Banshee is a very good open source music player. I think older versions ran on all three platforms, and the latest release 1.6 doesn't run on Windows yet (but they're working on it?) Banshee's very stable and has a rapid development model. I think it or Amarok are the logical successors to Songbird.
But honestly, I think Songbird was doomed from the start. Computers are moving away from desktops and monolithic programs to mobile devices and cloud computing. By the time Songbird was a finished product, it would already be antiquated by various internet, music services and since it's built on XUL, Songbird has always been a very CPU/memory intensive program.
Ubuntu is *not* Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian, but has very different priorities.
Debian supports 11 hardware architectures. Ubuntu supports only 3, and as a result can provide much more polished results.
Likewise, Debian maintains 18,000+ packages. Ubuntu maintains significantly fewer packages, but provides much more polished packages for the ones they do maintain.
Debian has militant standards for stability, often leading the software in their stable release to be a couple years behind the curve. On the other hand, Ubuntu releases an entirely new version of their operating system every 6 months, officially supports most releases with security updates for only a short amount of time, and often includes software in their stable release which has not even been officially released by its developers (such as Firefox 3.0 in the upcoming Hardy Heron release.) I.e. Ubuntu's priority is decisively on bleeding-edge software over stability.
Debian is highly customizable and allows you to choose precisely what software you want to install and how you want it configured; it is easy to see what's going on under the hood. Ubuntu is much more mysterious; it's much more difficult to understand what's going on under the hood and much more difficult to customize and reconfigure, but as a result, is more user friendly and easier to install.
Debian is horizontally organized through an ambitious system of democratic (and highly idealistic) self-governance. Ubuntu is run from the top down by a corporation with very limited democratic participation from its constituents.
Perhaps most important of all, Debian has super strict standards for what constitutes free software. Ubuntu's standards are also marginally strict compared with the industry average, but there is a lot of software that Ubuntu permits to be configured and installed by default through the distribution that Debian refuses to support or will not install by default because they consider it non-free. This has been a long standing source of tension between the Debian community and Ubuntu.
In short, both Debian and Ubuntu are great distributions, but Ubuntu is NOT Debian; it has very different priorities. QED
I'm glad Dell is selling Ubuntu computers, but yeah, I agree, they have a lot of things to rethink.
In the meantime, you should support one of several other companies that sell computers with Linux preinstalled. I recommend, LinuxCertified. Their laptops are definitely aimed at business people. I bought one of the Ultra Portable, LC2100DC models, and it's the best computer I've ever owned: wide screen, weighs 4 lbs, everything works out of the box, and mostly without proprietary drivers including wireless, 3 USB ports, DVD/CD-R drive, a quick little core 2 duo processor, and the whole things costs $900 (it's a little extra with the wireless card.) Plus, you have the option of having Ubuntu preinstalled, or if you like, Fedora Core, instead.
...this release will come full composite as default, according to Mark.
Actually, if you read the letter, Mark Shuttleworth does not say that Gibbons is going to be fully composited. He only says that he would like for it to be, but whether or not it is, depends on where the technology is at in 6 months. In fact, he only mentions it in a small paragraph at the end, and most of the letter is spent talking about the new, completely free version of Ubuntu that they are making in collaboration with gNewSense, and how they had considered calling this release Glossy GNU for that reason.
Will I be able to have Debian perfectly handle [all] my basic multimedia requirements well by default? I would like to play Yahoo, CNN, ABC, BBC andd FOX video and audio by default. Let a slashdotter inform a soul.
No, because many of those are proprietary formats, which Debian will never support out of the box. However, it is very easy to enable those formats by adding any number of alternative package repositories at apt-get.org.
I don't think he opposes DRM at all; it's the benchmark of his company's success. What Jobs is really doing is very savvy, pushing the blame onto the music industry. He says he will make all of iTunes DRM free if the four major music labels let him, but we all know that's not going to happen and he's never going to be called on his bluff.
