My Concern for new users

[l.tambiah]

Recently i see many blogs saying negative things about Ubuntu or GNU/Linux in general. I notice that these niggles come from a lot of new users (and Ubuntu has a lot of them!).

New users dont seem to understand what free software and open source is about. Instead i see them complaining that totem wont play a DVD without installing extra libaries. New users do not understand the implications of proprietry formats, and dont see the reason why we shouldn't use them!

The whole Linux philosophy is based on having freedom towards software, i.e open code and standards. We should be discouraging proprietry software not engaging it. Whilst in business some companys need proprierty solutions, i dont believe a home user does.

Ubuntu is based on Free Software like Debian and this is a strict rule. New users should learn about free software and open source to understand why certain implications exist, and to learn why we should choose Freedom.

Until people understand that Freedom is essential, then we will always be fighting this battle against unethical proprietry companys.

To learn more of the GNU/Linux philosophy you should understand it, see links:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)

http://www.opensource.org/

Imagine a world with no open source, would you trust your computers? We wouldnt know what they were doing behind the scenes. Microsoft systems already have clever things going on in the background to detect users habits. Be careful and dont put to much trust in these systems and software.

[Arktis]

I agree. It frustrates me to see people complain so much about something they know so little about. And if they would actually open up their brains and LEARN SOMETHING, they would realize that it isn't all that difficult to add the desired functionality themselves. Or go ahead and use a different media player, I don't care. One of the first things I do after installing ubuntu is uninstall Totem completely and install mplayer with dvd support and all the other nifty bells and whistles.

These are exactly the kind of unthinking users we don't want. But on the bright side, I take it as a sign of popularity that these stubborn, close minded, demand everything "my way (translation: what I've gotten used to with windows)" kind of users are even taking the time to try ubuntu.

My message to them if any are paying attention is that Ubuntu isn't Windows, and Ubuntu is a non-proprietary distribution. Thank goodness for that on both counts.

[XQC]

The ironic thing is that Windows itself can't play DVDs out of the box...
And you have to download your codecs as well from the internet.

Though i have to say, it's not easy to explain the users, why mp3 doesn't work right away because this format is really common nowadays (so to speak, everyone knows what a mp3 is even if they know nothing about computers... but ask someone about ogg).

[Arktis]

Indeed, ogg should be way more common considering it's just as good (some would say better) and it's not proprietary. The ignorance of common users is the only thing leaving ogg obscure to most.

And yeah, windows needs additional stuff to play DVD's too, but that's not stopping people from blindly hurling sticks and stones at something they don't understand.

[23meg]

You should consider posting a link to this page as a comment in those complaining blogs.

[giloth]

I would consider myself almost intermediate with linux in general. I've tried various flavors of it including Redhat, Fedora, Mandrake, Gentoo and now Ubuntu. So far Ubuntu is my favorite. For it's simplicity which is because of the community.

When I very first thought of installing linux, it was to learn something new. I already knew DOS and every flavor of Windows, but I knew nothing about Linux.

Most people do come from a Windows background and they are used to how things work in that environment. Because of it, they think every other OS should be the same, but different. If that makes any sense.

I'm proud to consider myself a Linux user and am proud that I actually learn new stuff daily. There is so much knowledge out there that I'll be learning until I'm gray (22 now thank goodness). ;)

But as it was said before, Linux is NOT Windows - It's a whole different OS and that my friends, is not for everyone.

I personally think most people jump into this way too fast. Without doing any research and bitching rather than trying to find a solution to an issue.

That's just my two cents.

LONG LIVE THE PENGUIN! :D

[l.tambiah]

Perhaps we need some kind of awareness day or week....When i release my FOSS website i shall address these concerns.

[linbetwin]

I've heard Novell is planning sth about Linux awareness next year.

[Knomefan]

I disagree, kind off.

First off, Linux is an OS that caters and is used not only by the free software but also by the open source crowed and of course by people who couldn't care less and just want an OS that does it's job.

Second, a lot of the "problems" aren't caused by software not being free, for example I'm pretty sure that ffmep, lame, libdvdcss, etc. are free software, but by legal concerns, so pointing people to GNU to explain why there isn't any mp3 playback by default is simply wrong.

[poptones]

Microsoft systems already have clever things going on in the background to detect users habits.

