Canonical and Linspire Make a Deal

Nate writes "Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu Linux, has teamed up with Linspire to share technologies between the two distros. When Freespire 2.0 arrives in April, it will use Ubuntu as its base, moving off of the current Debian. Ubuntu users will get access to proprietary software (DVD players, media codecs) via Linspire's newly opened Click 'N Run. Check out the press release and the obligatory FAQ."

Comments

Red Hat, Corel, Linspire

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Looks like someone has figured out that maintaining a distro is expensive.

Re:Red Hat, Corel, Linspire

[tnhtnh]

This doesnt sound too bad - at least desktop linux will benefit!

Re:Red Hat, Corel, Linspire

[0xygen]

To be honest it is probably a good thing in the long run. A long term criticism of Linux has been the number of different distros leading to numerous ways of performing the same tasks.

More cooperation between the leading distros will hopefully push for more commonality between the distros, especially if this means a way to include proprietary software.

Hopefully some of the resulting technology may even end up as part of LSB or similar one day.

Ubuntu / Debian

[Marauder2]

"When Freespire 2.0 arrives in April, it will use Ubuntu as its base, moving off of the current Debian."

Um, last time I checked, Ubuntu was itself a Debian based distro which would mean that even if Freespire were to base itself on Ubuntu, it's roots would still be in Debian.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[earbenT]

I'm not sure exactly which Debian branch Linspire derives from, but if it's "stable," then there's a world of difference between that and Ubuntu.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[morgan_greywolf]

True, but Ubuntu differentiates itself from Debian in several ways. First off, Ubuntu is based on Debian unstable, and somewhat loosely based at that -- so much so that Debian's leaders have accused Ubuntu of deviating too far from the Debian release. Many Debian packages will work with Ubuntu, but not all -- many Debian packages are ported to Ubuntu by changing compilation options and, most importantly, specify dependencies differently. Ubuntu is a little more liberal when it comes to copyright and licensing -- Ubuntu distributes the proprietary NVidia and ATI drivers, for instance, and provides kernels with these modules pre-built and linked. Finally, Debian's goal is general-purpose distro that consists entirely of Free software, while Ubuntu's goal is to have desktop and server distros that are highly-polished and ready for the non-technical end user. Hence, the default menus and such differ signficantly between Ubuntu and Debian. So it's a bit disingenious to say that Linspire continue to be based on Debian.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[fmobus]

Yet, acording to rms, debian is not free enough. I don't know his reasons, but he seems to regard just a few distros as "pure free software". Ututo is one, among others.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[Peter La Casse]

"When Freespire 2.0 arrives in April, it will use Ubuntu as its base, moving off of the current Debian."

Um, last time I checked, Ubuntu was itself a Debian based distro which would mean that even if Freespire were to base itself on Ubuntu, it's roots would still be in Debian.

Um, last time I checked, nobody claimed that Freespire's roots would not be in Debian. Everybody knows that Ubuntu is based on Debian; the quote above does not dispute that. What exactly are you trying to say?

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[notamisfit]

RMS's main beef with Debian is the optional non-free archive. That, and kernel firmwares which Debian might get rid of some time after Etch ships. That being said, RMS did sponsor Debian in its salad days and I think the FSF still uses it internally.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[drinkypoo]

Ubuntu distributes the proprietary NVidia and ATI drivers, for instance, and provides kernels with these modules pre-built and linked.

My understanding, which may be hazy in spite of the fact that I've actually done this, is that you have to install the linux-restricted-modules package to install the nvidia-glx package. Don't know about fglrx, because I avoid ATI like the plague it is. I sold my last machine with ATI graphics and I don't intend to look back.

Anyway I don't know the terminology but linux-restricted-modules is one of those packages you have to confirm to install.

Just picking nits, I know nvidia will distribute the [old as hell] nVidia drivers. Of course, you have to do it manually (or use envy, which is unsupported) to get the latest.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[skoaldipper]

Like RMS and closed source software, we can give praise to both. For most of us, the solution is always somewhere in between.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[Shawn is an Asshole]

FSF probably uses "gNewSense". It's posted all over their badvista.org site. According to it's site it's based on Ubuntu but has everything non-free removed.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[notamisfit]

Feisty is supposed to be including proprietary drivers by default to get AIGLX/Beryl working from the start.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian

[stsp]

Ubuntu distributes the proprietary NVidia and ATI drivers, for instance, and provides kernels with these modules pre-built and linked.

No, not "linked". They cannot distribute a kernel with proprietary modules linked in, as this would violate the GPL. They provide an optional package that installs the modules on disk, and the user does the linking by loading the module. So it is legal because Ubuntu is doing "mere aggregation" of free and proprietary components, and the user does not distribute the kernel with the proprietary module linked in (remember that the GPL does not cover use but only distribution of software).

Debian based?

[ArcherB]

it will use Ubuntu as its base, moving off of the current Debian

I thought Ubuntu was Debian based. Am I wrong with that assumption?

Re:Debian based?

[Mantle]

"It" is referring to Linspire, not Ubuntu.

Re:Debian based?

[malkavian]

Yes, Ubuntu has it's roots in Debian. However, it does for Debian what Mandrake did for Red Hat when it came on the scene. Adds support for far more devices, codecs and has far more up to date releases of the applications.
Debian Stable is usually about a year or more "behind the times", though it does what it says on the tin (I use Debian for servers that really need to be stable, but I'm not too fussed about having the latest shiny release number).
Ubuntu makes for a far shiner desktop. Although some of the tech affictionados around here may drop the distro and head for pastures new (perhaps back to Debian, Gentoo or some other distro, maybe even Free BSD!), there are a lot of plain ordinary people out there who just want things to work, and be able to play DVD and have the codecs available to play the media they get sent in attachments via email, or on the web.
Ubuntu merging with Linspire, and getting access to all this could be a rather big step forward in getting the ordinary, everyday person who knows little to nothing about computers to have a closer look (especially when you can hand them a live CD, and say "Go play with it and see how it works for you").
Debian is a great base, and Ubuntu is all the easier for the hard work put in by the Debian team. It just wants to be less political and 'proper', and just get on with the job of making the framework work better for the average uninitiated person in the street.

Re:Debian based?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Ubuntu derived from Debian. So now Linspire is based on Ubuntu which is derived from Debian. Ubuntu has made some changes which are not in Debian, but many of those changes make it back to Debian.

Re:Debian based?

[PingSpike]

I agree. I see a lot of people posting here are trying to make this out to be a bad thing and some even saying they are planning on switching distros because of it. And thats fine, its their choice...thats what its all about right? But if linux ever wants to become a serious competitor in the OS market, it's going to have to "just work" and be easier to manage for your average joes.

Just because linux is free, doesn't mean people don't want to run non-free software on it. I want too. I'm sure a lot of businesses are holding out because their favorite application doesn't support it. This almost feels like a bunch of people's favorite band garage band has an opportunity to become famous and they're pooping on it because then they won't be memebers of an exclusive club anymore! Linux needs to get popular to gain some traction with hardware makers and people that make a lot the desktop software the world uses. That'll create a chain reaction.

Re:Debian based?

[jimstapleton]

My FreeBSD desktop is quite shiney thank you... Fast and pretty graphics... *drool*

Re:Debian based?

[ArcherB]

"It" is referring to Linspire, not Ubuntu.

Both are Debian based.

Re:Debian based?

[chaoticgeek]

But the main thing is that ubuntu has changed so much of the stuff that even though it is based off of debian it still has so many changes that kinda makes it it's own version. Sure it is still based off of debian, but with so many changes it is hard to revert back to pure debian. But this is just my view...

Re:Debian based?

[CDarklock]

Disclosure: I'm a contractor at Microsoft working on Vista.

Please don't use this! It's a conspiracy to make you sign onto the DRM bandwagon. Sure, first it's just a few little things, maybe a driver or two... but then suddenly you can't watch your DVDs! Or rip MP3s off your CDs! Oh noes! THEY ARE WILL TAKES YOUR MONEYS!

Remember: just say no to Linux with proprietary slimeware in it. Demand that Linux consist exclusively of homegrown products, written by unqualified and untrained volunteers in their mom's basement! It's the future, stupid! We don't need no steenking media support! Go take that business stuff to Canada or something. America is about freedom! Free-as-in-beerdom! We don't need to pay for no nothing no way!

I should probably wave a big "SARCASM" flag here.

Competition is good. This is competition. We like competition. It inspires us. It galvanises us. It makes our products better. It will make your products better, too. And better products on *both* sides of the fence make things better for everyone.

Begin the conspiracy theories... now.

Re:Debian based?

[Anonymous Coward]

A touch of "esker melchior" in there but not the real thing. Of course SCOX gives
so much more better material to work with. Keep trying and you can do better.

Debian?

[oldhack]

Off-topic post here. Can someone give us a low-down on the status of Debian's next release? I know time/effort is always an issue for voluntary projects, and some extra fund always helps, even if it's just beer money. Link for donation? I don't really have the time to volunteer.

Re:Debian?

[VJ42]

No idea, but I expect you'll find the answer somewhere here: http://www.debian.org/

Re:Debian?

[JoshJ]

http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
I believe when that hits zero, Testing becomes Stable. It's currently at 105.
If you want to help debian:
http://www.debian.org/intro/help

Uhm. Okay...

[Chas]

Not really sure if I'm all that thrilled about getting access to a bunch of proprietary software that I have to buy through somebody's portal.

Yeah, I guess the automated installation is nice for those living in the Land of Ludd. But I have little use for it.

That could just be me though.

Access to proprietary software and codecs

[sgtron]

I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, those of us not stuck in dreamland have to deal with reality. Proprietary codecs and software are part of reality, and thus, I'm happy that something is about to come along and make it easier to access them.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[MightyYar]

And I want a pony.

(Sorry, I had to. Yeah, I'm a jackass.)

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[PingSpike]

Then don't buy them off Click and Run. Seems simple enough.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Rude Turnip]

No, you can't have a pony.

( -|-|~ Not yours)

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Chandon Seldon]

The Ubuntu developers have put a lot of effort into making it clear what is non-Free software so you can avoid installing it. The only exception is drivers that are required to make your hardware work, and it even will start popping up warnings about that... but you don't have any hardware like that, right?

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[NSIM]

I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al.

Don't hold your breath waiting for them.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[jimstapleton]

some people (myself included) couldn't give a damn is the software is free as in beer/speach/viewing or not. Some people just want their computers to work, work well, and with no more than a trivial amount of work to get them working.

-Jim Stapleton

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

And I want a castle in Spain. And a pony.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[falconwolf]

I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al

That's your choice. Others just want a computer that works for them. They want to be able to legally play a movie, or like me use Photoshop to edit my photos. Though I have a desktop Linux PC I plan to get a Macbook Pro, then if I need to I can use Photoshop. Before I get PS I'll tryout different FOOS graphics apps but if they won't do what I want then when I can I'll get PS. Simply, though I'd like to be a Linux power user, I don't see why I should have to be one to use a computer. And the typical Joe/Jill can use Linspire as well as Ubuntu without needing to be a guru.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[TheRaven64]

I don't see why not. I use a Mac as my primary machine, but the media player I use for all videos, including DVDs is GPL'd, and also runs fine on my FreeBSD box. The preferences UI is a bit rough around the edges, but apart from that it's a very nice piece of software. I can't remember the last time I ran across a video file it couldn't play.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[i_should_be_working]

Some people don't know their history and are extremely shortsighted. It's the Free that got Linux where it is today. If people had your attitude when this thing was starting up there'd be no Ubuntu, Linspire, or CNR. If people continue to have your attitude we will always have to jump through hoops just to get the latest codec/flash/nex-gen dvd playing on our systems.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[NSIM]

I don't see why not. I use a Mac as my primary machine, but the media player I use for all videos, including DVDs is GPL'd, and also runs fine on my FreeBSD box. The preferences UI is a bit rough around the edges, but apart from that it's a very nice piece of software. I can't remember the last time I ran across a video file it couldn't play.

A GPL player isn't that big of a deal, the problem is the codecs, many of which are proprietary. On the Mac that's not such a big problem because the purveyors of those codecs support them on the Mac platform and any player (GPL or otherwise) should be able to use them. On LINUX, you don't find the same level of support for codecs and even if companies like REAL or MS or Apple decide to release codecs for LINUX they are extremely unlikely to release them under the GPL.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[earbenT]

Allowing relatively small portions of non-free software into Linux distros for a huge boost in accessibility and adoption can give the community more momentum to influence software licensers, so that they ultimately do open up.

Your free software revolution will never happen through bullish and outright rejection of anything less than free.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG PONIES!

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[drinkypoo]

Some people don't know their history and are extremely shortsighted. It's the Free that got Linux where it is today. If people had your attitude when this thing was starting up there'd be no Ubuntu, Linspire, or CNR.

Yeah, some people like you. There have been a number of commercial packages for Linux already and they have all fallen by the wayside. They existed as a temporary band-aid and they are now gone. What about Accelerated X? That was THE only worthwhile X server for linux that wasn't a horrible PITA to set up. Many people purchased and used it. How many people are using it now?

The existence of the ATI fglrx driver isn't chasing people away from working on the ati driver, nor is the existence of nvidia-glx chasing people away from working on nv.

The existence of ndiswrapper on Linux hasn't stopped people from porting network drivers from OpenBSD into Linux.

The existence of wine doesn't stop people from using OO.o instead of MS Office on windows. Nor has it stopped people from using the GIMP, when Photoshop exists, Even though Photoshop is better in almost every way (since it's the only application Adobe hasn't totally fucked up in the last few years.)

In short, there are numerous opportunities to use commercial software on Linux, but frankly it hasn't stopped or even seemed to slow down the growth of Open Source and Free Software.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people don't know their history and are extremely shortsighted. It's the Free that got Linux where it is today. If people had your attitude when this thing was starting up there'd be no Ubuntu, Linspire, or CNR. If people continue to have your attitude we will always have to jump through hoops just to get the latest codec/flash/nex-gen dvd playing on our systems.

Horse shit. What I want are viable choices on the desktop.. free or otherwise. We have Windows, OS X, and Linux. If Sun were to come out with a jazzed up version of Intel based Solaris with out of the box 3d acceleration, multimedia codecs and player, and a browser with common plug-ins for $99.00 I'd be on it in a heartbeat. For another $99.00 I'd gladly pay for StarOffice 9. Throw in an honest (ie no hidden bullshit) annual $10.00 subscription fee that entitles me to the latest release of the OS every year along with security updates and it would be the bomb.

Linux being free isn't what a lot of us are enamored with, it's Linux being a non-Windows power user operating system.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[danpsmith]

I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al.

That's great, but unfortunately attempting to overthrow Microsoft in the market, if that's the goal for an OS maker or distro company (like it is for Ubuntu) involves actually getting some work done. People aren't going to settle for not being able to play DVDs and MP3s on their newly purchased computer with Linux, they expect things to work. If Linux has any chance of overtaking MS ever (which some could argue that it doesn't) the best strategy is to get these things working now, and perhaps transition people into open formats in years to come. Having people on a proprietary OS does nothing to help the cause of open source software, and demanding what you will never receive when you have no market share is not an effective strategy. If we want to change the game, we have to at least get on the court and compromise to some of their rules for the time being. After we've been playing maybe then we can demand changes.

Think about it, a minor player with .5% of the market comes in and tells you "you have to give me this that and that" all of which will potentially cost you a lot of money. As a businessman do you:

• A) Agree with their requirements to appease .5% of the market and potentially lose 10% (just a random number) of your company's revenue in a market.
• B) Tell them to screw off.

