3 ms·

Uh, so you're saying that the reason Ubuntu doesn't ship with Flash installed is to inconvenience users so that they will better appreciate free software -- bec

by mmmurf 18y ago

Uh, so you're saying that the reason Ubuntu doesn't ship with Flash installed is to inconvenience users so that they will better appreciate free software -- because it <i>did</i> come installed unlike the evil proprietary Flash player? Just as Ubuntu now has "restricted drivers" it should also have "popular non-free apps", and a screen should appear on the first boot that lets the user install flash, skype, etc. It seems silly that a hard line on a few small apps is making it so nearly any windows or mac user will get scared off by Ubuntu in the first 10 minutes.

Prrometheus 18y ago
Also, getting DVD support to work was "challenging" to put it mildly.
- coffeeaddicted 18y ago
  Yeah, but due to the unfortunate DRM restrictions I don't see how that could be solved currently. Well, except by offering more comfortable torrent clients to avoid DVD's completely ... which is done already ;-)
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    Well, it could be easier. I had to try three or four different approaches that I found on messageboards before I found one that worked. In the end, I had to enable a few new repositories, download a few new plug-ins, modules, and etc., and change the back-end software on my movie-player (Who knew that movie-players had back-ends? I didn't!).
    - coffeeaddicted 18y ago
      From what I heard so far the problem seems to be that sites trying to make it more comfortable for users (like giving them actual guidelines) get often warning letters from lawyers. And not many projects want to risk legal battles. At least that's the way here in germany, but I suppose it's not much different in the US.
aflag 18y ago
Proprietary software is not evil, is just bad for society. Or at least not as good as free software. I don't like that kind of behaviour from ubuntu, such as offering restricted drivers and suggesting for the user the installation of proprietary codecs -- I've been told it does that, I might be wrong. That's supporting the use of proprietary software, which I don't think shouldn't be the goal of any GNU/Linux distribution. In that sense I only wish ubuntu has less support for proprietary software, not more. The thing that should attract people into GNU/Linux is the free software philosophy. If they're going to use GNU/Linux without even worrying about what free software is, then I don't care at all if they are using it or not. Why should anyone involved in free software development care about people who doesn't care about free software? Why should I care about someone who doesn't even make an effort in trying to stay away from non-free software, unless they have absolutely no choice? Ubuntu doesn't ship with Flash to the convenience of the users who want to use free software -- so they don't have to uninstall it (or worse, use it without realising it's non-free).
- krschultz 18y ago
  There are a lot of things that attract people to GNU/Linux, philosophy is not the one that got it this far. Philosophy got you Hurd, practicality got you Linux. I jumped into GNU/Linux because I use it for robotics and I could develop and deploy on the same platform, free software came later after I appreciated it, and now I contribute to several open source projects and work for an open source company. If I had been turned off by these difficulties early I wouldn't be doing what I am today, that is what Ubuntu is for, not the purists, it is for an introduction.
- mmmurf 18y ago
  People get involved in free software for all kinds of reasons. I personally prefer the MIT license philosophy (pure freedom) over the GPL philsophy (restricted freedom)... the GPL has done better than the BSD license b/c it's more free, and over time the MIT license will likely triumph, at least to the extent that linux itself being GPL doesn't hinder progress too much. It's a bit ironic that the whole point of the GPL is to control how others use the code! My point is simply that Ubuntu is not an ideological undertaking, it's a business. Thus, it should have a simple screen that loads on the first boot that lets a new user avoid ending up with a crippled system, when perfectly good (free as in beer) software exists. This will only help the Free Software world, since more people using Linux means more support for existing open source code and for new projects. The real problem with closed source is that it fails to harness the willing contributors who would fix bugs, etc. Even OpenLaszlo uses the adobe runtime... so by shipping Ubuntu w/o a working swf runtime installed, Ubuntu's maintainers are harming at least one vibrant open source project.
wanorris 18y ago
> Just as Ubuntu now has "restricted drivers" it should also have "popular non-free apps", and a screen should appear on the first boot that lets the user install flash, skype, etc. Actually, it does come with a package called "Ubuntu restricted extras" that installs flash, LAME, DVD playback, the JRE, etc. If you wander through Add/Remove Applications, it's there and easy to install. The problem is that they don't follow the rest of your suggestion and make people aware of it on first launch.