I use proprietary Nvidia drivers, on some of my Debian machines - that's my choice, and my right as a user of free software. Should I assume I'm therefore not welcome in the Debian community or even the broader "family" originally mentioned? You obviously have strong convictions, but not everyone shares those exact convictions - even some other Debian users. [...] That doesn't mean Debian needs to change what it's doing, except for some members of the Debian community in one area: their tolerance for other people who are using Debian software in ways that free software allows it to be used. Your position is the one which seems against the goals of free software, to me.
If you choose to manually install and configure proprietary Nvidia drivers on your Debian computer, that's one thing, but it's different for Debian itself to distribute and support proprietary drivers as Ubuntu is doing. You can dual boot your computer with Windows and Linux, but does this mean that Windows users are part of the Debian community and that Debian developers should start distributing Windows? Are you prepared to include Linspire as part of the "Debian family?" Suppose Vista ships with a Windows version of apt-get; are we supposed to embrace Microsoft with warm arms and welcome them into the "Debian family." You have the freedom to do whatever you want with Debian software, but that doesn't mean that Debian's developers should be implicated in that process. And even if some Debian users do not share these same convictions about free software, it's not an "over-generalization" to say that these convictions are the basis of Debian. Debian has a Social Contract to which all the developers are expected to abide, and which specifically outlines strict guidelines for what kinds of software they are and are not going to support. Number two on the list: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
As I said above, my problem is not with Ubuntu or any other derivative of Debian existing or using Debian's software. My issue, and what I think distinguishes Ubuntu from most other Debian derivatives, is that they expect the Debian developers to change the way they package their software so that it will meet the needs of Ubuntu. If Ubuntu wants a certain feature that Debian doesn't have; they go to Debian and twist their arms, buy out their developers, and whine and complain about what a bunch of stubborn pigs the Debian people are until they get their way. And then whenever someone in Debian complains, whenever they say, "hey this is not your place," the Ubuntu-ites go, "oh stop being so divisive." I just want Ubuntu to be more clear about the fact that they are NOT Debian and that they are NOT a completely free distribution. And most importantly, I want them to leave the Debian Developers alone so they can do their jobs, developing software to meet the needs of Debian (rather than Ubuntu.)
bah, I guess I hit the "preview" button one too few times. That should read, "...Josselin Mouette, one of the lead developers and maintainers of GNOME in Debian and in fact the Debian Developer responsible for getting GNOME 2.16.2 into experimental."
As for the point about Gnome, you're quoting someone from Novell who's fighting to avoid losing Suse developers to Ubuntu. I'll reserve judgement until I see some facts.
The link I posted above is to the blog of Josselin Mouette, one of the lead developers and maintainers of GNOME in Debian and in fact the Debian Developer responsible for getting GNOME 2.16.2 into testing. It's true that he is quoting a Suse developer, but if you scroll down to the comments you'll see that he himself asserts, "as one of the other GNOME maintainers, I can assure you this charge is true."
If Debian had no derivative distros geared towards end users, that would be a bad thing for Debian.
Debian itself is geared toward end users, just not the ones you have in mind. And honestly, why should Debian care about people who will use proprietary drivers over free ones just so they can "bring the bling"? That's not who Debian was meant for in the first place, and it's really none of our business to go around proselytizing to the masses. Debian is maintained by a community for that community and there's no reason why so much of the Debian Developers' time should be wasted trying to appease people who aren't interested in free software in the first place. I'm not saying Debian shouldn't care about making their distribution easier to maintain and install. I'm just saying that we should not give up the basic ideas and rights that the distro was founded on in the process, and we certainly shouldn't concern ourselves with the tinkerings of some company outside of Debian whose self-described "benevolent dictator for life" has admitted himself that Debian and Ubuntu have very different goals. I think it was said best by the Debian Developer, Gustavo Franco: "Debian is about us. The result of our work and feedback from our users, that are potential contributors in a much more powerful manner than alternative solutions." If Ubuntu wants to piggy-back off the labor of Debian to meet their own, very different goals then that's fine, but let's not forget what Debian is all about. This is a distribution for free software enthusiasts. The fact that there is another distribution out there that closely resembles Debian, but has entirely different goals and values does not help Debian to meet its own goals and values.