I'm betting you'd choose B if you are a good businessman. And that's the problem. You can't tell everyone you'll take your ball and go home if they don't play how you like when you don't own the ball. End users don't care about OSS or proprietary, they care that they can't watch their DVD of season 1 of oww my balls on their new computer, while Billy with the Windows PC next door can. Defeat those problems and maybe you have a chance with pre-installs.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, please inform yourself before saying such crap.
VLC is 100% opensource, the player itself is linked with opensource codecs, all 99.9% independent of the OS.
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/features.html

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Rashkae]

Not that big a problem at all either. In the case of ubuntu, all you need is to compile one little library for DVD's (you can, of course, add a repository and install something like Easy Ubuntu or Automatix, I think, is the new flavor. But myself, I always found .configure && make && sudo make install was easier)

And as long as your using i386 Arch of Ubuntu, the windows Codecs are just as easy to download and install (look for Download's on Mplayer's site.), which works with Mplayer, Xine, and I think even VLC.

Click and Run will only be necessary for peeps who can't install *anything* unless it's "Click and Run", which Ubuntu can't do out of the box for fear of lawyers.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Coeurderoy]

In the off line world the Parent point of view is:
  And I do not care who our leaders are and what are their policies, and if they do not like "degenerate art", neither do I.
  I just want the trains to run on time ! and Work for everybody !

The result is of course that:
  Trains do not run on time, but you go to jail if you mention it.
  And work for everybody that does survive, of course being paid is optional.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[manifoldronin]

It's the Free that got Linux where it is today.

No, it's the Free and Open that got Linux where it is today. If everybody from the Linux community had been thrusting their ideals down others' throats, we wouldn't have had Ubuntu, Linspire, or CNR. All we would've had would be "THE Linux" - and that term would have likely been trademarked by someone.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Monsuco]

I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software.

Really? I run Linux because it is practical. I have no problems with proprietary and just use linux because it works better than anything else. It's software, not a revolution.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[ScrappyLaptop]

Ah, the followers of RMS...while I agree with the goal, how exactly do you propose we get there without decimating entire industries?

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[NSIM]

I was responding to the original poster who said they would not install until they could have GPLd codes and players, what you've described is something different.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Scott Lockwood]

And by all means, continue to use Debian. It's great for that. Since you're so big on freedom, please don't try to restrict MY freedom to get what ever I want out of my distro.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[SanityInAnarchy]

Linux being free isn't what a lot of us are enamored with, it's Linux being a non-Windows power user operating system.

Once again, it wouldn't be as powerful if it wasn't free.

If you think OS X is powerful enough, then you probably disagree with me anyway. Otherwise, let me use that as an example: Most of the features I miss from Linux are not possible (or not easy) on OS X because it is proprietary.

I actually do run the binary nvidia drivers, and I do use Flash, but if something free and usable came out, I'd be on it in a heartbeat. Case in point: Most people agree that Photoshop is more powerful than the Gimp. I wouldn't know, I only use the Gimp. Worst case, if I run into something I need that Photoshop has and Gimp doesn't, I'll implement it myself.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[jonbryce]

Well you can't play DVDs on a newly purchased windows installation either, so what's the difference there?

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[sabernet]

Quoted from "Every OS Sucks" -Three Dead Trolls In A Baggie


Now there's lih-nux or lie-nux,
I don't know how you say it,
Or how you install it, or use it, or play it,
Or where you download it, or what programs run,
But lih-nux, or lie-nux, don't look like much fun.

However you say it, it's getting great press,
Though how it survives is anyone's guess,
If you ask me, it's a great big mess,
For elitist, nerdy shmucks.

"It's free!" they say, if you can get it to run,
The Geeks say, "Hey, that's half the fun!"
Yeah, but I got a girlfriend, and things to get done,
The Linux OS SUCKS.
(I'm sorry to say it, but it does.)

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[OmegaBlac]

Some people just want their computers to work, work well, and with no more than a trivial amount of work to get them working.

If you understood the concepts of Free Software and why it exists, then you wouldn't make such a statement.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[dubonbacon]

Aaah but you'll need to give us some example industries to make your question legitimate. Before saying "Software industry", read this article about the gift economy which explains that most "followers of RMS" believe in one way or another in a viable worldwide software gift economy. Base further criticism on this.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[dubonbacon]

Forgot something. In my opinion the industry would adapt or die to such a situation; it would most likely adapt.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[sabernet]

Most of the features I miss from Linux are not possible (or not easy) on OS X because it is proprietary.

Like what?

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[SanityInAnarchy]

• Package management. Your .app does not count, and .mpkg is worse. Fink is pretty much dead, and in any case, it even creates its own hierarchy under /sw, to avoid messing with the system stuff -- which is updated through Apple's own "Software Update" tool, which due to being closed and proprietary, cannot be used with any software except Apple's.
• Community of F/OSS developers large enough to support common software I miss from Linux -- Gimp, some KDE stuff, etc. It's possible to install everything needed, but the process makes bootsrapping Minix look easy.
• At the GUI level, real choice, configurable through some standard control panel. I know about System Preferences; kindly tell me where to go to set a default web browser? As far as I can tell, you can only set that from inside Safari -- various other browser must include a "make me the default" option.
• Various annoying bugs have NEVER been fixed by Apple. There are hacks and workarounds, but no easy way to find them, and no community-run way to acquire these.

Other than that, I can't remember much -- been awhile since my Powerbook died. I admit the list is shrinking, but there's still some showstoppers in there that mean zealotry aside, I'd choose Linux just for that feature. Package management is a big one.

All things equal, I would choose Linux for its openness alone. And, in fact, I always choose open when it's good enough, even when proprietary is better -- for instance, people constantly tell me Photoshop is better, but I still use the Gimp, until the day I find something it's not good enough for -- at which point, I'll fire up Photoshop to figure out how it's meant to be done, then implement it in Gimp and uninstall Photoshop again.

But, as I said, if you find OS X is good enough, and don't miss anything from Linux, then I'll probably have a hard time convincing you. Most Mac users don't have 15-20 different OSS/freeware apps they use every day, and need to be kept up-to-date (manually on systems without package management).

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[sabernet]

Well, I don't use OSX. Never have. Not sure if I ever will.

But I asked the question in order to find out why the thought of Linux+proprietary software makes you so squeamish as to avoid it outright and believe it would be its doom.

The points you listed may be very valid points for you, though for most people they aren't that big a deal(or even on the radar). I'm in IT and I don't quite care about 90% of what you just stated. So how does Joe Blow stack up?

For those who wish to have all those things, Linux variants will undoubtedly exist until the end of time. Use them and enjoy them. For everyone else, this is a very good thing.

Many seem to forget the sheer contradiction of having a "completely open system" that bars proprietary things. If it is completely open, everything should run on it. Linux did gain lots due to its open nature. Opening the road to optional(keyword) proprietary softwares lends it to be more open.

This won't stop people from creating FOSS derivatives like they always did, it just allows those who don't speak Assembly to enjoy the software before FOSSGuy creates an alternative.

You like Debian, keep it. It ain't going anywhere. I like Ubuntu. I like the prospect of a hassle free DVD player on Ubuntu. I like being able to buy things for Ubuntu. And ya know what? Ubuntu will STILL run all those things you just stated, regardless of the Click n' Run partnership.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[notamisfit]

New to this whole "FOSS" thing? When someone says they don't want to run non-free software, what they really mean is that their distribution/operating system should wave its hand and make all the bad stuff go away.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[notamisfit]

The codecs are open source. However, quite a few of them are patent encumbered (making them illegal to distribute in countries that honor software patents), and libdvdcss is a DMCA lawsuit waiting to happen.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[gujo-odori]

Sure, I want to use Linux to run Free software too, and with very few exceptions, that's all I do run on it. Buuuuut, one of those exceptions is an nvidia binary driver. If you've ever used openGL without it, you know why I'm using the binary driver.

There's nothing about the Canonical/Linspire deal that in any way restricts you from using exclusively Free software. It just makes non-free alternatives available for people whose needs just aren't met by Free ones. I stick to Free as much as possible, and will take "Free and good enough" over "proprietary and better" as long as "good enough" really is. The nvidia driver is one of those places where "good enough" wasn't.

This deal will help raise the overall profile of Linux, raise the popularity and mindshare of Linux, and get more vendor recognition of both Linux in general and even of why open is good. In the long term, it will help close more of the gap between Linux the way it is and Linux the way you (and I) want it.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[asuffield]

Meanwhile, those of us not stuck in dreamland have to deal with reality. Proprietary codecs and software are part of reality

What reality are you living in? Pretty much everything but the older versions of WMV and newer versions of realvideo has free codecs and published specs nowadays (Microsoft published the current WMV codec a while ago, it's SMTPE 421M, and quicktime is just MPEG-4 these days). There may be onerous patents that screw US users, but you can take that up with your government - it's nothing to do with the software and doesn't apply to the rest of the world.

The problem is not codecs, and has not been for some time. The problem is DRM-crippled streams. We have the video codecs for everything of significance except the current realvideo. What we don't have is the DRM protocols - and you're never going to see a DRMed stream that is intended for use on Linux-based platforms, no matter how many corporations you bend over for. All those WMVs you find that won't play on Linux? That's DRM, not the codec.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[SanityInAnarchy]

But I asked the question in order to find out why the thought of Linux+proprietary software makes you so squeamish as to avoid it outright and believe it would be its doom.

It doesn't. It does bug me, but I do use it.

Perhaps you're confusing me with a great-grandparent or some such?

Many seem to forget the sheer contradiction of having a "completely open system" that bars proprietary things. If it is completely open, everything should run on it. Linux did gain lots due to its open nature. Opening the road to optional(keyword) proprietary softwares lends it to be more open.

Not me. I run proprietary kernel modules! That's of questionable legality, even! That's in addition to all the proprietary games I run... I said, I'll use open if it's good enough, and frankly, nothing open comes close to the latest games I'm playing, and probably, nothing open ever will.

You like Debian, keep it. It ain't going anywhere. I like Ubuntu.

I've been putting Ubuntu everywhere, never said I preferred Debian. Again, are you confusing me with someone else, or is this a sheer strawman argument?

I like the prospect of a hassle free DVD player on Ubuntu.

1. Enable Universe.
2. Install VLC.

Was that so hard?

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[i_should_be_working]

Well, I wasn't arguing that absolutely no closed source apps should be allowed. And I didn't say anything to the contrary to your first point.

All I was saying is that an "I don't give a damn about the principles of Free software, I just want it to work" attitude is not what got Linux where it is today, and will get Linux no further. If no one cared about the principles of Free software, no one would code it.

So please, learn to take a sentence as it is, and don't put words in my mouth. I don't have a 'free software revolution' waiting to happen, and I never outright rejected all non-Free apps.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[i_should_be_working]

See here.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[init100]

some people (myself included) couldn't give a damn is the software is free as in beer/speach/viewing or not. Some people just want their computers to work, work well, and with no more than a trivial amount of work to get them working.

There already is an operating system suitable for people like you. It's called Windows.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[init100]

End users don't care about OSS or proprietary, they care that they can't watch their DVD of season 1 of oww my balls on their new computer, while Billy with the Windows PC next door can.

Then I suggest those users go to Windows and enjoy bending over for Bill Gates when he comes to have some fun.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[jimstapleton]

Actually, I bounce between Windows and FreeBSD. Neither does everything I want perfectly, but betwixt the two, they do. And for what I need each for, it is better suited for the task than anything else I've used.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[jimstapleton]

If you understood the conepts of a computer and why it exists, then you wouldn't make such a comment.

I understand the concepts of free software, and I've nothing against it, in fact I use it quite a bit, and I've been working on things I plan to release as free software as soon as the are sufficiently functional.

The problem is, until the free software provides a sufficiently functional alternative to the closed source alternative, people should be able to use the closed source alternative.

Having closed source Windows, MacOS, [insert *Nix here], VMS, etc. didn't keep Linux or FreeBSD from being developed. Hell, FreeBSD came from an originally closed source system if you trace its lineage back far enough.

Microsoft and Corel Office suites didn't prevent things like Open Office, Abiword and the various other OSS offices from existing.

Gimp exists in spite of the existance of Corel Photopaint, Paint Shop Pro, and Adobe Photoshop.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[jimstapleton]

you are right, that is quite off, because I want something that works, and not something that I'm not allowed to say doesn't work.

If I followed your philosophy, hanging out here on slashdot, I would be forced to use Linux. It doesn't always work, but nobody is allowed to admit it's flaws without being flamed to hell and back.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Coeurderoy]

Not only are you allowed to comment on Linux's flaws, you can even potentially do something about it.
Whereas in the case of Microsoft Software you are just allowed to get used to it.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[jimstapleton]

Given I don't have the time or the skill, there really isn't anything I can do about Linux any more than I can do about Microsoft software.

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I want a pony.
(Sorry, I had to. Yeah, I'm a jackass.)"

So, um, do you have a website?

Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs

[ScrappyLaptop]

FTA you referenced (I hope I am not taking these out of context, as they were within a few sentences of each other):

"The gift economy pays in status"...

"By helping the software community through contributions of time, work, money, or other resources, you become eligible to receive help from members of the community -- you've "given," so you will "get" as well."...

"Status eventually leads to money if you continue to grow it"

So, if you are one of the alpha chimps, the gift economy works. For everyone else, however, that money that they give (in one form or another) has to come from somewhere and that means boring, everyday, software coding/admin/support. Paid in cash by an employer of some sort. And yes, I read how the gift and exchange economies can exist side by side; my point is that the gift economy can only survive on top of the exchange economy. And yes, I wish it weren't so.

Please, don't get me wrong. If I ever meet RMS or Linus or even David Hinds in an airport, I'll buy him a beer for his troubles, but I don't expect anyone but the superstars to survive in a gift economy. I do, however, expect corporations to give more back and that may be my next crusade. I have donated to OSS causes and projects both in time and cash, but I question anyone that contributes to Open Source for reasons of Fame, Fortune or other Success. You need to be damn good, have a need to create (and optimize) for it's own sake and I'm guessing you still have to be able to smooze just a little...

Too little open source?

[h4rm0ny]

I'm starting to think that it's time to quit Ubuntu and move on. I was drawn to Linux originally because I liked the Open Source idea (and because I was a C programmer it seemed required somehow). But Ubuntu is turning into quite a haven for proprietary and binary only software and I wonder if I'm undermining the open source movement by not sticking with something a bit more free.

Re:Too little open source?

[realmolo]

Ubuntu doesn't include any proprietary stuff, really.

And honestly, the only "proprietary" or "closed" things that EVER get included with ANY distro are things like *decent* drivers for 3D video cards, and codecs.

The video card driver situation kind of sucks, but it's just a driver. It would be nice if there were open-source drivers that worked well, but the fact is that Nvidia and ATI are better at writing drivers for their own hardware than anyone else could ever hope to be.

The codec thing ALSO sucks, but there is nothing to do about it. If you want to keep you system "pure", then you aren't going to be watching any Quicktime or Windows Media files or DVDs.

Re:Too little open source?

[petabyte]

I actually had a similar thought. I've been using Linux for about a decade with Debian being my first distro. I liked Ubuntu because it seemed to clear up the cobwebs a bit and let me use apt. I've run Suse, Slackware, Gentoo and all 3 BSD (going to be building a new freebsd fileserver tomorrow) but ubuntu filled the niche on my laptop where I want to install programs quickly without compiling. Maybe I'll try Fedora on my desktop the next time they have a respin. I hear good things about yum these days and I'm curious about Selinux. I guess I could try CentOS as well.

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

And honestly, the only "proprietary" or "closed" things that EVER get included with ANY distro are things like *decent* drivers for 3D video cards, and codecs.

Wireless cards as well.

the fact is that Nvidia and ATI are better at writing drivers for their own hardware than anyone else could ever hope to be.