But they do not "phone home" on a daily basis unless you allow it. Why all this fearmongering over Microsoft? People seem to think nothing of using Google mail, google groups, google search, google this and google that and they have records of every last transaction you do. You may be blocking your ip or have some "privacy filter" in place but unless you are also blocking javascript and everything else it's all for naught. You don't really believe all that "don't be evil" stuff, do you?

Google is busily preparing to deploy a complete "desktop in a browser" type web app. How is connecting to a server via a "dumb terminal" and having all your documents and email stored online - under someone else's control and where they can easily and quickly be subpoenaed, searched, cross-linked with your search patterns and indexed by the government - LESS EVIL (and less proprietary) than anything Microsoft has ever brought to market?

[Arktis]

I disagree, kind off.

First off, Linux is an OS that caters and is used not only by the free software but also by the open source crowed and of course by people who couldn't care less and just want an OS that does it's job.

Second, a lot of the "problems" aren't caused by software not being free, for example I'm pretty sure that ffmep, lame, libdvdcss, etc. are free software, but by legal concerns, so pointing people to GNU to explain why there isn't any mp3 playback by default is simply wrong.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=70646

'Nuff said.

[linbetwin]

Microsoft systems already have clever things going on in the background to detect users habits.

But they do not "phone home" on a daily basis unless you allow it. Why all this fearmongering over Microsoft? People seem to think nothing of using Google mail, google groups, google search, google this and google that and they have records of every last transaction you do. You may be blocking your ip or have some "privacy filter" in place but unless you are also blocking javascript and everything else it's all for naught. You don't really believe all that "don't be evil" stuff, do you?

Google is busily preparing to deploy a complete "desktop in a browser" type web app. How is connecting to a server via a "dumb terminal" and having all your documents and email stored online - under someone else's control and where they can easily and quickly be subpoenaed, searched, cross-linked with your search patterns and indexed by the government - LESS EVIL (and less proprietary) than anything Microsoft has ever brought to market?

I agree and I don't understand why everybody is so in love with Google. People seem to think that Google will crush Microsoft and will liberate the little guy from Gates' tyranny.

[Knomefan]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=70646

'Nuff said.
Huh????????

[public_void]

I agree and I don't understand why everybody is so in love with Google. People seem to think that Google will crush Microsoft and will liberate the little guy from Gates' tyranny.

They're just like any other large corporation. But it seems they have been clever in how they have built up. But maybe one day people will see what they really are.

[l.tambiah]

So then would you like proprierty systems to be used as voting systems they could be rigged. Google tell each of us that our mails can observed, but i dont care i have nothing to hide....

Also google invests a lot of money into open source such as open office....We need companys like this to support our products.

[Arktis]

Huh????????
You must not have read the topic I linked to that addresses what your prior post talks about...

Here, I'll post it again for you: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=70646

Concerning players being distributed with the ability to play proprietary formats, it's not a matter of free alternatives being availible or not. You would know that if you had read that topic, and then you'd know why I posted the link in direct response to your post, and you wouldn't be asking "Huh????????".

[Knomefan]

Uhh...read the thread link? It's a topic that addresses what your post was talking about, and why you shouldn't assume such things.

I did, but the post did no such things.

So what exactly do you think I am assuming that the post you linked to counters?

[Arktis]

Re-read my previous post please. It appears you responded before I was done editing.

[Knomefan]

Re-read my previous post please. It appears you responded before I was done editing.

Sorry, I simply wasn't aware that you were editing your post.

Concerning players being distributed with the ability to play proprietary formats, it's not a matter of free alternatives being availible or not.
I think you really misunderstood me here. Where did I say it was?

I only pointed out that it wasn't a matter of free software. Nothing what you said if I understand you correctly and nothing in the post you linked to contradicts this.

[Arktis]

*shrug*

'Kay.

[Knomefan]

*shrug*

'Kay.

Maybe you could simply try to explain it to me, as I seem to be to dumb to understand it?
Thanks in advance.

[Stormy Eyes]

Google tell each of us that our mails can observed, but i dont care i have nothing to hide

You are wrong. You have a life to hide.

[Naglfari]

Recently i see many blogs saying negative things about Ubuntu or GNU/Linux in general. I notice that these niggles come from a lot of new users (and Ubuntu has a lot of them!).