I consider my perspective "moderated," and I don't think there's any harm in a system geared towards non-nerd users. I have even used Ubuntu myself. I don't want to create a division between Ubuntu and Debian users, but I just think people should be aware that there is a very big and realistic difference between the two distributions. Time and time again, I hear people say, "Ubuntu is based on Debian. It's the same thing, just new software that's easier to install." In fact, it's not the same thing, and people should understand that because to me, what makes Debian the best distribution isn't apt-get; it's the fact that it's completely free and maintained by an open, democratic community. Ubuntu has none of that.
The other issue I have with Ubuntu is that at times they have gotten in the way of Debian development. For example, recently it was revealed that Mark Shuttleworth prevented the Debian GNOME maintainer (who also works for Canonical) from updating GNOME packages until after Ubuntu LSO had shipped. That's not exactly what I would call an "unmitigated boon for the Debian community."
Ubuntu may always be "free of charge," but that doesn't mean it will always be free in the way that really matters. The Ubuntu team has already begun shipping binary blobs in the kernel, non-free wireless drivers, and proprietary nvidia drivers in their standard, default setup. Debian's primary goal is to be a free (as in free speech) operating system, and as Ubuntu diverges from that fact, it becomes difficult to argue that they're truly "part of the Debian family."
What would be a better test of Debian Etch is seeing how it handles a *new* laptop. Everyone knows that Debian Stable is going to be easy to install on old hardware because they prioritize stability over timely release cycles and bleeding edge software. But that's exactly why so many people have trouble installing Debian, because they want to install it on new hardware that isn't supported by Debian Stable's outdated drivers.
Slashdot Mirror
Banshee is a very good open source music player. I think older versions ran on all three platforms, and the latest release 1.6 doesn't run on Windows yet (but they're working on it?) Banshee's very stable and has a rapid development model. I think it or Amarok are the logical successors to Songbird. But honestly, I think Songbird was doomed from the start. Computers are moving away from desktops and monolithic programs to mobile devices and cloud computing. By the time Songbird was a finished product, it would already be antiquated by various internet, music services and since it's built on XUL, Songbird has always been a very CPU/memory intensive program.
Ubuntu is *not* Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian, but has very different priorities.
Debian supports 11 hardware architectures. Ubuntu supports only 3, and as a result can provide much more polished results.
Likewise, Debian maintains 18,000+ packages. Ubuntu maintains significantly fewer packages, but provides much more polished packages for the ones they do maintain.
Debian has militant standards for stability, often leading the software in their stable release to be a couple years behind the curve. On the other hand, Ubuntu releases an entirely new version of their operating system every 6 months, officially supports most releases with security updates for only a short amount of time, and often includes software in their stable release which has not even been officially released by its developers (such as Firefox 3.0 in the upcoming Hardy Heron release.) I.e. Ubuntu's priority is decisively on bleeding-edge software over stability.
Debian is highly customizable and allows you to choose precisely what software you want to install and how you want it configured; it is easy to see what's going on under the hood. Ubuntu is much more mysterious; it's much more difficult to understand what's going on under the hood and much more difficult to customize and reconfigure, but as a result, is more user friendly and easier to install.
Debian is horizontally organized through an ambitious system of democratic (and highly idealistic) self-governance. Ubuntu is run from the top down by a corporation with very limited democratic participation from its constituents.
Perhaps most important of all, Debian has super strict standards for what constitutes free software. Ubuntu's standards are also marginally strict compared with the industry average, but there is a lot of software that Ubuntu permits to be configured and installed by default through the distribution that Debian refuses to support or will not install by default because they consider it non-free. This has been a long standing source of tension between the Debian community and Ubuntu.
In short, both Debian and Ubuntu are great distributions, but Ubuntu is NOT Debian; it has very different priorities. QED
I'm glad Dell is selling Ubuntu computers, but yeah, I agree, they have a lot of things to rethink. In the meantime, you should support one of several other companies that sell computers with Linux preinstalled. I recommend, LinuxCertified. Their laptops are definitely aimed at business people. I bought one of the Ultra Portable, LC2100DC models, and it's the best computer I've ever owned: wide screen, weighs 4 lbs, everything works out of the box, and mostly without proprietary drivers including wireless, 3 USB ports, DVD/CD-R drive, a quick little core 2 duo processor, and the whole things costs $900 (it's a little extra with the wireless card.) Plus, you have the option of having Ubuntu preinstalled, or if you like, Fedora Core, instead.