No, they're better at designing the hardware. Drivers are still not (yet) the expression of the design, merely the interface to them.

Re:Too little open source?

[revlayle]

No shit.... when I run Ubuntu, my idea was to have a mostly freely maintainable system with as little to do with Windows as possible and that I can install without fear of licensing keys and having WGA issues (not that I don't use Windows, i do - XP also runs just fine for me, it is more of a PITA to install IMNSHO). *Sometimes* you need a few extras that aren't free or open-source and I find that upholding this OSS-only front, keeping to "principles" (whatever "principles" these people are trying to exemplify) and denying yourself certain things that run well even on free/oss operating systems is a bit retarded. I go for what works, $$ or not. However, that's me... some people find those principles important I guess.

Re:Too little open source?

[Dillon2112]

Ubuntu isn't really proprietary. CNR isn't a bad move, honestlly (and I'm as much an OSS zealot as almost anyone). CNR itself is open source, it simply gives you access to closed source software, should you want to interoperate with someone who uses such software (Opera, Skype, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Flash, etc.) Many of these pieces of software many Linux users will install anyway, but now at least they are manageable via Linux's own mechanism: package management.

In the end, no closed source software has been added to the distro by default, the entire CNR add-on is optional (at least in it's use), and we may even stand to gain some ground in the OS wars. I'll count it as a win.

I think the plan is to make CNR part of many "big" distros: openSuse, Fedora, Freespire (duh), Linspire (duh), Ubuntu to name those listed at the top of CNR.com. At least when people try to switch, they will see some familiar applications available.

Re:Too little open source?

[earbenT]

Pretty much. If you want a totally free (as in freedom) variation of Ubuntu, there's gNewSense.

Keep in mind that it does come with a price, though, since open-source GPU drivers are still lightyears behind IHV solutions, and limiting yourself to only Ogg media is also a pretty lofty prospect.

Re:Too little open source?

[realmolo]

Oh, come on. Are you trying to tell me that if only ATI and Nvidia would open up the specs to their video cards, someone would write a FREE driver that worked better? Or even nearly as well?

They've been writing 3D drivers for almost a decade at this point. They have entire teams of guys writing the drivers. How can anyone compete with that? And why would they try?

Re:Too little open source?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

It would be nice if there were open-source drivers that worked well, but the fact is that Nvidia and ATI are better at writing drivers for their own hardware than anyone else could ever hope to be. They're better at writing the drivers because they're the only ones with the specs...

Re:Too little open source?

[MindStalker]

Yea, I have a principle that murder is bad.. But meat is tasty, so I eat meat. See life is full of compromises its not just the computer world.

Re:Too little open source?

[Nimey]

The drivers might work well enough and that's the key. If I can run e.g. Compiz and UT2004 with decent framerates, good enough, especially if the 2D acceleration trickles over to fbdev.

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on. Are you trying to tell me that if only ATI and Nvidia would open up the specs to their video cards, someone would write a FREE driver that worked better? Or even nearly as well?

Try me.

Re:Too little open source?

[Chandon Seldon]

The Ubuntu developers strongly support the ideals of the Free Software movement. They also want to make an operating system that's useful to their users.

One of the primary usage patterns that the Ubuntu developers expect for their software is for it to be installed on computers that are outdated or even second-hand. They feel that it's better for these machines to have a binary driver or two then for them to not work. With Fiesty Fawn, they will warn the user about binary drivers, but it's important to make the hardware work anyway - $30 for a new ethernet card just isn't a good deal on a second-hand computer donated to a school in Africa.

This deal with Linspire is a little bit different - it's a legality issue about software patents. Sure, it has the secondary effect that Linspire will get to sell proprietary software to Ubuntu users, but the important thing is that it provides a legal way to play Windows Media files on Ubuntu in the USA. Not having to tell all your users to break the law to watch a video is a good thing.

Re:Too little open source?

[diamondsw]

Use Debian. Some of us want a system that works out of the box to compete with Apple and MS.

Ubuntu was never created to be a Free distro the way Debian was.

Re:Too little open source?

[pionzypher]

In 1996 I heard the same argument about Netscape. Really, we have three choices.

1. Ignore closed media. WMV,Sorenson,Mp3,etc. Just pretend they don't exist.
2. Implement closed media codecs in an illegal, partially open but not really open way.
3. Play the game to deliver capabilities that most people have come to expect of a modern OS in the last ten years. for a short time

I'll keep using Netscape as an example. Using a closed source app was a stopgap measure until an open replacement was available. Are we such purists that we'll disregard anything that contains any non-free software? Or are we going to be willing to allow linux to prove itself a valuable part of the computing ecosystem? Then leveraging that to push open standards and codecs and formats.

It's a fscking codec, it's not like MS is pushing office down our throats. And these same codecs are already being used (possibly)illegally(in the US, perhaps the EU) in many systems today.

Re:Too little open source?

[Pastis]

Q: someone would write a FREE driver that worked better? Or even nearly as well?

1- peer review
2- in the long run the free drivers would be better. They would be maintained long after the official ones would get unsupported
3- I am pretty sure the people behind the various Linux system/drivers are pretty bright and I would trust them to better
4- Linux is pretty different from other operating systems in terms of development practises. e.g. APIs are not stable. I trust kernel developers to do a better job at integrating the driver and following the proper conventions than external writers
5- they would write drivers supported on more Linux platform than just Linux i386... for those people, little bit support is better than none
6....

note there are various components that have worked out of the box on Linux systems long before they existed on alternative systems.

I can't wait for the 'nouveau' driver to be stable for me to use it. I run the nv driver today on my brand new thinkpad and it works OK for my needs.

Q: why would they try ?
pick your reason(s): challenge, itch, fame, money, nothing else more interesting to do...

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used Red Hat from '95 up until 2005. I'm now using Ubuntu for desktops and Debian for servers. Fedora drove me to switching.

This isn't meant as a troll, but there are several issues I have with it. First off, too many damn updates. Every time I'd run "yum update" it'd pull down a few hundred megs. Occasionally these updates would cause breakage.

Second is the selection of packages. Very limited. To get a usable system, you have to use core, extras, and several "RPMForge" repos. Also for certain things, you'd need to use Livna (also limited, and incompatible with RPMForge). Still I'd often run into the problem of stuff I want either not being available, or being broken (breakage was mostly through RPMForge). So often I had to compile things myself, which gets tiring after years of doing it.

Third is how every new release feels slower. FC5 feels slower than FC4. FC6 feels much slower than FC5. YMMV.

After bouncing around a bit, I settled on Ubuntu. Mainly because it has a wide variety of packages and nearly all I've tried work.

There are certain things I've had issues with. They still link wxGTK against GTK1. I do development with wxWidgets, so this is quite annoying. So I had to build it from source along with the wxWidgets-based apps I use.

The other issues I've had are mostly an issue on servers. I've had it happen with Ubuntu Dapper (experimented with), and also with Debian Etch (using in production). I was trying to get netbooting working. Under CentOS, I'd run "yum install xinetd tftp-server nfs-utils", do some configuring and then be done with it. With both Dapper and Etch, it was nowhere near as easy. There are three different tftpd servers (tftpd, atftpd, tftp-hpa), only one of which I was actually able to get to work (atftpd). Same with the inetd servers, there are four (inetutils-inetd, netkit-inetd, openbsd-inetd, xinetd). The only one I was able to get working with atftpd was netkit-inetd. Once I got past that, there were two options for nfsd (nfs-user-server, nfs-kernel-server). The only one I was able to get to work was nfs-kernel-server. This was rather frustrating. Something that would take 5 minutes to get working under CentOS took me all day under Debian. Everything else (samba, openldap, kerberos, bind9, apache2, cupsys, etc) went smoothly.

Other than that, though, Debian and Ubuntu have been very pleasant to work with. With the exception of wxWidgets, I haven't had to compile anything myself. The only third party repositories I need to use are Beryl and Medibuntu (dvdcss, w32codecs). No breakage at all, either.

If you want to experiment with Fedora, try it in a virtual machine first.

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used the official ATI drivers for Linux recently? How long do you think it would have taken the OSS community to support AIGLX? ATI's official drivers still don't.

Re:Too little open source?

[ardor]

2. Relevant for old hardware, yes. For new hardware, use the closed-source ones.
3. Ha ha. Good devs aren't common or expendable. nvidia has some VERY good devs working at these drivers. A 3D graphics driver is not trivial to develop. And unlike many free-as-in-freedom evangelists think, it IS much more difficult than a NIC driver.
4. Unfortunately, this is one reason why IHVs tend not to support Linux (read "support" as in writing drivers by themselves and providing call-center support).

Nouveaux is the closest thing there is to a free, decent 3D graphics driver, and guess what - its because they use reverse-engineered stuff. Its not just the specs. A lot of the 3D functionality is in the drivers themselves.

Re:Too little open source?

[revlayle]

wait... what... murder is BAD? *hides bodies*

Re:Too little open source?

[livewire98801]

Interesting. Many of the reasons you cited for moving away from Fedora are what keeps me running it. FC5 was much faster than FC3 (skipped 4), and FC6 is even faster still. I have found that many of the ppl that cite slowness have SELinux enabled and enforcing. My theory is that is their issue. I always disable it, and think that is the way things should be for a desktop. If you're running a server that is a potential target, then SELinux becomes a higher priority.

I tried Ubuntu, but I couldn't get things running as easily as Fedora. That could be because I'm more experienced with Fedora than Debian and know the quirks, but that means that your reasoning for sticking with Ubuntu is the same as my sticking with Fedora, negating the point.

I think your issue with updates is that you left AtRpms and Livna enabled for automatic updates. If you need one of those packages (I use Livna for nothing, and At for my wireless drivers), then enable it when you install those packages and nothing else. Dag is picking up drivers for the things that I use At and might use Livna for in the future, and their update system is friendlier, so I might switch to those packages soon.

I found on Ubuntu that I didn't have nearly the package selection that I do on Fedora. You mentioned that you have to have more repos enabled, but that is one of the least significant problems you could mention. It is well known that RedHat is not able to include a lot of things for license reasons.

On my x86_64 system, I did have to remove a couple of i386 packages to get updating to run right, that's one irritation that I hope to see go away. They include a lot of duplication that really isn't needed there, but make it very difficult to install i386 packages once the system is running. I don't have any issues on my core duo notebook though, that's exclusive to amd64, and easy enough to deal with once you realize the problem.

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to experiment with Fedora, try it in a virtual machine first.

Heh. I used to be a Debian user, until I switched to Mac OS in 2003. Recently, I switched back to Linux -- Ubuntu.

I'd also like to get something more "free", and more optimized, so I got me VMWare (kqemu didn't want to work with kernel acceleration, and without it it was darn slow). Well, Arch Linux didn't get any dependencies right, and Fedora is a *bitch* with codecs. I tried livna and freshrpms.net, but both couldn't get my AAC running on gstreamer. fedora wouldn't even let me watch movies in Totem, yes, after installing every conceivable plugin for gstreamer. Ubuntu does both like a charm.

Gentoo plays movies fine, but doesn't play AAC. I wonder what the Ubuntu guys do, how they build those "gstreamer-plugins-bad-multiverse" thingies, who builds them, from what source, etc. The intarweb has no information on the multiverse (haven't found any).

So for now I'll just have to stay with Ubuntu. Debian doesn't cut it, as I *really* want a recent Gnome, and I don't like mixing binaries with self-compiled packages.

Plus, RPM as a package format is stone-age, and very very slow compared to DEB.

Re:Too little open source?

[i_should_be_working]

Ubuntu was never created to be a Free distro the way Debian was.

That's not true. Even on today's Ubuntu front page:

The Ubuntu community is built on the ideas enshrined in the Ubuntu Philosophy: that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.

These freedoms make Ubuntu fundamentally different from traditional proprietary software: not only are the tools you need available free of charge, you have the right to modify your software until it works the way you want it to.

You can't customize non-Free software in whatever way you want to.

Re:Too little open source?

[drinkypoo]

They've been writing 3D drivers for almost a decade at this point. They have entire teams of guys writing the drivers. How can anyone compete with that? And why would they try?

Well, I will reserve my opinion as it comes to nVidia, but how could anyone do a worse job of writing drivers than ATI? And frankly, the nVidia drivers aren't the most stable thing ever. But the most telling fact is that the free ati driver is dramatically more stable than the commercial fglrx driver for the few cards that support both. Or so my ATI-using pals tell me, but then, they bought ATI cards, so their judgement is suspect.

Re:Too little open source?

[drinkypoo]

it provides a legal way to play Windows Media files on Ubuntu in the USA. Not having to tell all your users to break the law to watch a video is a good thing.

That's true, which is why we have vlc.

Re:Too little open source?

[LordOfTheNoobs]

A stark moral choice.

      With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible. Instead,
      I faced a stark moral choice.

      The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing
      nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker.
      Most likely I would also be developing software that was released
      under nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other
      people to betray their fellows too.

      I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing
      code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on
      years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life
      making the world a worse place.

      I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a
      nondisclosure agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT
      AI lab the source code for the control program for our printer. (The
      lack of certain features in this program made use of the printer
      extremely frustrating.) So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure
      agreements were innocent. I was very angry when he refused to share
      with us; I could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone
      else.

      Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the
      computer field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they
      would still be wasted. I would not be culpable for dividing and
      restricting computer users, but it would happen nonetheless.

      So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the
      good. I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could
      write, so as to make a community possible once again?

      The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system.
      That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer. With an
      operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run
      the computer at all. With a free operating system, we could again have
      a community of cooperating hackers--and invite anyone to join. And
      anyone would be able to use a computer without starting out by
      conspiring to deprive his or her friends.

      As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job.
      So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I
      was elected to do the job. I chose to make the system compatible with
      Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily
      switch to it. The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as
      a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."
   

    from /usr/share/emacs/21.4/etc/THE-GNU-PROJECT
    by Richard Stallman

    The choice of liberty in all things, even things so small as a printer driver.

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

so you're either a cannibal or an idiot, which is it?

Re:Too little open source?

[Chandon Seldon]

How is the legal status of VLC any different from that of any other Free Software media player?

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand your concern of running only Free software. But most people want to use software based on its utility rather for principles. If you want to use only free software then you may not be use official Firefox binary package which is non-free. You may have to use IceWeasel instead.

Ubuntu separates the components based on the repository they are stored. The main repository which is the core of Ubuntu used to contain only free software. Unfortunately now the main repository also contains packages that are not free. So it is difficult to segregate between free and non free softwares based on the repository. For those who like Ubuntu and want to use only free software gNewSense is the only choice available for them.

Re:Too little open source?

[skoaldipper]

I hurd otherwise...

Re:Too little open source?

[PitaBred]

VLC breaks the law in the good 'ol US of A. Specifically the DMCA's restrictions against circumventing copyright. Please, try to keep up.

Re:Too little open source?

[644bd346996]

It worked for 3dfx in a simpler era. My Voodoo3 can still do hardware 3d acceleration in Linux.

First and foremost, free and open drivers would be integrated into the operating system far more easily. All linux and bsd distributions would be able to provide out-of-the-box 3d acceleration to better than 95% of the pc userbase. That means a lot when it comes to eye candy. Things like glitz could be brought up to universal compatibility, and XGL and AIGLX would be able to move forward much faster with the larger user and developer base.

Re:Too little open source?

[evilviper]

but the important thing is that it provides a legal way to play Windows Media files on Ubuntu in the USA. Not having to tell all your users to break the law to watch a video is a good thing.

There's nothing illegal about playing Windows Media files. It's just a question of licensing the appropriate patents. Freespire just happens to have the right to use Microsoft's tech without paying, thanks to their antitrust lawsuit.

So, it's really just a question of money... and a very small amount of money at that.