I'm practically brand new here, so I don't really know how much room I have to talk :confused: ; but I believe that in a lot of those cases, it is an attitude that you're dealing with, not necessarily ignorance. It would seem to me that a lot of those complainers simply want to be able to claim "well, I tried it and didn't like it".

I'm an old dog that was determined to learn a new trick when I installed Ubuntu, and had not a clue as to what I was getting into. But, one of the first things that I found was this forum, and I didn't have to post hardly at all, just read all the good info that was already here. In less that 3 months I had switched over both computers to Ubuntu and have both completely functional, or at least as functional as I'll ever need. The bigget thing I found was, often the very familiar is actually there, it's just called by a different name. I do a lot of work with digital photos.....what would be called "convert to grayscale" in windows is "desaturate" in Gimp.

I guess what I'm saying is.....when fielding complaints, consider the source. If a person posts a complaint, gets and answer, then complains about the answer....then they probably don't want to learn in the first place.

I'm completely happy with the OS, with what I can do with it, and with this forum :D

[Malphas]

You are wrong. You have a life to hide.
When having a conversation in public, do you whisper and cover your mouth? I something is confidential I'll use PGP anyway, I couldn't care less if some Google advertising robot is scanning my everyday emails for keywords, and I'd imagine that most regular people feel the same way.

[Stormy Eyes]

Google tell each of us that our mails can observed, but i dont care i have nothing to hide...

Nothing personal, but that attitude really rubs me the wrong way. I think it's people who think that they have nothing to hide that are the cause of governments becoming more and more intrusive and meddlesome.

"Sure, I'll tell you how much money I earn and how. I've got nothing to hide."
"Sure, you can search my home without a warrant. I've got nothing to hide."
"Sure, I'll let you strip-search me. I've got nothing to hide."

You've got plenty to hide: your whole life.

[Stormy Eyes]

When having a conversation in public, do you whisper and cover your mouth?

No, but I keep my voice low and avoid mentioning anything I want to consider private.

[Naglfari]

When having a conversation in public, do you whisper and cover your mouth? I something is confidential I'll use PGP anyway, I couldn't care less if some Google advertising robot is scanning my everyday emails for keywords, and I'd imagine that post regular people feel the same way.

Well no, but when I'm at the ATM, I don't recite my PIN outloud to myself either. Just some things it pays not to let other people know....ya know :)

[Malphas]

We should be discouraging proprietry software not engaging it. Whilst in business some companys need proprierty solutions
Couldn't disagree more, there are some areas of software best suited to open source and some where a proprietary model is necessary. Lack of third-party support is one of the biggest setbacks for Linux as a home desktop OS, and attitudes like only make matters worse. You're correct, the average home user is more likely to judge software based on how it performs rather than whether it's open source or not, which seems perfectly sensible and reasonable to me.

[Malphas]

Well no, but when I'm at the ATM, I don't recite my PIN outloud to myself either. Just some things it pays not to let other people know....ya know :)
Of course, I think I addressed this when I said that I use PGP for anything that I wouldn't be comfortable with anyone else reading. I agree with Stormy about government intrusion, but the situation with Google is completely different, the emails aren't being monitored by humans and aren't being used for anything other than to convey relevant advertisements back to you, not to mention that if you're not comfortable with that there's no obligation to use the service. If it turned out this wasn't the case, I - along with many other GMail users, I'd imagine - would be outraged; Google's stock price would plummet and they'd no doubt be sued and possibly go out of business.

[Brunellus]

Of course, I think I addressed this when I said that I use PGP for anything that I wouldn't be comfortable with anyone else reading. I agree with Stormy about government intrusion, but the situation with Google is completely different, the emails aren't being monitored by humans and aren't being used for anything other than to convey relevant advertisements back to you, not to mention that if you're not comfortable with that there's no obligation to use the service. If it turned out this wasn't the case, I - along with many other GMail users, I'd imagine - would be outraged; Google's stock price would plummet and they'd no doubt be sued and possibly go out of business.
the fact remains that the communications are being so monitored, and that is enough to dissuade me from wishing to use the service at all.

A healthy paranoia is often not a bad thing.

[Malphas]

That's fine, but bare in mind you're saying this while posting on a completely public messageboard.

[Brunellus]

yes. because on a public messageboard (or on usenet, or any other public forum), I am saying things for public consumption. This is closer to publication than correspondence.

