.
And beyond strategy, there’s a broader principle: every company and citizen in Western democracies has a social responsibility. I believe this is Canonical’s call - not just an opportunity, but a responsibility - to lead by example - offering better, more accessible solutions to the public sector that it ultimately benefits from.
You are right to emphasize that Canonical should position itself more visibly. In Germany, something is finally happening again in the public sector with regard to digital sovereignty.