Re:Too little open source?

[evilviper]

That's true, which is why we have vlc.

VLC (as well as MPlayer, Xine, ffmpeg, etc.) have not paid license fees for the patented audio and video codecs they use. So it's illegal anywhere that software patents are enforceable.

Re:Too little open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am poster you are replying to.

I have found that many of the ppl that cite slowness have SELinux enabled and enforcing. Nope, it was disabled on my desktops.

I tried Ubuntu, but I couldn't get things running as easily as Fedora. That could be because I'm more experienced with Fedora than Debian and know the quirks, but that means that your reasoning for sticking with Ubuntu is the same as my sticking with Fedora, negating the point. It takes getting used to. Debian/Ubuntu break packages up into so tiny pieces it gets confusing to find what you actually need. Once you get used to it it's not bad, but still an annoyance.

I think your issue with updates is that you left AtRpms and Livna enabled for automatic updates. I experienced one too many problems with breakage to use AtRPMS at all. I stopped early in FC4's lifecycle. For Livna, I left it disabled due to conflicts. For the few packages I needed from it (mainly nvidia drivers, which Ubuntu officially provides packages for) I'd just install/update manually with --enable-repo.

Dag is picking up drivers for the things that I use I stopped using Dag a while ago due to it breaking things. I did make use of some of his source rpms, though.

I found on Ubuntu that I didn't have nearly the package selection that I do on Fedora. By default, only "main" is enabled. main is rather limited. Fedora's core+extras contain more. To get a usable system, you must enable "universe" and "multiverse". I also use "backports". These are official and reside on Ubuntu's servers. Multiverse includes support for mp3, mpeg2, xvid, x264, ffmpeg, etc. In the default "/etc/apt/sources.list" they are commented out. For multiverse, just type in "multiverse" after every time you see "universe".

Once you enable those, the package selection dwarfs what's available for Fedora. This is one of the main things that won me over. That, and package stability (only security and bug fixes).

As for the other two repos I use, Medibuntu includes libdvdcss and w32codecs and not much else. Everything else you need (xine, mplayer, ffmpeg, xvid, etc) for good multimedia are in universe and multiverse.

The other is the official Beryl repository. FC6 includes this. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as if Feisty Fawn will be packaging it, so I'll have to continue using this.

Re:Too little open source?

[Chandon Seldon]

There's nothing illegal about playing Windows Media files. It's just a question of licensing the appropriate patents. Freespire just happens to have the right to use Microsoft's tech without paying, thanks to their antitrust lawsuit.

So how would getting those patent licenses work for Canonical then? It's not like they're selling copies of Ubuntu.

This deal with Linspire provides an answer to that question, and the answer is actually pretty good.

Re:Too little open source?

[AusIV]

I completely agree. I'm a Kubuntu user, and I try to keep as much as I can Free, but if I need something proprietary for entertainment, work, school, etc. I install it.

I use the open source radeon drivers instead of the binary drivers. I chose Firefox over Opera. I use kvpnc and vpnc instead of Cisco's VPN client. However I also use Adobe Flash, Google Earth, and on very rare occasions I'll load up VMWare Player to use Windows. I want to get the most out of my computer, and there are projects I've given time and money to for the sake of improving the available software.

Having a computer with Free software doesn't have to be boolean. I once heard someone ask "If you're going to run a binary video driver, why don't you just use Windows?", as if running one proprietary application (admittedly in kernel space) were as bad as using 100% proprietary applications on every level. Personally I'd rather have a system that was 95% free and as friendly as possible than 100% free and a pain in the ass, (or 100% proprietary and a pain in the ass, as is often the case with Windows). I'm not saying people who want to keep their computer 100% Free shouldn't do so, but I try to find a happy medium between Free and functional.

Re:Too little open source?

[evilviper]

So how would getting those patent licenses work for Canonical then? It's not like they're selling copies of Ubuntu.

That seems pretty obvious...

The Open Source(y) option would be to take donations, and use that to pay for the licenses.

Another option would be to offer a licensed version up for sale, eg. on their website, much like CnR. Unlike Linspire, they could license the standard, open source codecs, instead of proprietary ones, which probably perform much more poorly as well.

Re:Too little open source?

[Chandon Seldon]

No option that involves paying patent license fees is compatible with Free Software, or even with the Open Source definition. That means that there is no option to license these proprietary codecs that is "open sourcey".

As temporary compromises go, the deal with Linspire should work fine. It's not like this stops people from downloading the existing codec packages, this just gives an option that is 100% legal - which is really good for system resellers.

Re:Too little open source?

[notamisfit]

Don't you know that RMS wrote the GNU Manifesto, and then powered down his computer until Linux came out in 1991? No, really.

Re:Too little open source?

[zobier]

Well, I will reserve my opinion as it comes to nVidia, but how could anyone do a worse job of writing drivers than ATI? Ya, I got ubuntu on my laptop and was really happy with the way it Just Works. I tried the ATI driver for my graphics card and Gnome would restart when you interrupted the screen saver. I went back to using the generic driver, no probs. Still got to get WPA and my 7134 digital TV card going, but happy so far.

Re:Too little open source?

[arpy]

And honestly, the only "proprietary" or "closed" things that EVER get included with ANY distro are things like *decent* drivers for 3D video cards, and codecs.

Actually I remember using Netscape 4 with an early version of Red Hat (3.5?). Only decent web browser I could find :) (Also, for a while Adobe Acrobat Reader was pretty important for me, despite xpdf being available)

Re:Too little open source?

[evilviper]

No option that involves paying patent license fees is compatible with Free Software, or even with the Open Source definition.

That's moronic.

USING patented software may not be compatible with the FSF, but the act of paying for the patent license makes it no worse, nor better.

You certainly don't speak for Open Source. There are a vast number of open source projects out there that are quite happy to coexist with patents.

As temporary compromises go, the deal with Linspire should work fine.

Using closed-source, patented software is WORSE for everyone, not better. The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses.

Re:Too little open source?

[asuffield]

They've been writing 3D drivers for almost a decade at this point. They have entire teams of guys writing the drivers. How can anyone compete with that? And why would they try?

Both the ATI and the nVidia proprietary video drivers are extremely unstable and I have seen them often crash the entire kernel, hard. The nVidia driver in particular also has fundamental security issues (anybody with access to the video device has effective root); the same thing's probably true of the ATI driver, but I haven't heard of anybody figuring out how yet. These drivers are almost as bad as their Windows equivalents, needing patching every time somebody tries to run a new piece of code.

Microsoft have been writing operating systems for over a decade at this point, and they still suck at it. ATI and nVidia have been writing drivers for almost as long, and they still suck at it. The problem is not experience, it's objectives. "Providing a stable, secure operating environment" is not on their list of objectives, because that is not what sells video cards. Games, noisy fans, and cards that take up huge amounts of space (and therefore look more impressive) are what sells video cards. All that time and effort has not been put into making drivers more reliable, it has been put into making new visual effects that only work on the new models of cards, so that people have to keep buying new cards.

Yes, anyone can compete with that if they had the necessary information. There is plenty of scope for competition here. The reasons why they would try should be obvious.

Re:Too little open source?

[asuffield]

If you want to keep you system "pure", then you aren't going to be watching any Quicktime or Windows Media files or DVDs.

Quicktime is MPEG-4. Windows Media is VC-1. DVDs are MPEG-2. All of these are published, open specifications that anybody outside the US may implement. You probably already have free implementations of them installed.

The problem is not codecs. The problem is DRM. If you have a WMV that won't play, it's encrypted.

Re:Too little open source?

[Chandon Seldon]

You certainly don't speak for Open Source.

A mandatory patent license fee violates point #1 of the Open Source definition. The OSD requires free redistribution - obviously if there's a mandatory patent license fee, I can't freely redistribute the software.

Using closed-source, patented software is WORSE for everyone, not better. The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses.

A fee of a few cents a copy would compromise one of the basic commitments that the Ubuntu project has made: Ubuntu is zero cost, which allows Ubuntu CDs to be freely copied and redistributed. That would be lost if there were any patent fees involved. It's much better to not have the freedom to modify one tiny portion of the system than it would be to not have the freedom to share the system as a whole.

Re:Too little open source?

[evilviper]

The OSD requires free redistribution

Wrong: The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. Nothing about patents. Such a payment clause is just not allowed in the license.

Scroll down to "export restrictions" to see another similar case.

obviously if there's a mandatory patent license fee, I can't freely redistribute the software.

Do you even bother to READ what I write?

the act of paying for the patent license makes it no worse, nor better.

Ubuntu is zero cost, which allows Ubuntu CDs to be freely copied and redistributed.

The Linspire deal may allow Ubuntu to use WMV/WMA codecs for zero cost, but it certainly doesn't extend to third parties who want to modify and/or otherwise redistribute Ubuntu.

So, as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring):

"So, it's really just a question of money... and a very small amount of money at that."
"The only benefit they get is not having to pay the few cents per copy for the codec patent licenses."

And in exchange for not having to pay a few cents per copy... they're forced to use closed-source, binary-only codecs. That can't POSSIBLY be BETTER, for a FSF/OSS project.

Awesome

[lnxpilot]

It's nice to see.
If we are to compete with the evil M$, we need cooperation between distros, not bickering.
United, we stand. :)
Sure, I have my favorite distro(s), but as long as it's not Microsoft, I'm happy.

Re:Awesome

[mdm-adph]

wow -- that's seriously the first time I've ever heard anyone say anything about the logical cooperation between distros that should be happening but just isn't, from what I've seen. I'm new to the linux world, and all I've seen so far is a lot of:

"X distro is better."
"Nuh uh -- X distro is da bomb!"
"You all suck -- I've been running X distro since 1990 and I own you all."

I don't know how linux users like this ever expect to see their OS gain a meaningful market share in the desktop world with attitudes like this.

Re:Awesome

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

wow -- that's seriously the first time I've ever heard anyone say anything about the logical cooperation between distros that should be happening but just isn't, from what I've seen.

Let's see... Distributions have been based on other distros for as long as I can remember and distros have used software developed by other distros forever. So what actually is different now -- why is this the first time you heard about it? I'm betting that Canonical and Linspire just have better marketing departments to push out press releases.

Re:Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm new to the linux world, and all I've seen so far is a lot of:

"X distro is better."
"Nuh uh -- X distro is da bomb!"
"You all suck -- I've been running X distro since 1990 and I own you all."

I don't know how linux users like this ever expect to see their OS gain a meaningful market share in the desktop world with attitudes like this. First, let me point out the fact that Linux is a kernel. Many distros use the linux kernel (most times modified for their particular needs) and package it with other software. Hence, GNU/Linux.

Next, let me point out that gaining "meaningful market share" (i.e. competing with Microsoft) is not the main purpose of GNU software in general nor the Linux kernel.

Thirdly, the reason you see people discussing (or bickering) about different distros is simple. People have different needs and desires. Some people are using the right tool (distro) for their particular needs - others need a different tool and thus use a different distro. People have different skill levels, this also influences the use of different distros.

All in all, we should all be thankful we have such a great number of distros to choose from. From the user's standpoint - this is a great thing. From a "meaningful market share" point of view it may not be so good but GNU/Linux is about letting the users do what they want with their software - not competing with Microsoft.

Finally, your desire for competing with Microsoft and Apple (I hope - since they are opposite sides of the same coin) is shared among certain distros (note Ubuntu's bug #1). This particular article/story is a good thing if you want to do this.

For a couple of years, the overtones coming out of Dell-land (if you pay attention and have read between the lines) - have been pointing towards lower cost (and better margins) in order to compete with other manufacturers who have squeezed in on Dell's market. I've been saying for a couple of years that, ultimately, Dell wants to sell machines with AMD cpu's (so long as they are cheaper than Intel and perform as well or better) and GNU/Linux pre-loaded. The GNU/Linux thing has been talked about by Michael Dell himself and we have recently seen a deal for Dell to buy AMD cpus (this was foreshadowed by the Dell's purchase of Alienware). This article/story ties in perfectly and you will definitely keep seeing movement in this direction as people continue discover the benefits of GNU/Linux and as Microsoft shoots itself, and its users, in the foot.

Re:Awesome

[skoaldipper]

If we are to compete with the evil M$, we need cooperation between distros, not bickering.

By the same token we box with sparring partners or with other contenders, an exchange of lessons and mitigating those mistakes is how one should train in hopes of wrestling that gold belt from his waist.

Re:Awesome

[mdm-adph]

yeah, that's true, but:

"basing something off of something" != "cooperating with something".

I can use whatever techniques you've given to the world to create my own technology, basing my technology after yours, but unless I'm working with you and sharing things back, I'm not cooperating at all.

Not saying that all distros/linux users are like this, but the majority I've seen are.

More proprietary stuff.

[rabbit78]

So we get more ways to easier install proprietary stuff on that OS that was originally proposing to 'support free software'. Sigh. Can anybody enlighten me how Canonical is actively supporting and advertising free software? By pulling in more and more options for proprietary software?

I know they argue that the lack of certain applications and / or drivers is hindering adoption of free software and there is certainly some thruth to it. Well, I don't know. I think as long as I have the choice to exclude the proprietary repositories I'll be fine with it. But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

They actively support and advertise Ubuntu. Ubuntu is free software. I've enlightened you.

I would encourage people to install Ubuntu first if it sounded like it would do the job for them after listening to their needs, instead of succumbing to Proprietary Software is the Demise of Linux FUD.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[prestonmichaelh]

I know they argue that the lack of certain applications and / or drivers is hindering adoption of free software and there is certainly some thruth to it. Well, I don't know. I think as long as I have the choice to exclude the proprietary repositories I'll be fine with it. But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.

This is the kind of thing that frustrates me about most Linux users. Ubuntu, or even Freespire/Linspire would be one of the first distros I would suggest. I have been using Gentoo for a while now and just recently switched to Ubuntu. I plugged in my USB thumb drive for the first time yesterday and all of a sudden a dialog box popped up asking what I wanted to do (Open the folder, etc.) and I was AMAZED! I never told it I would have USB thumbdrives. I never put in any obscure automount commands. I didn't have to do a dmesg to see what the device connected as followed by a mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/usb_drive. It just worked. Same with my sound card, video card, network card, monitor, mouse, and keyboard. Usually, with most distros I have to spend at least a couple of hours googling and tweaking config files to get at least some of those components working properly. I am all for free software, but I am also for being able to get my work done. The fact of the matter is that some companies either will not or cannot have open drivers. I would much rather have something that worked, and worked without headache that was closed, than nothing at all or a reverse-engineered solution that is flaky at best and never works quite right.

The fact of the matter is this, if anyone wants Linux to have significant desktop market share, then it will have to include proprietary software/drivers. My grandmother, father, sister, or non-computer geek friends with never use a system where they have to edit a configuration file by hand and use google to be able to play their mp3s. They are used to things just working with Windows. Look at the current outrage about Vista. Most problems are because some device or piece of software does not work. Quite often there are workarounds, but people are pissed that they even have to do a workaround. All Linux (without the proprietary drivers/software) is is a bunch of workarounds.

My final thought is this, maybe Linux shouldn't try to for significant desktop market share. I love Linux, I use it on my desktop and on my servers, but it is not for everyone. Maybe Linux should not worry about beating Microsoft for the home user and focus on what it is best for, servers and development.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[schwaang]

But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.

It's funny you didn't say RHEL instead of Fedora. I wonder why. Oh that's right, you have to *pay* for it. Does that mean Red Hat doesn't support FOSS either? I'm just so confused.

P.S., I'm making a point, not baiting flames.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because RHEL is for *enterprise*, not for personal use? because it's much more expensive than Windows or Mac OS? because RHEL is based on rather outdated software, unlike Fedora?