When I send an e-mail, however, that's private, and not for publication.

Put it like this: when you want to write to your grandmother, do you take out an ad in her town's newspaper, or do you write a letter, put it in an envelope, and seal the envelope?

She can read both, but the letter is intended for her.

Of course, in a perfect world, we'd all be using proper crypto. But still, there is a difference between communications you fully intend to be public and those you intend to be private. I don't have confidential conversations on crowded buses, and I don't want Google or its robots reading my mail.

[Howitzer]

I am a very new user of Ubuntu. While I registered to this forum a few months ago, I only just installed Ubuntu last weekend.

After the impressive first impressions wore off, I realized that I was missing something- well, two things...

I could not get onto the internet. And I did not have accelerated OpenGL. This took some time, cause I had no idea what I was doing. Needless to say, Synaptic became my best friend.

It was refreshing for once to actually learn something on a computer. I know everything about the hardware, and everything about my Windows installation. Those ooo and aaa days of learning the computer had long gone (well except for programming C++). After installing Ubuntu, I had to learn it all over.

And I'm still learning. Personal Computers were originaly designed and sold to computer geeks. These 'geeks' would put together these computer kits and later program them with simple games or software. Learning Ubuntu is kinda like that.

Windows on the other hand was made to everyone - computer literate or not. For people who arn't 'geeks'. Thats why it's chock full of wizard and help-bubbles, and it costs as much as a Playstation 2.

If you arn't willing to sit down and learn how to use a computer and you just want to download music videos and play video games- than Linux isn't for you.

[Stormy Eyes]

That's fine, but bare in mind you're saying this while posting on a completely public messageboard.

I was aware of that before I posted it, which is why I don't talk about what my wife and I get up to here.

[Malphas]

I was aware of that before I posted it, which is why I don't talk about what my wife and I get up to here.
And that's why I said that in response to Brunellus.

[Malphas]

yes. because on a public messageboard (or on usenet, or any other public forum), I am saying things for public consumption. This is closer to publication than correspondence.

When I send an e-mail, however, that's private, and not for publication.

Put it like this: when you want to write to your grandmother, do you take out an ad in her town's newspaper, or do you write a letter, put it in an envelope, and seal the envelope?

She can read both, but the letter is intended for her.

Of course, in a perfect world, we'd all be using proper crypto. But still, there is a difference between communications you fully intend to be public and those you intend to be private. I don't have confidential conversations on crowded buses, and I don't want Google or its robots reading my mail.
Well exactly, this is the second time I've had to repeat myself now. If I have something confidential to send I'll encrypt it, if it isn't then I won't bother. I would also never send something confidential over email without first encrypting it, and I don't think the same can be said for all of the supposedly security-conscious people that critisise GMail.

[Brunellus]

...which is fine if all your potential correspondents can also decrypt it. But most of mine are unwilling or unable to have encryption.

[Malphas]

...which is fine if all your potential correspondents can also decrypt it. But most of mine are unwilling or unable to have encryption.
In which case your confidential emails are hardly being transmitted in a secure fashion anyway, so it's really of little consequence whether you use GMail or not considering that your emails could be easily intercepted and read.

It's unfortunate that most of your correspondents refuse to use encryption. When this is the case with me, I generally tend to keep communication face-to-face when it comes to anything important, although I realise this may not always be practical.

[jc87]

If new users dont like gnu/linux , use M$ wintendo , or Mac OS , whatever they prefer.

By the way , the code is writen by programmers in the community , not by new users , so if they dont like the way as gnu/linux "thinks" and "acts" "screw them":twisted:

The thread Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll , says everything about this problem.

By the way , Gnu/Linux , my baby , my love , as more i learn about you , more i like you , dont ever stop being so sexy;) .

[Howitzer]

If new users dont like gnu/linux , use M$ wintendo , or Mac OS , whatever they prefer.

By the way , the code is writen by programmers in the community , not by new users , so if they dont like the way as gnu/linux "thinks" and "acts" "screw them":twisted:

The thread Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll , says everything about this problem.

By the way , Gnu/Linux , my baby , my love , as more i learn about you , more i like you , dont ever stop being so sexy;) .

Haha! I agree with you all the way man.