...this release will come full composite as default, according to Mark.
Actually, if you read the letter, Mark Shuttleworth does not say that Gibbons is going to be fully composited. He only says that he would like for it to be, but whether or not it is, depends on where the technology is at in 6 months. In fact, he only mentions it in a small paragraph at the end, and most of the letter is spent talking about the new, completely free version of Ubuntu that they are making in collaboration with gNewSense, and how they had considered calling this release Glossy GNU for that reason.
Will I be able to have Debian perfectly handle [all] my basic multimedia requirements well by default? I would like to play Yahoo, CNN, ABC, BBC andd FOX video and audio by default. Let a slashdotter inform a soul.
No, because many of those are proprietary formats, which Debian will never support out of the box. However, it is very easy to enable those formats by adding any number of alternative package repositories at apt-get.org.
I don't think he opposes DRM at all; it's the benchmark of his company's success. What Jobs is really doing is very savvy, pushing the blame onto the music industry. He says he will make all of iTunes DRM free if the four major music labels let him, but we all know that's not going to happen and he's never going to be called on his bluff.
I use proprietary Nvidia drivers, on some of my Debian machines - that's my choice, and my right as a user of free software. Should I assume I'm therefore not welcome in the Debian community or even the broader "family" originally mentioned? You obviously have strong convictions, but not everyone shares those exact convictions - even some other Debian users. [...] That doesn't mean Debian needs to change what it's doing, except for some members of the Debian community in one area: their tolerance for other people who are using Debian software in ways that free software allows it to be used. Your position is the one which seems against the goals of free software, to me.
If you choose to manually install and configure proprietary Nvidia drivers on your Debian computer, that's one thing, but it's different for Debian itself to distribute and support proprietary drivers as Ubuntu is doing. You can dual boot your computer with Windows and Linux, but does this mean that Windows users are part of the Debian community and that Debian developers should start distributing Windows? Are you prepared to include Linspire as part of the "Debian family?" Suppose Vista ships with a Windows version of apt-get; are we supposed to embrace Microsoft with warm arms and welcome them into the "Debian family." You have the freedom to do whatever you want with Debian software, but that doesn't mean that Debian's developers should be implicated in that process. And even if some Debian users do not share these same convictions about free software, it's not an "over-generalization" to say that these convictions are the basis of Debian. Debian has a Social Contract to which all the developers are expected to abide, and which specifically outlines strict guidelines for what kinds of software they are and are not going to support. Number two on the list: "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."
As I said above, my problem is not with Ubuntu or any other derivative of Debian existing or using Debian's software. My issue, and what I think distinguishes Ubuntu from most other Debian derivatives, is that they expect the Debian developers to change the way they package their software so that it will meet the needs of Ubuntu. If Ubuntu wants a certain feature that Debian doesn't have; they go to Debian and twist their arms, buy out their developers, and whine and complain about what a bunch of stubborn pigs the Debian people are until they get their way. And then whenever someone in Debian complains, whenever they say, "hey this is not your place," the Ubuntu-ites go, "oh stop being so divisive." I just want Ubuntu to be more clear about the fact that they are NOT Debian and that they are NOT a completely free distribution. And most importantly, I want them to leave the Debian Developers alone so they can do their jobs, developing software to meet the needs of Debian (rather than Ubuntu.)
bah, I guess I hit the "preview" button one too few times. That should read, "...Josselin Mouette, one of the lead developers and maintainers of GNOME in Debian and in fact the Debian Developer responsible for getting GNOME 2.16.2 into experimental."
As for the point about Gnome, you're quoting someone from Novell who's fighting to avoid losing Suse developers to Ubuntu. I'll reserve judgement until I see some facts.