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[falconwolf]

I know they argue that the lack of certain applications and / or drivers is hindering adoption of free software and there is certainly some thruth to it. Well, I don't know. I think as long as I have the choice to exclude the proprietary repositories I'll be fine with it. But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.

Why wouldn't you encourage people to use software, whether an app, a driver, or an OS, that just works and allows the user to do what they want to use a computer for? Most people don't live for computers, instead they use computers to make their job and or life easier and more enjoyable.

Falcon

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[physicsnick]

So we get more ways to easier install proprietary stuff on that OS that was originally proposing to 'support free software'. Sigh.

You seem confused. Let me refresh your memory:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

I don't know where you got the idea that Ubuntu cares about software freedom. Ubuntu exists solely to tear market share from Microsoft any way it can.

Don't try to force your FOSS views on people who have no knowledge or care about the situation; you'll only entrench them further into Windows. If an ordinary end-user asks you to recommend a Linux distribution, you should absolutely recommend Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the only distribution that actually tries to Just Work, and it does a damn good job of it.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[nuzak]

> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1

Astonishingly asinine, and a perfect example of losing one's focus. Chase the dream, not the competition.

On a positive note, most of the other distros using launchpad had the sense to set the bug to "Rejected".

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[asuffield]

Ubuntu is the only distribution that actually tries to Just Work

You, sir, are an Ubuntu marketer. Most other distributions try to do that; to the best of my knowledge, the first Linux platform to routinely use the term "Just Work", with the capitalisation like that, was Debian (probably because it was one of the first Linux platforms to exist, and the term was being used in contrast to slackware, which was more a case of "work, damn you! work! argh!").

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[physicsnick]

You should know that Debian's "Just Work" does not apply to Joe User, it applies to Joe Sysadmin. Debian's "Just Work" in contrast to Slackware was in reference to the lack of a package management system and dependency checking; but this "Just Work" is not Debian's main goal, because Debian places software freedom above ease of use. If you want your Atheros wireless card to work, for example, you're going to need to *compile your own kernel*, a ludicrous process for an end user to undertake for something that can work out of the box (and does quite well in Ubuntu).

While I agree that a truly free distribution is important, you can't currently market a truly free distribution to ordinary end users. There is simply too much missing (mainly drivers and codecs), and that's not going to change until Linux gains some market share on the home PC. Debian is not going to do that, but Ubuntu might.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[PenGun]

I dunno. I just did a hacked up Slamd64 install, would not boot the DVD so I booted slak 9 or something and just installed off the hard drive. No biggy. However the install booted everything except my convoluted two brooktree devices on the PCI bus, it got one right.

  I mean that's just the start. I then slamed, heh, in the 2.6.20 kernel and my standard config and everything is up.

  The thing that surprised me was how the standard install just found and loaded everything but the second brooktree device. Amazing actually. No way a windose install would have done all that, it's always a PITA to get the satellite card up and windose will not run two brooktree cards at all.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[init100]

I plugged in my USB thumb drive for the first time yesterday and all of a sudden a dialog box popped up asking what I wanted to do (Open the folder, etc.) and I was AMAZED! I never told it I would have USB thumbdrives. I never put in any obscure automount commands. I didn't have to do a dmesg to see what the device connected as followed by a mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/usb_drive. It just worked. Same with my sound card, video card, network card, monitor, mouse, and keyboard.

FYI, Fedora also does this. It does not ask what to do with the device though, it just puts an icon on the desktop.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[init100]

It's funny you didn't say RHEL instead of Fedora. I wonder why. Oh that's right, you have to *pay* for it. Does that mean Red Hat doesn't support FOSS either? I'm just so confused.

Red Hat does support F/OSS. First, they contribute to a fairly large number of F/OSS projects, and second, they put up all source RPMs for their enterprise distribution on their FTP site, which is what CentOS and ScientificLinux use to build their distributions.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[Guspaz]

That's the wonderful thing about Linux. Don't like the mainstream, and want to keep using an ideologically pure distribution? Nobody is stopping you. There are a whole bunch of distributions that specialize in that, and there's nobody holding a gun to your head saying "You must use Ubuntu."

Of course, this is also one of the things that keeps Linux as a niche product on the desktop. But that's another topic.

Re:More proprietary stuff.

[ElleyKitten]

Ubuntu is almost entirely free. The only compromises with a base install are some drivers and such that otherwise some systems wouldn't be able to run without (they even skip non-free wireless and 3d vid card drivers, because a system can run without them). It doesn't include mp3 support, DVD, flash, or even java. You have to enable the repositories that hold them and then you can choose to install them. I can't imagine it's that much different from Fedora in this regard.

This is really big news....

[HerculesMO]

Because with the CNR technology, Linux is closing the gap between Windows and Macs in ease of use.

Give it time... it will catch on. RPMs are great but if you need XXX dependancies first to install something, people get confused (as I did). This is the best thing for Linux since sliced bread :)

Re:This is really big news....

[chromatic]

RPMs are great but if you need XXX dependancies first to install something, people get confused (as I did).

Have you used Debian or a Debian derivative? This hasn't been a problem with those distributions in over a decade.

Re:This is really big news....

[dodongo]

I never saw a reason to have sliced bread on my system, since I couldn't fill the dependencies for libtoast0.

Re:This is really big news....

[TheRaven64]

Yes it is. If you get a random dpkg that is not from a repository, you will also need to hunt down the dpkgs it depends on. If you install dpkg from a standard repository, the dependencies will also be there and they can be fetched. This is exactly the same situation as with RPMs (or *BSD packages). The only difference is that people have a habit of making binary RPMs available for download and just hoping that you have access to the dependencies.

Re:This is really big news....

[cooley]

I tried both Synaptic and apt-get, but I just can't find this "sliced bread" package you speak of. I have also tried searching for "sliced-bread", "slicedbread", and "sliced_bread" to no avail. I'm confused, and I sure wish there were an easier way to find and install....

Re:This is really big news....

[Anonymous Coward]

I have not used an RPM based distro for a while, but I know that they contain dependeny information. Surely a tool exists out there like Ubuntu's Gdebi, ie. you double click on the package file and the tool opens, checks if the package will work on you architecture, checks whether it already exists in the repos (the same version, older or newer) and makes sure any dependencies it needs are available in some enabled repo. If it passes those checks then you can click "Install" and gksudo gives it super user privileges, allowing it to install the package and any dependencies. A more hackish way to install a non-distro package would be to force its install (with a command like "sudo dpkg -i --force-depends filename.deb") then to run "sudo apt-get -f install" which will make apt, to the best of its ability, install any dependencies needed by the system (including te package you just installed). I know APT can be used on RPM distros so perhaps that method would also work.

My main point is that RPMs are fine, because they at least contain dependency information. I bought the game Gish a while ago and it worked fine on my Ubuntu 5.10 system, but not on 6.06 or 6.10 (the resolution changed but I got kicked back to my desktop at the wrong resolution and X had locked up), and I assumed it was an SDL version problem or something. Turns out that Gish needs the "libalut" package installed. If I got Gish as a package, either Dpkg or RPM, then at least I could find the problem, rather than spending around a year assuming that I could never find out how to make my purchase would work on my newer systems.

Thing is, Click 'N' Run offers these kinds of programs as packages (I think Gish is actually available in there too!) so dependency problems are gone. Instead the problem has shifted to one of "Will Click 'N' Run screw up my system?". Things will likely go a bit dodgy on some distros, but here Canonical is making sure that Ubuntu users will have nothing to worry about in this area. Probably when the LSB's packaging API gets implemented the issues of Click 'N' Run paranoia will be gone, allowing third parties to not only offer unified package files for download, but the ability to do it from a standard repository (no, ubuntu-commercial is not standard because it is not cross-distro), which basically means that GNU/Linux's great package methodology (trusted sources, ease of use, dependencies, updates, etc.) is finally open to non-distro packages (there is nothing to stop me from getting a Free package put into Click 'N' Run if I wanted to).

Re:This is really big news....

[MadJo]

and here I thought that apt-get was the best thing for Linux since sliced bread.

Re:This is really big news....

[init100]

The equivalent of Apt-get in modern Red Hat distros and derivatives is Yum.

Click'n'Run as a shop?

[Pecisk]

No one will forced to buy anything trough Click'n'Run. It will just offer users who will want to use some commercial apps their way to do so.

What bother me more is prioritary codecs. If they are Fluendo ones, I am fine, but if they are some thirty party hacks, sorry, I don't think Ubuntu should get involved in this.

Anyway, interesting move. If it means that Canonical things more about commercial offerings, more power to them, because I would like to recommend some enterprise crowd to use Ubuntu instead of RHES/SLES, because I don't think very good about them.

What I don't want to see either is Add/Remove and Synaptic gone. It would be very foolish.

Re:Click'n'Run as a shop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Augh! You polluted my mind so badly with the word 'prioritary' that it took me forever to think of the word that it seems like you meant: 'proprietary'.

Re:Click'n'Run as a shop?

[wild_berry]

I saw esr's World Comination 201 this evening, and esr says that Linspire has a license to Windows Media Player 10's codecs as a result of the Lindows/Linspire lawsuits. That's in CNR and would probably be free-as-in-beer for any user of CNR.

It doesn't mean that Synaptic will disappear. Just that playing foreign media files should become easier.

Re:Click'n'Run as a shop?

[Anonymous Coward]

That post was so riddled with typos, I actually gagged. My brain hurts..

Starting to really like this guy

[adrenalinekick]

I'm starting to really like Kevin Carmony - the Linspire CEO. First the Desktop Linux Summit, then CNR for all major Linux distros, now this partnership with Ubuntu. Anyone else get the feeling that Carmony is taking all the right steps to setup linux as a viable alternative to M$?

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[coastin]

Yep, he has the right vision. I have seen many improvements at Linspire since he stepped in. This is really good news for linux and for Linspire.

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[mdm-adph]

sounds like a good guy -- let's hope he has the cajones to stand up to MS if he gets the call one day about a SuSE-like deal.

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[xenocide2]

How, By turning into exactly the thing we despise?

Kevin Carmony has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for short term results, and reckless disregard for copyright law. That said, I find some justice the world -- he's now in charge of a company to fix the problem he helped cause with mp3.com. Perhaps we should enlist him to convince President Bush to be the US Ambassador to Iraq come 2008.

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[adrenalinekick]

Kevin Carmony has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for short term results, and reckless disregard for copyright law. That said, I find some justice the world -- he's now in charge of a company to fix the problem he helped cause with mp3.com.
mp3.com's demise seems to me to be more of a result of a broken copyright system. That argument can only lead to more flamebait and I dont want to get into it here and now.

As for a preference for short term results, I don't know what you are referring to and would love to be enlightened. It seems to me that standardizing the traditionally fragmented and troublesome area of program delivery/installation with CNR is a Good Thing - no matter what he did in the past.

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[xenocide2]

Actually, I should make a correction. By the time Carmony was not associated with mp3.com it was already too late. Carmony clearly suffers from association with mp3.com, as nobody's bothered to point out this to me. Carmony may be able to slowly repair Robertson's (a name I recall so well now that I wonder how I briefly forgot it) opportunistic practices, but it remains clear to me that Linspire's motivations do not run in harmony with open source. It saddens me a bit that Robertson's off to other ventures (AJAX, how web 2.0!), as it had a sort of poetic justice to it.

As an aside there was no way mp3.com could have avoided the same impending avalanche that youtube now faces and remained anything close to what it did. Lindows was started in the same get rich quick manner that ultimately harmed their long term goals. Even the name tried to make bank off of someone else's efforts.

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Kevin Carmony has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for short term results, and reckless disregard for copyright law. That said, I find some justice the world -- he's now in charge of a company to fix the problem he helped cause with mp3.com. Perhaps we should enlist him to convince President Bush to be the US Ambassador to Iraq come 2008.

Perhaps you should provide some background supporting your accusations against Kevin Carmony, instead of bashing him in a public forum without evidence.

What did Kevin Carmony do wrong, exactly? Does he really have a preference for short term results, and why is that wrong?

Did Kevin Carmony even work at mp3.com? I see he worked at Mp3tunes, which is a completely different entity from mp3.com, and seems like a cool idea. Perhaps you are confusing different companies?

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[xenocide2]

No, he worked for mp3.com, but i was confusing him with Michael Robertson, serial entrepreneur.

Re:Starting to really like this guy

[schotty]

Kevin Carmony gets the whole thing of linux, and coming from a regular Joe's point of view (he is rather computer unsaavy),he realizes that OS's as a whole suck major balls, and things need to be fixed. Try doing anything like CNR for Windows or OS X. One word -- futility. Yet, it would be what alot of users would love to have.

Hardcore nerds won't take much interest in CNR or Linspire due to it being simplified so much, but thats why we have multiple distros like Slackware, Gentoo, Debian, and Fedora (and many many more). The noobs or peeps that just dont care about computers, but rather just want to get work done have their place too in the market. Windows. Now Linspire and Canonical are challenging that (well, have been for sometime now).

This is it.

[thegoldenear]

This is what Eric S. Raymond was on about at Christmas, that this is what was needed to be the desktop of the future in a 64bit world. Remember ESR's Desktop Linux 2008 Deadline?

Re:This is it.

[Dr. Manhattan]

I have some qualms about the timeline in that essay. For one thing, I don't think the pressure will really be on until the "64-bit killer app" appears. (And if I knew what that app would be, I'd be writing it now and planning how to spend my millions.) It's hard to think what a typical desktop user (or even a "power user") would do that would require more than 4GB of RAM.

And the computing market has become more diffuse and less desktop-centric. Game consoles, smartphones, web-centered apps... I think that platform transitions will become more diffuse, too.

But yeah, I think he's spot on about a strong need for a simple, legal way for people to play media on Linux. This is a net, long-term good thing, even if it has some downsides in terms of open-source purity short-term.

on balance it's a good thing for FOSS, IMHO

[schwaang]

I don't run Ubuntu myself, but it seems to me this deal provides more freedom. From the FAQ:

In addition to the free service and products, users may also use CNR to access commercial products and services as well as proprietary drivers, but it's entirely up to them.

That means if you want to, you can buy proprietary codecs and stuff. But it's not part of Ubuntu's distro, and nobody will twist your arm.

This might help make it possible to finally switch grandmas and girlfriends from Windows.

Ubuntu...the new super-distro?

[darealpat]

It seems to me that the folks at Canonical are positioning themselves to be the distro of choice for users coming from Windows that have expectation of certain types of software, and are not averse to proprietary software, that is, the non hard-core linux users. By keeping themselves in the public's eye they stand a good chance of doing so.

Re:Ubuntu...the new super-distro?

[jalefkowit]

Ah, but by default Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu et al do not ship with anything but Free software. If you want things like Flash, media codecs, etc. you have to figure out how to set them up yourself, or use a helper script like EasyUbuntu.

This is, IMHO, the biggest weakness in the Ubuntu/Canonical strategy -- they have two desires ("a distro for Linux newbies" and "a 100% Free-as-in-Freedom distro") that in many ways are diametrically opposed. (And I say this as a happy Kubuntu user.)

Re:Ubuntu...the new super-distro?

[init100]

Ah, but by default Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu et al do not ship with anything but Free software [ubuntu.com]. If you want things like Flash, media codecs, etc. you have to figure out how to set them up yourself, or use a helper script like EasyUbuntu [freecontrib.org].

In the next version though, Ubuntu will ship with proprietary software.

Re:Ubuntu...the new super-distro?

[ElleyKitten]

In the next version though, Ubuntu will ship with proprietary software.

The next version isn't shipping with proprietary software. It's shipping with scripts that will help you install proprietary software, so if you click on a .avi, for example, it will say you don't have the right codec, and will ask if you want to install it (the codecs will be in the extra repositories, like they've always been). If you don't try to do anything that needs proprietary software, or you tell it not to install when you do, then your install will continue to be free.