by mmmurf 18y ago

Prrometheus 18y ago

Also, getting DVD support to work was "challenging" to put it mildly.

coffeeaddicted 18y ago
Yeah, but due to the unfortunate DRM restrictions I don't see how that could be solved currently. Well, except by offering more comfortable torrent clients to avoid DVD's completely ... which is done already ;-)
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  Well, it could be easier. I had to try three or four different approaches that I found on messageboards before I found one that worked. In the end, I had to enable a few new repositories, download a few new plug-ins, modules, and etc., and change the back-end software on my movie-player (Who knew that movie-players had back-ends? I didn't!).
  - coffeeaddicted 18y ago
    From what I heard so far the problem seems to be that sites trying to make it more comfortable for users (like giving them actual guidelines) get often warning letters from lawyers. And not many projects want to risk legal battles. At least that's the way here in germany, but I suppose it's not much different in the US.

aflag 18y ago

Proprietary software is not evil, is just bad for society. Or at least not as good as free software. I don't like that kind of behaviour from ubuntu, such as offering restricted drivers and suggesting for the user the installation of proprietary codecs -- I've been told it does that, I might be wrong. That's supporting the use of proprietary software, which I don't think shouldn't be the goal of any GNU/Linux distribution. In that sense I only wish ubuntu has less support for proprietary software, not more. The thing that should attract people into GNU/Linux is the free software philosophy. If they're going to use GNU/Linux without even worrying about what free software is, then I don't care at all if they are using it or not. Why should anyone involved in free software development care about people who doesn't care about free software? Why should I care about someone who doesn't even make an effort in trying to stay away from non-free software, unless they have absolutely no choice? Ubuntu doesn't ship with Flash to the convenience of the users who want to use free software -- so they don't have to uninstall it (or worse, use it without realising it's non-free).

krschultz 18y ago
There are a lot of things that attract people to GNU/Linux, philosophy is not the one that got it this far. Philosophy got you Hurd, practicality got you Linux. I jumped into GNU/Linux because I use it for robotics and I could develop and deploy on the same platform, free software came later after I appreciated it, and now I contribute to several open source projects and work for an open source company. If I had been turned off by these difficulties early I wouldn't be doing what I am today, that is what Ubuntu is for, not the purists, it is for an introduction.
mmmurf 18y ago
People get involved in free software for all kinds of reasons. I personally prefer the MIT license philosophy (pure freedom) over the GPL philsophy (restricted freedom)... the GPL has done better than the BSD license b/c it's more free, and over time the MIT license will likely triumph, at least to the extent that linux itself being GPL doesn't hinder progress too much. It's a bit ironic that the whole point of the GPL is to control how others use the code! My point is simply that Ubuntu is not an ideological undertaking, it's a business. Thus, it should have a simple screen that loads on the first boot that lets a new user avoid ending up with a crippled system, when perfectly good (free as in beer) software exists. This will only help the Free Software world, since more people using Linux means more support for existing open source code and for new projects. The real problem with closed source is that it fails to harness the willing contributors who would fix bugs, etc. Even OpenLaszlo uses the adobe runtime... so by shipping Ubuntu w/o a working swf runtime installed, Ubuntu's maintainers are harming at least one vibrant open source project.

wanorris 18y ago

> Just as Ubuntu now has "restricted drivers" it should also have "popular non-free apps", and a screen should appear on the first boot that lets the user install flash, skype, etc. Actually, it does come with a package called "Ubuntu restricted extras" that installs flash, LAME, DVD playback, the JRE, etc. If you wander through Add/Remove Applications, it's there and easy to install. The problem is that they don't follow the rest of your suggestion and make people aware of it on first launch.