The link I posted above is to the blog of Josselin Mouette, one of the lead developers and maintainers of GNOME in Debian and in fact the Debian Developer responsible for getting GNOME 2.16.2 into testing. It's true that he is quoting a Suse developer, but if you scroll down to the comments you'll see that he himself asserts, "as one of the other GNOME maintainers, I can assure you this charge is true."
If Debian had no derivative distros geared towards end users, that would be a bad thing for Debian.
Debian itself is geared toward end users, just not the ones you have in mind. And honestly, why should Debian care about people who will use proprietary drivers over free ones just so they can "bring the bling"? That's not who Debian was meant for in the first place, and it's really none of our business to go around proselytizing to the masses. Debian is maintained by a community for that community and there's no reason why so much of the Debian Developers' time should be wasted trying to appease people who aren't interested in free software in the first place. I'm not saying Debian shouldn't care about making their distribution easier to maintain and install. I'm just saying that we should not give up the basic ideas and rights that the distro was founded on in the process, and we certainly shouldn't concern ourselves with the tinkerings of some company outside of Debian whose self-described "benevolent dictator for life" has admitted himself that Debian and Ubuntu have very different goals. I think it was said best by the Debian Developer, Gustavo Franco: "Debian is about us. The result of our work and feedback from our users, that are potential contributors in a much more powerful manner than alternative solutions." If Ubuntu wants to piggy-back off the labor of Debian to meet their own, very different goals then that's fine, but let's not forget what Debian is all about. This is a distribution for free software enthusiasts. The fact that there is another distribution out there that closely resembles Debian, but has entirely different goals and values does not help Debian to meet its own goals and values.
I consider my perspective "moderated," and I don't think there's any harm in a system geared towards non-nerd users. I have even used Ubuntu myself. I don't want to create a division between Ubuntu and Debian users, but I just think people should be aware that there is a very big and realistic difference between the two distributions. Time and time again, I hear people say, "Ubuntu is based on Debian. It's the same thing, just new software that's easier to install." In fact, it's not the same thing, and people should understand that because to me, what makes Debian the best distribution isn't apt-get; it's the fact that it's completely free and maintained by an open, democratic community. Ubuntu has none of that. The other issue I have with Ubuntu is that at times they have gotten in the way of Debian development. For example, recently it was revealed that Mark Shuttleworth prevented the Debian GNOME maintainer (who also works for Canonical) from updating GNOME packages until after Ubuntu LSO had shipped. That's not exactly what I would call an "unmitigated boon for the Debian community."
Ubuntu may always be "free of charge," but that doesn't mean it will always be free in the way that really matters. The Ubuntu team has already begun shipping binary blobs in the kernel, non-free wireless drivers, and proprietary nvidia drivers in their standard, default setup. Debian's primary goal is to be a free (as in free speech) operating system, and as Ubuntu diverges from that fact, it becomes difficult to argue that they're truly "part of the Debian family."
What would be a better test of Debian Etch is seeing how it handles a *new* laptop. Everyone knows that Debian Stable is going to be easy to install on old hardware because they prioritize stability over timely release cycles and bleeding edge software. But that's exactly why so many people have trouble installing Debian, because they want to install it on new hardware that isn't supported by Debian Stable's outdated drivers.
I 2nd this statement. In fact, Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu have already begun doing things that undermine the idea of free software. For example, Ubuntu now ships with binary blobs in the kernel, non-free wireless drivers, and proprietary nvidia drivers (for which free alternatives readily exist.) See Scott James Remnant's blog for details. Likewise, it's been reported and substantiated that Mark Shuttleworth is preventing the Debian GNOME maintainer (who also works for Canonical) from updating GNOME packages until after Ubuntu LSO had shipped. Of the two top committees governing Ubuntu, the Ubuntu Community Council and the Technical Board, are both made up of Mark Shuttleworth and people he employs, and Shuttleworth has been given "benevolent dictator for life" status within the project. A lot of people do not trust Shuttleworth either, and some, such as Debian Developer, Otavio Salvador, have made comments like, "what he says and what he does are different." You should be wary of supporting Shuttleworth's efforts as there's good reason to question his commitment to the ideals of free software and to the interests of the rest of the community.