Well...

[DJ Wings]

...I was debating over whether to recommend Ubuntu or Freespire to one of my classmates, but I guess I'll have to go for either Freebuntu or Ubire. Both are 1337er than *buntu and Freespire put together... Never mind, they're about the same as *buntu and Freespire put together.
Plus, "Ubire" sounds like "Uber"...

Why is .deb dpkg so broken? Why not .src.rpm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can some Debian/Ubuntu expert explain why Debian/Ubuntu doesn't move to some src.deb (similar to src.rpm), unify the tools a bit, to simplify package building, extracting, rebuild steps.

There is no .src.deb file.
Instead, you have:
  - something_1.0.orig.tar.gz. Why is the original archive required to fit Debian arbitary naming conventions?
  - something...dsc
  - something...diff. Which for an odd reason needs to patch the original source code with debian specific junk just to build.
  - also note that this .diff often contains a collection of diffs. is patch/diff an archive format?

The design problems with this are:
  - the name and contents of the original file should be untouched.
  - any build rules/scripts should be externally defined, and not be required to be put in the original source.
  - all the diffs needed should not be required to be combined unnaturally into one. The should be separate diffs, logically.
  - The diffs, build rules and extra build scripts should be archived together. Optionally, the original source two. But two files is manageable.

Yes, .src.rpm is closer to the "right" way. It is possible to just adopt .src.rpm to build a debian system. "alien" can build .debs from .src.rpm.
But I am not religious about .src.rpm.
But I do know that the current state of ".src-deb-pile-of-stuff-build-system" needs to be replaced.

Re:Why is .deb dpkg so broken? Why not .src.rpm?

[lakeland]

You answered your own question:
"the name and contents of the original file should be untouched."

something_1.0.orig.tar.gz is the upstream source code, complete with matching MD5SUM. Every single debian specific thing from patches to upstream to debian control files are left out of it. That gives lots of advantages:

1) It makes it really easy to see what changes Debian makes. Either a change is in the official upstream package or it is in a relatively short diff.
2) People can easily replace the orig with a later version and with very little editing create a package with the debian patches for a different upstream.
3) People can easily tweak the diff and create a debian package that has things like different compilation options but is still using the official upstream package.

" any build rules/scripts should be externally defined, and not be required to be put in the original source."

They're not. They're carefully put into the "something...diff" you mention. Use the origional source from the .orig if you want.

"- all the diffs needed should not be required to be combined unnaturally into one. The should be separate diffs, logically."

Oh? And how do you propose to show the differences between the debian package's source and the upstream package EXCEPT with a diff?

"The diffs, build rules and extra build scripts should be archived together. Optionally, the original source two. But two files is manageable."

They are, it's called "something...diff" And it really is a diff, so why shouldn't it be called .diff? As you note, it includes build scripts and DIFFS, so it is a diff containing diffs. You've basically asked for exactly what they already provide except for some reason you want the archive as a .tgz instead of a .diff

It seems then you have two arguments against the deb file format:

1) the orig. file does not have the upstream filename but instead a standardised and consistent name across all packages. I wonder how many upstream packages are called src.tgz? Would you want them in debian with that name? I personally prefer consistant names across packages to consistant name with upstream.
2) the set of diffs should be provided as a .tgz instead of as a .diff. *shrug*, it would be possible but why would you want to? It won't save space since the whole archive is compressed, it won't increase readability since the diff expands out to a series of changed/new files, and in many ways it will reduce ease-of-use since currently you can search the diff which you wouldn't be able to in a binary-only format.

Incidentially, the source based distributions like Gentoo all do it Debian's way rather than RedHat's way. Does that tell you something?

Re:Why is .deb dpkg so broken? Why not .src.rpm?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems then you have two arguments against the deb file format:

> 1) the orig. file does not have the upstream filename but instead a standardised and consistent name across all packages. I wonder how many
> upstream packages are called src.tgz? Would you want them in debian with that name? I personally prefer consistant names across packages to
> consistant name with upstream.

Yes, I would rather see the original name, or at least not require .orig. It should be a archive name that at least the original author is likely to adopt. Or are you really thinking that telling kernel.org that they should rename the package linux_2.6.20.orig.tar.gz?
I don't really care that much about this naming constraint, other than it seems unnecessary.

2) the set of diffs should be provided as a .tgz instead of as a .diff. *shrug*, it would be possible but why would you want to? It won't save space since the whole archive is compressed, it won't increase readability since the diff expands out to a series of changed/new files, and in many ways it will reduce ease-of-use since currently you can search the diff which you wouldn't be able to in a binary-only format.

The "diff" is used as an archive to keep not only debian/patches, but debian/control, debian/install, debian/rules,...
I am just saying that in general, patch/diff is not an archive tool. Debian is using it as one.

There are several useful logical parts to a "package".

P1. The original archive(s).
P2. package name,version, package checksum information, other pacakge meta data.
P3. Patches that are useful in any Linux/UNIX system, and should be considered for upstream adoption.
P4. build/install definitions/scripts

With debian, there are 3 parts:
D1. original archive, renamed, P1
D2. .dsc file, Some meta data P2.
D3. .diff file, containing some package meta data P2, needed patches P3, and build definitions/scripts P4, "archived" together using 'diff'. This "diff archive" is debian specific and package version specific, each part of the "archive" is a patch to an empty file, prefixed with xxxpackagexxx-5.5/debian/.

With rpm, you have a single .src.rpm, which is a cpio archive containing:
R1a: original archives, P1
R1b: .spec file, containing P4, and also specification of all other required files for build.
R1c: other required files: needed patches P3, any other files required to build.

No, .src.rpm is not ideal either.

I would rather have:
I1: .src.xpkgx
, an archive containing:
  IP1: original archive (optional. could be external to .src.xpkgx)
  IP2: package meta data definitions
  IP3: patches/ directory of patches
  IP4: build/install scripts/definitions. could be part of P2, or script files

Then you could distribute a .src.xpkgx with a self-contained original archive, so you just need xpkgx --rebuild xxx-1.0.src.xpkgx.

or distribute .src.xpkgx without the original archive, in which case one would need to do:
xpkgx --rebuild xxx-1.0.src.xpkgx xxx-1.0.tar.gz.

Re:Why is .deb dpkg so broken? Why not .src.rpm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that LFS is based on debian files? Does anyone use Gentoo?

Ideology or Pragmatism?

[earbenT]

I'm sure this headline will send RMS into a tizzy, but it also resurfaces the question of where open-source is headed if it is to survive and flourish against staunchly proprietary competitors.

Re:Ideology or Pragmatism?

[asuffield]

I'm sure this headline will send RMS into a tizzy, but it also resurfaces the question of where open-source is headed if it is to survive and flourish against staunchly proprietary competitors.

In the opposite direction. You do not defeat oppression by oppressing other people.

Interesting

[pionzypher]

I'd read a paper a while back that spoke of the need to provide legal and simple codec plugins for linux. The authors had mentioned that Linspire was in the unique position as the only linux distro with legal right to use wmf.

The paper was Here
The portion about Linspire was towards the bottom.

To the authors: Congratulations and thank you for tackling one of the large hurdles preventing mainstream adoption.

Re:Interesting

[ESR]

And in answer to the implied question -- yes, I do believe the things Rob Landley and I wrote in "World Domination 201" helped this happen sooner. I know we influenced Kevin Carmony's thinking because he's said so, and we also know that Mark Shuttleworth read a draft of the paper.

Don't forget

[Nimey]

Don't forget to pay your $699 license fee to SCO^WIBM, you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:Don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

I appreciate the effort (it was brave of you), but it just isn't the same not coming from the scofeetroll himself...

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[earbenT]

Why would you lambast something for accomplishing what it set out to do? I don't believe Ubuntu ever claimed to be a distro for power users.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[earbenT]

Oh, and by the way, I hope you're very happy satisfying your OCD with GCC flags in Gentoo and being generally unproductive.

Re:Windows 95... almost?

[coastin]

Funny you say that, Linspire 5.0 is was out way ahead of Vista and many of the features in Vista look alot like my Linspire desktop. I think I still boot into Win XP every few months to update my AV software, then I shut it down again.

Way to go

[Maznio]

Indeed, some consolidation is needed - makes it easier for people to identify Linux through 1 distro rather than 10.

Incorporating proprietary software is not as scary as it sounds - noone forces users to buy the stuff and as we know, every Linux app has 5 alternatives.
I think this would be some motivation for proprietary software writers to port to Linux. This makes the "but my app does not run on Linux" excuse go away (I've heard that a lot).

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[iggymanz]

you can change the default sudo privileges if that bothers you. Compile apps from source or bring in ones from other distros (alien, etc.) if ubuntu doesn't have package. Compile custom kernels if that floats your boat. Add another runlevel to the two-step one. What exactly can't be tweaked in Ubuntu that some other Linux distro allows? I threw my SuSE in the garbage can a few months back, and Kubuntu isn't lacking anything, nor is anything not tweakable.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) 'BASIC' is an acronym that describes a programming language. The word that you're trying to use is simply 'basic' with no abnormal capitalization at all.

2) The "user is root is user" thing... wha? Of course the user doesn't normally run as root. Did you use the installer properly?

3) As for power users... I don't know exactly what it is that you want to tweak, but in Ubuntu, just like most other flavors of Linux, you can just go ahead and do it.

4) Are you a troll?

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[concept10]

"If you are a tweak freak power user, forget Ubuntu. BASIC.. And yes, I enabled all the extra repositories. Still, BASIC..:

This stupid comment bothers me as it only represents FUD. How does Ubuntu (or any other distro) prevent you from tweaking your system, or being a so-called power user. Give me a break.

Last time I checked, the Ubuntu repo's had over 21,000 packages. What more do you want, and what does the repository have to do with it in the first place? What did you think would happen when you enabled more repos? The distro is supposed to automagically turn into Gentoo or "Enterprise Ready(TM)" ?

If it works...

[UED]

I want stuff to work. I don't care about binary blobs etc and neither does the average user? If Ubuntu frustrates you go back to using slackware or some other distro where hardly anything works...

Re:If it works...

[biggahed]

Well, I actually did go back to slackware from ubuntu. I just couldnt stand the bloat. And I really dont know what you mean with "slackware or some other distro where hardly anything works" as my experience with slackware is the total oposite: everything I ever do simply works. I dont have to warn developers of missing dependencies on their packages or handling some apps crash every once in a while. Its a nice distro and all, but by no means the only or the best choice IMO.

Re:Ubuntu / Debian and Linspire

[falconwolf]

Debian's goal is general-purpose distro that consists entirely of Free software, while Ubuntu's goal is to have desktop and server distros that are highly-polished and ready for the non-technical end user. Hence, the default menus and such differ signficantly between Ubuntu and Debian. So it's a bit disingenious to say that Linspire continue to be based on Debian.

Linspire is pretty much a desktop that's polished and ready for use by nontechnical people now. It looks like Windows with "My Computer" and "My Documents" on the desktop and the ubiguous start button which Linspire calls "Launch" instead of "Start", probably for legal reasons. Where Linspire differs from Ubuntu is that while Ubuntu has as you say a server distro Linspire is specifically for the desktop mass market. A few months ago I got a new desktop, tower really, PC with Linspire preinstalled however I also would like to install Ubuntu and start working with servers.

Falcon

This is (not all of) it.

[ESR]

This is only part of what I was going on about. The distribution-independent codec installer that Linspire is working on -- what Kevin Carmony now tells me they'll be calling "LinCodex" will be just as important, if not more so.

Re:This is (not all of) it.

[PenGun]

I dunno. After a small hack I have Slamd64-current up and with a bit of digging I can now play every damn thing except the perhaps .EVO VC1 fies. I have video working, latest mplayer from SVN and the sound will work in a day or two, fudged ac3 AFAIKT.

  So I can't find a file or stream I can't feed to my sweet Sony HDTV. Distribution independant codecs ... had em' for a long time now.

Re:This is (not all of) it.

[chill]

And how hard was that to do, exactly? Something you'd be comfortable handing over to someone's techno-illiterate grandma? (I run Slamd64, so I know the answers. :-)

You have it, but it was a PITA. Too much so for most people.

Re:This is (not all of) it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right, like this adaption was only obvious to you? Pull your head out of your ass.

Re:This is (not all of) it.

[PenGun]

It's true this is my toy but just installing SVN mplayer handles nearly every codec known to man. I tweak the setup so it's how I like it but it sure ain't rocket science.

Proprietary is NOT Required

[apharmdq]

What a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that running Ubuntu with proprietary binaries is optional. They still have their restricted/universe/multiverse repositories, and so you make the choice of whether to include proprietary/unstable/etc packages. And that's what Linux is all about, being given a choice.

If you want to support free software, just don't install proprietary packages. If you just want things to work as best they can, then having these extra options is a good thing.

And honestly, if one is such a zealot for free software, why would that person be using Ubuntu anyway? Last I checked, it included the "controversial" Firefox browser, as opposed to something truly free, like Iceweasel.

The point is that Ubuntu hasn't entirely been strictly free software for quite some time now. But their default setup is, (else why would people be using scripts like Automatix to install all the non-free stuff quickly) and they only offer the choice of using non-free packages. They don't force people to use it.

Re:Proprietary is NOT Required

[drinkypoo]

And honestly, if one is such a zealot for free software, why would that person be using Ubuntu anyway? Last I checked, it included the "controversial" Firefox browser, as opposed to something truly free, like Iceweasel.

That is so FUD it's unbelievable. You can do anything you want with Firefox source, you just can't call it Firefox. The very fact that Iceweasel even exists is definite proof that Firefox is Free Software.

Maybe you realize this, and it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not.

they only offer the choice of using non-free packages

No, that's not true. It's true by default, but you can go in and add repos that will deliver you nonfree software without adding any non-Ubuntu repos. That includes nvidia-glx and fglrx. Yes, they are drivers. Yes, I am fine with it. No, they are not Free Software.

Re:Proprietary is NOT Required

[apharmdq]

Maybe you realize this, and it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek. I was merely using it as an extreme example of how one might not consider Ubuntu to be truly free. (I mean, there's no denying that Ubuntu does use the Firefox name and icon, and that the Debian folks insist on NOT using them . . .)

And in what way did my statement spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt? No offense to you, of course, but I think that acronym is getting a little too much use lately . . .

No, that's not true. It's true by default, but you can go in and add repos that will deliver you nonfree software without adding any non-Ubuntu repos. That includes nvidia-glx and fglrx. Yes, they are drivers. Yes, I am fine with it. No, they are not Free Software. As I said in my previous statement, the default Ubuntu setup only allows free software repositories. It does have other repositories that aren't enabled by default, so those who don't want non-free stuff don't need to access them, but those that do want it need only to enable those repositories. (And it's clearly stated that those repositories have non-free software, so it wouldn't be hard to make the mistake.)

I think that minus a communication error somewhere, we're pretty much in agreement here. ;-)

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[The Orange Mage]

The fact that Ubuntu is BASIC is why it's so great. Normal people don't want to tweak shit and work with the console/terminal and all that crap. We want to be able to browse the web, type a paper, send some e-mail, and instant message, and damnit, we want to do it "out of the box," as in right after the install is done. We don't give a shit about your free software jihad and your extreme phobias of running non-free/proprietary software. We want an operating system that simply works.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[mhall119]

Oh, and the security on Ubuntu? Are you shittin me? The "user is root is user" thing alarmed the shit out of me. Uh uh.

