Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
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.
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.
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.
Roman Kennke
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
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
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$?
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?
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.
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.
For every present, there is a past
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
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.
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.
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.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
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.
I lost my sig...
"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)" ?
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.
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.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"