I think you're confused about something. At one point, Linspire was configured such that the user always ran as root. Ubuntu does not, and to my knowledge never has. Perhaps you are thinking sudo/gksudo? Ubuntu is not the only system that has this ability. Every day I run Ubuntu as a non-root user. When I need to perform administrative tasks, I am prompted for the root password, which elevates the process to run as root. I don't understand how you can think this is insecure.

Re:Entirely offtopic

[Plaid Phantom]

Best lead in to a sig EVER.

Canonical+Linspire =Conspire?

[mystyc]

Okay, maybe "canspire" would be better, but it would not be as funny.

Re:Canonical+Linspire =Conspire?

[TobascoKid]

Okay, maybe "canspire" would be better, but it would not be as funny.

But wouldn't "Linonical" have been more comical?

"Streaming Penguin"

[Kadin2048]

A long term criticism of Linux has been the number of different distros leading to numerous ways of performing the same tasks.

Absolutely. Another perennial criticism of Linux as a desktop OS is the lack of proprietary codecs and software, which hamper its usefulness with regards to digital media in its default configuration. An operating system that can't play DVDs without some shady "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, here are the addresses of some mirrors in France," is a non-starter for most people.

Hopefully, the collaboration between Linspire (who are one of the only distros that I know of, who actually license the codecs and thus can have a fully-functional, U.S.-legal distro out of the box) and Ubuntu (which seems to have the largest desktop userbase, and the most mindshare among users), will move Linux a little closer to parity with Windows.

Windows zealots are always going to have something to use as an excuse for the inferiority of Linux; ultimately, their objections (and many PHB's) tend to boil down to "Linux is not Windows," and are really sham arguments used to justify a decision that's already been made. These people are not convertible. Linux isn't Windows, and shouldn't try to be; to attempt to make Windows more attractive to them is probably to damage it. However, there are a significant number of people 'on the fence,' without strong feelings for or against Linux, and who are kept from being more interested because it's perceived as too complicated or limited. Providing U.S.-legal media codecs in mainstream distributions -- even if this means knuckling under and paying royalties in the short term -- is an important step towards bringing those users onto a Free platform.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the paid-for versions of several distros include US-legal codecs, etc. Xandros and MEPIS come to mind, though I haven't tried either.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[HeroreV]

ultimately, their objections (and many PHB's) tend to boil down to "Linux is not Windows," and are really sham arguments used to justify a decision that's already been made.

That is not true. You are an irrational zealot.

For some people, like me, support is a huge issue. Linux doesn't support my modem, doesn't recognize my monitor's native resolution (1600x1200), and usually doesn't setup standby correctly. Windows Update handles all of that for me without the slightest problem. Then there are the thousands of Windows-only programs with no Linux equivalent.

No matter how much better Linux gets than Windows, as long as there's less support for it, there are good reasons for not using it. It's not a sham argument. The biggest problem for someone using Linux is that so few other people are using it.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[Oblong_Cheese]

No matter how much better Linux gets than Windows, as long as there's less support for it, there are good reasons for not using it.

The tide is slowly turning. Why don't you be part of the revolution?

What I don't understand is how Windows-knowledgable people, aka, "computer knowledgable" people are so afraid of Linux. It's an irrational fear; it doesn't make logical sense to be afraid of a computer operating system. What it does make sense to be though, is afraid of change, and afraid of sticking your foot into something you don't know or understand. The funny thing is though, all the Windows experts running around claiming Linux is harder, slower, whatever silly conjecture they care to spurt, none of them (a) regularly use Linux, or (b) knew how to use Windows in the first place.

Believe it or not, Windows users of Slashdot, you didn't actually know how to use Windows when you first started using it. Like anything else, there was a learning curve, and like anything else, you had to put in some time to get to know the system so you could use it to its full potential. It's the same for Linux and Linux distributions; you have to put time in to learn a new and different system.

This link has probably been bandied around Slashdot before, but it's relevant here: Why Windows Causes Stupidity

The title is a little inflammatory, but if you actually read the article (instead of just skimming over it, ignoring it, and returning here to flame me), you'll understand where the author is coming from.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[Whitemage12380]

That's not what he meant at all. Clearly, the poster did not mean the support argument when he said sham arguments. Actually, he's saying that support is the only real argument, and it's the "on-the-fence" people who care about that, not the inconvertibles who won't convert to linux because "linux isn't windows." That's why he says support needs to be fixed badly. I hope you understand the argument now.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[Kadin2048]

Uh, no, that's not what I was saying.

There are certainly legitimate arguments for staying on Windows. I could think of half a dozen: hardware support, backwards-compatibility with existing applications, user retraining / changeover costs, ease of procuring knowledgeable staff, lack of feature parity, ease-of-use at certain tasks ... those are all rational, quantifiable arguments, probably each valid in a different case.

However, there are a not-insignificant number of people, particularly management-types, who have already decided to stay with Windows, and then back up the decision with as many justifications as are necessary, creating new ones as old ones are found to be false. This isn't a particularly controversial statement -- people do this all the time. There's probably even some nice psychological term for it, which I can't remember at the moment. But at any rate, people constantly to make irrational decisions, and then will create seemingly rational justifications for them after the fact. It's not unique to computers, or even business.

My point is basically that it's important to separate these two categories of objections -- real objections that are actually prohibiting a would-be switcher from leaving Microsoft, and sham arguments that are simply covering a decision that's already been made for other reasons (rational or irrational) -- because the second are just a sink for time and effort, and worst of all, lead software development in the wrong direction. You can argue all day with someone in the latter category, and never make headway, because the crux of their objection is that 'Linux isn't Windows.' So it's better not to even try, if it seems that they've already made up their mind and are just looking for external confirmation.

Hardware compatibility and feature parity are real problems, and their lack leads to tangible, rational objections. Those are things that need to be dealt with. (And in fact, ESR cites hardware and features, media codecs in particular, as the two most pressing problems with Linux today, and who am I to disagree?)

The key problem is just in sounding out whether a person's stated objections to Linux are real and rational, or just covers for a decision already made for other reasons. Attempting to please people in the second group is dangerous, because ultimately what they want isn't Linux at all, but Windows (just, usually, for free); trying to turn Linux (or any other OS) into something it's not, ultimately weakens it as a distinct product, and diverts attention both from areas that actually use improvement, and from areas which are already at par, and could be made superior and into selling points themselves.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[Fri13]

"An operating system that can't play DVDs without some shady "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, here are the addresses of some mirrors in France," is a non-starter for most people."

Installing DVD codecs to windows mediaplayer is much harder than DVD support for all linux mediaplayers.
In ubuntu, it is even more easier, thanks to automatix. Oh yes, it can be against local law on some countrys, but almoust only in U.S. On other countries user can install libdvdcss etc..

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[init100]

What it does make sense to be though, is afraid of change, and afraid of sticking your foot into something you don't know or understand.

That's the essence of the problem. They have once scaled the learning curve of Windows, and feel comfortable in their knowledge of this system. They don't want to again become newbies that understand little or nothing about the system.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[shadowknot]

I can certainly agree with that as a converted Windows "Power User" I can say that you really have to tell yourself that you need to start from the ground-up. Installing Gentoo (I did it around '04 pre gui-installer) was the most informative and daunting thing I did during my initial learning stages with Linux. I do, however, think it is easier for people who come to it younger (like me) as I had only been doing Windows support for about 2 years when I started playing around with Linux. For those people who have done all the MSCE crap and been working with Windows professionally since 3.1 or NT I can see how it might be tough to start knowing nothing after knowing "everything". It is so worth the effort though!

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[HeroreV]

Ok, I see what you're saying. And you have a good point.

Re:"Streaming Penguin"

[Oblong_Cheese]

Installing Gentoo (I did it around '04 pre gui-installer) was the most informative and daunting thing I did during my initial learning stages with Linux.

Strangely enough, this is where my initial learnings of Linux came from too. Reading through the Gentoo Handbook and installing Gentoo from a stage1 tarball was my dive into the deep end. This was around '04, too, a few months before they started recommending the stage3 route.

In essense, the fastest way to learn how to swim is to dive into the deep end, and I think that's how many people should approach the problem of their lack of Linux knowledge. :-D

Whoops ... correction.

[Kadin2048]

One correction:
The line:

These people are not convertible. Linux isn't Windows, and shouldn't try to be; to attempt to make Windows more attractive to them is probably to damage it.

Should read:

These people are not convertible. Linux isn't Windows, and shouldn't try to be; to attempt to make Linux more attractive to them is probably to damage it.

It doesn't really make sense as it was written above. Durh.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[wthanna]

Your post is full of misinformation. I don't know where to start. I have been running Ubuntu since it came out.. October of 2004, I believe.. I have web servers, mail servers, ftp servers, file servers serving Linux and Windows workstations.. all running the long term support version (6.04) as of now. Security you say? None of my Ubuntu machines has EVER been rooted, infected with a virus, or in any way compromised. It is as stable as anything I've run (much more than WinXX). I also run it on a Dell laptop. The repositories are huge.. and if you can't find what you are looking for there, then there's nothing stopping you from compiling from source.. just like any other distro.. Don't like using "sudo" to do things as root? This can be changed in seconds. Package management? Apt-get and Synaptic make "dependancy hell" a memory.. Don't like the Gnome Desktop? Change it to KDE, Fluxbox, Xoffice, or maybe Enlightenment.. By BASIC, do you meen a menu that isn't cluttered with 5 different choices for how to listen to an mp3 or burn a DVD? You can download all that bloat if you care to.. customize away.. It's all about freedom of choice! Enjoy MicroSuse if you like! Choice is good.

You forgot something...

[Khyber]

"The codec thing ALSO sucks, but there is nothing to do about it. If you want to keep you system "pure", then you aren't going to be watching any Quicktime or Windows Media files or DVDs."

*coughs* VLC.

Re:You forgot something...

[Knuckles]

VLC violates patents and DeCSS violates the DMCA (where applicable). Thanks for playing.

Re:You forgot something...

[JoshJ]

Violating patents and/or the DMCA doesn't make the software itself non-free. I don't give a rat's ass about the fact that the government in the USA is willing to give a patent to practically anything regardless of how unworthy it is, and I definitely don't give a rat's ass about the DMCA which is nothing more than proof that the media cartels can convince Congress to do whatever they want.

Copyright, in an age of technology, should recognize that digital media will propagate. Digitally published media should not be copyrightable, period. Any law that doesn't recognize that is bullshit.

I believe in right and wrong, not laws that exist only because our politicians are easily bought. VLC is free software. DeCSS is free software.

        * Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
        * Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
        * Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
        * Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

I have those freedoms with those programs. They are free software. The media cartels can fuck off- I'm not letting them have my freedom.

Re:You forgot something...

[notamisfit]

So you use freedom to justify being a scofflaw?

Re:You forgot something...

[Knuckles]

You don't give a rat's ass, I don't give a rat's ass, at home. It#s different for a business, especially one based in the US (bu EU is not really different in respect to DMCA)

Re:You forgot something...

[JoshJ]

I find no reason to obey a law that only exists because our politicians are on sale to the highest bidder.

Proprietary apps help open source OS. Here's why:

[KWTm]

I was drawn to Linux originally because I liked the Open Source idea (and because I was a C programmer it seemed required somehow). But Ubuntu is turning into quite a haven for proprietary and binary only software

I understand your concern about possibly undermining the F/LOSS movement, but I don't think you need to worry. Here's why.

First, Linux itself is Free and Open Source; that's a given, thanks to the solid foundation formed by the GPL.[1]

Atop this operating system (OS), we need to run applications, like email clients or word processors. These can be F/LOSS or proprietary. You are concerned that too much proprietary software might dilute the pool of Open apps, but here's why it won't happen: for Linux there are far more Open apps than proprietary ones, and the Linux community is used to getting Open software. Whereas Windows users would readily pay for black-box apps with names like "Norton Incorporeal Being" that do the same as a 'dd' bash command, Linux users demand apps that are Free. Most happen to be zero-cost, but above all it must not be black-box, because Linux users tend to want the ability to tinker around with the software. They don't necessarily plan to do it, and there are more and more people using Linux just to get the job done rather than tinker, but they need to know that they are not being locked in to some proprietary system that gets frozen the moment the software maker company goes belly-up. They need to know that someone can get into the project and fork it.

So, in the Linux environment, the demand for F/LOSS is there, and for the right reasons. (Contrast this with the Windows environment where people download freeware because it's zero cost, whether proprietary or not.)

Now we are letting makers of proprietary software into the community, giving them a foothold, a marketplace from which to sell their wares. Unlike in the Windows world, this is what will happen:

1. Free/Open Source was here first. The standard to which they will be held is higher. In particular, the company will need to justify why their stuff is proprietary; they will be asked: "So, why should we buy your stuff rather than Open Source?" This is a good thing. The competition from FLOSS will force proprietary software to bring added value, and respond to market forces, in order to generate income.

2. Thus the proprietary company will need to identify where they can be better than F/LOSS. This, too, is good. One of my peeves in F/LOSS: useability in software, which is lacking in many Open Source applications. If Adobe PhotoShop For Linux starts selling like hotcakes, it would send a message that there might be a market need unfulfilled by the GIMP software. Competition, whether amongst Open Source software (e.g. KDE vs GNOME) or between FLOSS and proprietary (Firefox vs IE), brings out excellence.

3. On particular disadvantage at which the proprietary companies will find themselves is that they can't use Open Source software for stepping stones. If the Filelight program has this brilliant idea, the Konqueror team can just take that and put it into their own software.[2] The proprietary software team, however, has to reimplement it on their own. So it's not like the proprietary software will gobble up the Open Source one.

4. Once the proprietary company is a bit more accustomed to the Linux and Open Source market, I hope they'll start being able to differentiate between "commercial" and "proprietary". Really, what they want is "commercial" (and the "proprietary" part is really just a means to that end), and they'd be more comfortable exploring commercial Open Source. They'd become an example of one of the Open Source business models, showing that it works, or perhaps they'd dream up a new brilliant way to profit from Open Source.

In summary, competition is a good thing, and will only benefit all participants. The FLOSS community is robust enough not to be overwhelmed by th

Plus for free software

[Anonymous Coward]

To me, this looks like it will help new users understand the difference between free software and commercial/proprietary software. For free software, they open add/remove or synaptic, and check, and install. For commercial software, they open CNS, pay for their legal copy, and install it.

This is much more educational than automatix/easybuntu, and will probably lead to a preference for free software in most non-technical users.

Re:Entirely offtopic

[skoaldipper]

The Monday morning quarterback rests comfortably in his armchair. The meticulous preparations and planning starting a week before has failed 100% of NFL coaches; some Hall of Famers. As a faithful fan, we strap on neither helmet nor pads nor clipboard, yet we surmise to possess some insight lost on either. As a loyal fan, we bear the burdens of silence and hope, trusting steadfast in our faith amidst the many seasons of our misfortune leading to the Super Bowl. Even awash in isolation and despair and no ring to bear, both coach and player alike find victory in the loyal fan.

meh....

[pwizard2]

As long as this deal doesn't turn [k]Ubuntu into a Linspire clone, I'll be happy.

cnr and deb

[Rutulian]

Hmmm...this is a promising development. It'll be nice to have a convenient way of obtaining commercial software. My question, though, is how this will integrate with the package management system. I don't know much about CNR in Linspire. Are the programs distributed as .debs, or is the package tracking done separately (or not at all)? In other words, if I use CNR to install StarOffice, will it show up in Synaptic when I browse through my installed .debs?

Re:cnr and deb

[PitaBred]

Yes

I'm fine with disregarding copyright

[sacrilicious]

How, By turning into exactly the thing we despise? Kevin Carmony has repeatedly demonstrated... disregard for copyright law.

For the record, those of us who hate copyright will not despise someone for disregarding copyright law.

Nope. SuSE is still the "super-distro".

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a Slackware user for years, then switched to Red Hat briefly until I got fed up with everything in it being half-finished and beta-test quality. Then I went with SuSE for a number of years (versions 7.x thru 10.0) and really liked it, though it was definitely bloatware by 9.x and beyond. I gave Debian a try and was unimpressed. I gave Gentoo a try and thought it was a hassle (like the worst of both worlds of FreeBSD crossed with Slackware), so a few weeks ago I gave Ubuntu a try (6.10 Edgy Eft) and was quite impressed with it on my desktop. Clean, lightweight, has the essential stuff in it I need to do useful work with... in essence quite nice... until I tried to install it on my laptop. I could never get the damn thing to install. I downloaded and burned several isos from different mirrors. What worked on a standard desktop box flat outright would not finish installing on my laptop (not an unusual laptop either, a rather plain, recent vintage Toshiba Satellite M105 series with a Centrino core solo cpu, Intel graphics and wifi). Trying to install Ubuntu Edgy would always freeze somewhere between 8% and 34% no matter what. So I gave up and downloaded the most recent OpenSuSE 10.2 and installed that instead and everything just freakin' magically worked. OpenSuSE 10.2 is very highly refined too. It's fast as hell, has a clean look & feel, and everything in it just simply works on this laptop. Once again, I'm convinced that SuSE is the king of the distros. OpenSuSE 10.2's default install is quite a bit more leaner and nimble than 10.0 or the horrible 10.1 abomination. It's got all the stuff in it that I need. It's been QA'ed very thoroughly. It no longer has a murder's filesystem as default :-) About the only thing missing is having one single CDROM iso image that can act as both a bootable "live CD" as well as also a basic install disk too, and I'll bet that the next release of OpenSuSE can do that too... just like Ubuntu.

Re:Nope. SuSE is still the "super-distro".

[darealpat]

All good points. Just to comment on the "one CD-ROM" issue: take a look at Mepis, which coincidentally has made a deal with Ubuntu and is using their repositories. Mepis is perhaps the main reason that I like Ubuntu's strategy since it is my current distro of choice, having been a Red Hat/Fedora user since RH 6.0. As far as I am concerned, the better Ubuntu gets, the better for me. Now if Kubuntu could be a bit more like Mepis....

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[Knuckles]

very day I run Ubuntu as a non-root user. When I need to perform administrative tasks, I am prompted for the root password

No, you are asked for your user password.

Time to try Linux again

[WiiVault]

I'm primarily a Mac user at home and it is a system I have grown quite comfortable with. But I love the concept of FOSS like Linux. Ever since Red Hat 6 I have tried various distros every few months or so. The biggest issue I have run into is things like display drivers and codecs. Dependency hell is really hard to deal with. Thats not to say that I couldn't figure it out, but I just dont have the time. This sounds like a great solution for people who want to get to use Linux without dealing with some of the issues that I have seen over the last few years. Linux is awesome when it is set-up properly, very stable, fast and best of all free. But if 95% of the world cant instal an app or tweak a driver it is gonna have alot of trouble breaking into the desktop. Looks like I'm gonna give Ubuntu a shot. For the people that hate non-free software, thats fine, just dont install the binaries.

Re:Time to try Linux again

[init100]

Dependency hell is really hard to deal with.

When was the last time you tried a modern Linux distribution?

Re:Time to try Linux again

[WiiVault]

I gave Fedora Core 5 a shot about 8 months back. I have also used Yellow Dog on my Mac a few times in the last 2 years. I'm not ripping on Linux just pointing out the difficulty facing many new users. Things have gotten better but there are still some major issues making adoption somewhat difficult for novices.

Re:Time to try Linux again

[init100]

I still wonder what you mean with your "dependency hell" comment. I never had such problems since Fedora started including Yum, as Yum resolves dependencies and installs them as necessary.

"Ubuntu is a little more liberal"

[Werrismys]

Understatement of the year.

Jesus christ. This distro will be one helluva hard one to argue against if stuff like streaming video "just works" for Joe Schmoe using binaryonly bullcrap proprietary codecs and the desktop does cool threedee using proprietary closed binaryonly crap drivers...

First Novell-M$, now this.
Thank GOD for GPL.
Thank RMS for GPL.

Re:"Ubuntu is a little more liberal"

[Runefox]

The problem with the non-proprietary, open drivers is that they wholly suck. Try using "Radeon" for a while on anything greater than a Radeon 9200 series. Yeah. It hurts. Not as though the official "fglrx" driver is actually a good driver, but at least it does hardware 3D acceleration, which, to me, at least, is paramount, since, y'know, it's a 3D accelerator card, not a "display this" card. I could very easily get by on an old PCI Trident for that, which would be, of course, supported out of the box with open source drivers. Now, if more companies opened up the specs to their hardware rather than hiding them as though they were trade secrets (the actual reason is the inherent instability present in the official drivers is laughable), we'd see some good open source drivers. Until then, binary is the only real way to go. I won't settle for "a display" when it could be "a hardware accelerated display", which adds a big boost in UI performance and a big load off the CPU.

Not to mention that when proprietary codecs are the only codecs available for streaming on Teh_Intarweb, you're usually looking at either proprietary or nothing.

Re:"Ubuntu is a little more liberal"

[astralbat]

I'm using a Radeon Mobility 9200 with the "Radeon" driver and 3D acceleration does work reasonably well. So please stop spreading FUD. In fact, I use Celestia which renders everything in 3D and have played UT2004 on this driver. It's more than adequate.

And as ideologically sound as it is to be using the "Radeon" driver, I'd rather get the extra performance by using the "fglrx" driver. Unfortunately for me, ATI decided to stop supporting my hardware which I bought in 2004. The "Radeon" driver continues to support my hardware so for some of us it's a blessing.

Re:"Ubuntu is a little more liberal"

[morgan_greywolf]

I'm using a Radeon Mobility 9200 with the "Radeon" driver and 3D acceleration does work reasonably well. So please stop spreading FUD. Notice that he said "anything greather than a Radeon 9200." I assume that means your Mobility 9200 would not be included in that category.

Re:"Ubuntu is a little more liberal"

[Runefox]

The 9200 series was the last series by ATi to have their drivers opened. All subsequent chipsets have been closed, and hardware acceleration via open source drivers does not work.

Next week's news: MS buys Linspire

[XB-70]

From cnr.com: "Launching in the 2nd Quarter of 2007, CNR.com will be a free on-line digital software warehouse and one-click delivery service designed to solve the complexity of finding, installing and managing software applications on your Linux desktop computer."

Feb 15th, 2007: Microsoft announces that it has purchased Linspire, closed down the cnr.com website and changed the licensing of Click 'N Run to conform with MS's EULA standards. Ballmer is quoted as saying: "The thought of one-click installation of free software without at charge whatsoever to the End User is against everything that Microsoft stands for and endangers Freedom and the American Dream.

With our announcements today, Microsoft has taken extensive steps to thwart this threat because, were it not for this, the future of the free world is at stake. What kind of a world would it be if people could simply upgrade or install software free of any charge whatsoever?"

I just want it to work

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an idiot. I am not a zealot. I don't care who's to blame (the distro, the device manufacturer, the weather) if I don't have the correct driver for my USB wireless adapter. I just want a Distro that I can install with no or very little pain. I see where Vista is heading (DRM, etc) and want to get off MSFT. So, if this helps me to do so - more power to Linspire!

Making No

[nurb432]

But distribution is...

How about Windows Media Player for Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should we even bother using all this mish mash of software if Microsoft comes out with a Media Player for Linux?

I mean why stop at some drivers and a few pieces of software?

I for one would welcome Office suite, IE, WMV and all the Microsoft goodies.
Zealots can still have their kernel but once all the big boys come knocking at the door, we can be just like OSX and WIndows and run all the Adobe suites and softwares we know and use everyday.

We can run on an open source operating systems all the same proprietary softwares and formats we are used to today.
Nothing will change. No more need to scare people and we can just use .doc like everyone else.

I dont foresse any problems doing this.

Re:Windows 95... almost?

[Runefox]

Mostly true, except in that Vista doesn't support older hardware very well at all, breaks compatibility with many older (read: brand new) software packages (most notably iTunes/iPod drivers). XP is the only MS OS that really can make that claim at this point, though I'm sure as the driver framework becomes more expansive, we'll see more compatibility in Vista's hardware support.

You'd be surprised how much hardware auto-detects well on Linux, though, both new and old. Only real hitch comes in the binary video drivers for nVidia/ATi cards...

On the mechanics of it all

[wellingj]

My favorite distro is Debian. I still use Ubuntu on my laptop though.
As long as the standard apt-get and dpkg tools work in Linspire I really
don't have a problem with it. But if you will look at this:
http://media.linspire.com/cnr/images/CNR-system2.j pg
What I want is that CNR plugin that crosses from CNR directly to you desktop
to use dpkg to install it. That means I want .deb from the CNR. I'm not sure
but it since CNR is also shooting for Fedora and OpenSuse that this might not be the case......

That's what I want (at least it's not a pony). But does any one know what the
underlieing package management looks like with CNR?

Re:On the mechanics of it all

[wellingj]

Does CNR.com use new packages rather than the traditional .deb and .rpm systems?

No! The great thing about CNR.com, is that it normalizes the installation process for the user WITHOUT requiring a new or altered packaging system. CNR.com uses standard .deb and .rpm files, but hides the complexity of this from the user. This allows developers to continue using their same methods and the different distributions to continue with their normal release management practices, yet provide their users with a much easier software management system.

RTFA....someone mod this troll -1!

freedomdrive.org

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should together take over http://freedomdrive.org/ and implement the ideas mentioned there

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[Max Littlemore]

Having read TFA, my take on it is that the only real news is that Linspire is changing from Debian base to Ubuntu base. Ubuntu is, as you say, basic and that's the appeal. I installed it and everything just worked, easier than any version of windows. If I want to build my own binaries, tweak things, etc, I can. My wife, btw, gets a glazed look if I show her a terminal, but here is a system with which we are both happy.

At first I was also a bit concerned about the sudo only approach, until I figured it out. I restrict access to sudo for all the normal users, myself included, and create a hidden account for super user tasks. This prevents us from inadvertantly screwing things up in day to day operation. It also means that if someone broke in, they'd have a harder time figuring out how to get root access than if they could su or could log in as "root". Apart from that, security isn't much better than other distros.

CNR is an free tool that makes it easy for people to find and install non-free blobs and Linspire have already announced that they would make it avalaible to other distros. Ubuntu already allows easy installation of free software, so Ubuntu saying they will include CNR is barely news. The only news is that Linspire is changing it's base, oh and perhaps that the companies are announcing cooperation.

Perhaps you're just trolling, or perhaps you are a religious zealot. If the latter, please RTFA again and realise that, at least as far as Ubuntu goes, not much has really changed. In any case, as you're obviously not interested in Linspire, or Ubuntu for that matter, please STFU.

[ot] a suggestion

[wild_berry]

My response to the Pre-Installation Problem would be to get Canonical to send people to the large resellers with an edition of Ubuntu LTS which functions as a system restore desktop. Pre-installed by, say HP to recover when Windows goes bad. It would need a sizeable back-room management suite to prepare disk images with customised-for-hardware settings, a method to check that the other-OS image isn't trashed or compromised, and could easily provide a web browser, e-mail program, office suite, media player, and photo album in a desktop environment in the space the LiveCD takes up, stored with the recovery suite.

I apologise that I have a PhD thesis to finish right now or I'd be trying to build this in my spare time, rescue desktop, the back-room management suite and all.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[mhall119]

Ok, I stand corrected, it does ask me for my user password. However, that is only because I have sudo access, and I do have to enter my password. A code execution exploit on a program I run as my username will not have root access to anything, and unless it knows my password it can't elevate itself to root. I have two other accounts on my home desktop, neither of which have sudo access. Again, I don't see this situation as being insecure.

Can we get a new headline editor?

[xoundmind]

"Some European Moves Towards Linux"

????

At first, I thought this had been piped into my reader from The Onion's rss feed.
I guess we can look forward to "Area Man Reaches for Pretzel Bag While Updating Lilo"

Linux Mint is better

[Rob Simpson]

It skips the extra click.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[Knuckles]

I don't think it's insecure either. I just didn't want to let it stand as you wrote it, there is enough confusion among newbies on the ubuntu-users list as it is :)

Re:Uhm. Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I guess the automated installation is nice for those living in the Land of Ludd. But I have little use for it.

What does this even mean? Are you aware that "automated installation" is now the norm for every significant desktop operating system except Windows? After using Ubuntu or OSX for a while, Windows' method of "install every program by running setup.exe and clicking through a long and pointless wizard, then waiting for the disk to churn and churn before finally rebooting" seems utterly outdated.

ubuntu vs linspire

[Anonymous Coward]

So you *can* buy proprietary stuff for linswpire and ubuntu?
So what's the problem?.
If you care THAT much for free sw, just don't do it.

I do

[Anonymous Coward]

>I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software.

I do. I run Linux because I like it.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[init100]

The past several months I've considered Ubuntu because of all the noise over it.

There is considerably more noise about Windows Vista. Why don't you go there, if media noise (read hype) is all that you care about?

ahem Debian core folks

[shareme]

ahem Debian core is Ubtuna folks.. Ubtuna contributes their stuff back to Debian.. Just knoppix and all of debian derive4d distros..

Re:ahem Debian core folks

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't much care what Ubtuna's derive4d from, it's one delectable distro. I've been using it since the Alpha Albacore release, it got even better in Charlie Chunklight, and I'm sure the Fiji (blue)Fin will blow everyone away.

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you're very happy satisfying your OCD with GCC flags in Gentoo and being generally unproductive. Please, mod this user up!

I'm an avid Gentoo user, and even I found this funny! :-)

Ubuntu and software freedom

[jonasj]

You:

I don't know where you got the idea that Ubuntu cares about software freedom. Ubuntu exists solely to tear market share from Microsoft any way it can.

Wrong!

" With Ubuntu, our vision is to make the very best of free software freely available, globally. To the extent we make short-term compromises, for drivers or firmware along the way, we see those as bugs, and ones that will be closed over time. "

Proprietary codecs

[jonasj]

What bother me more is prioritary codecs. If they are Fluendo ones, I am fine, but if they are some thirty party hacks, sorry, I don't think Ubuntu should get involved in this.

I think mostly they're talking about codecs that are free software that implements formats that are restricted by patents. In other words, the code may be released under the GPL, but nevertheless it's illegal to use it in the US, Japan (and where else?) without paying a license. That kind of proprietary...

Re:Shades of MicroSuse.

[Anonymous Coward]

I satisfy my OCD by repeatedly washing my hands, you insensitive clod!

A potentialy fatal mistake....

[wellingj]

This is from the CNR faq

Will I break anything if I sometimes use CNR and at other times use other install systems such as apt-get or YAST?

You shouldn't, provided you only pull from the same version repository when using either CNR or the other method. CNR does have several additional safeguards that other install technologies do not have to automatically correct dependency problems, but as long as you are using the same version repository, you should be able to install using both CNR and other install systems. However, if you mix repositories (pulling from other versions of your distributions), then you do run the risk of creating dependency problems within your system. Rather than having to pull from multiple warehouse pools, it is our desire to have as much current software in the CNR Warehouse pools as possible, so the need to go outside these pools is minimized, thereby reducing the risk of breaking your system

It doesn't sound too bad but the last lines sound like the path to the dark side of lock in, if taken too far.
It kinda makes sense now why *spire is going to be bassed on Ubuntu so that there won't be any repository problems.
But in the end it sounds like you can do CNR their way or you better not do CNR at all....

Re: Why Windows Causes Stupidity

[Omniscient Ferret]

Nitpick: Not knowing something is ignorance, not stupidity. Being less ignorant is just a matter of learning information.