[Knomefan]

By the way , the code is writen by programmers in the community , not by new users , so if they dont like the way as gnu/linux "thinks" and "acts" "screw them":twisted:


Sorry, but what a dumb thing to say. So only people who write code are allowed to critisize things?
Also, I doubt the people who write Gnome, KDE, etc. and make distros like Ubuntu don't care what the average user thinks, on the contrary, making Gnu/Linux usable for everyone seems to be one of their greatest concerns.

[Malphas]

If new users dont like gnu/linux , use M$ wintendo , or Mac OS , whatever they prefer.

By the way , the code is writen by programmers in the community , not by new users , so if they dont like the way as gnu/linux "thinks" and "acts" "screw them":twisted:

The thread Anatomy of a well-intentioned Linux Troll , says everything about this problem.

By the way , Gnu/Linux , my baby , my love , as more i learn about you , more i like you , dont ever stop being so sexy;) .
Haha! I agree with you all the way man.
I don't. I think if an issue is raised repeatedly by new users it's best to look at possible solutions rather than assuming it's entirely their fault and having a bad attitude. In the case of proprietary codecs and such however, it's hardly the fault of Linux, and the users are being somewhat silly considering that Windows also has the same problem (although no doubt most don't realise this if they've always had the OS pre-installed). But overall I think jc87's attitude isn't constructive and isn't shared by the community as a whole.

[jc87]

Sorry, but what a dumb thing to say. So only people who write code are allowed to critisize things?
Also, I doubt the people who write Gnome, KDE, etc. and make distros like Ubuntu don't care what the average user thinks, on the contrary, making Gnu/Linux usable for everyone seems to be one of their greatest concerns.

I wasn´t saying that , what i wanted to say was that they shouldn´t be "arrogant" and try to convert Gnu/Linux in something that is not .

They have the right to complaint , but not to "think they always are right".

P.S. I dind´t want to flamme (it wasn´t my gold) , sometimes people say X , and who reads understands it as Y .

[poptones]

Man, some of you just don't get it at all.

You bash MS for being "proprietary and closed" but how is Windows any more closed to you than a web application running on a corporate server? You say "google lets you use their facilities in all sorts of ways they never planned," well windows does exactly the same thing - and in each case this is allowed only so long as you don't touch the code. In this way MS is actually more open than virually anything google offers; the fact they may use open source software on their backend means absolutely nothing when that code (and all your personal data) is locked away in grey boxes thousands of miles away.

Trust? Google is a corporation. Not only are they bound to follow the orders of the shareholders and the board of directors, they are bound by the laws of the countries in which they operate. That means when the UK says "you will keep detailed records of all your transactions for the last two years" google starts running backups; when china says "you will send us the information you have regarding the person who posted this politically divisive blog" Google burns a CD - and when the US says "you will make your database connections accessible to our recording and monitoring equiment and you will not tell anyone" Google hands over the keys to the server farm and walks away.

To claim that MS cannot be trusted but Google can simply because Google says they can be trusted is more than just naive, it's outright stupidity.

[Knomefan]

I wasn´t saying that , what i wanted to say was that they shouldn´t be "arrogant" and try to convert Gnu/Linux in something that is not .

This of course begs the question what exactly Gnu/Linux is and isn't. But I can of course understand your sentiment.


They have the right to complaint , but not to "think they always are right".

I agree, but then again, I think it's only a very small but unfortunately very vocal group that acts that was.


P.S. I dind´t want to flamme (it wasn´t my gold) , sometimes people say X , and who reads understands it as Y .
Thanks for clearing it up then.

[Malphas]

Man, some of you just don't get it at all.

You bash MS for being "proprietary and closed" but how is Windows any more closed to you than a web application running on a corporate server? You say "google lets you use their facilities in all sorts of ways they never planned," well windows does exactly the same thing - and in each case this is allowed only so long as you don't touch the code. In this way MS is actually more open than virually anything google offers; the fact they may use open source software on their backend means absolutely nothing when that code (and all your personal data) is locked away in grey boxes thousands of miles away.

Trust? Google is a corporation. Not only are they bound to follow the orders of the shareholders and the board of directors, they are bound by the laws of the countries in which they operate. That means when the UK says "you will keep detailed records of all your transactions for the last two years" google starts running backups; when china says "you will send us the information you have regarding the person who posted this politically divisive blog" Google burns a CD - and when the US says "you will make your database connections accessible to our recording and monitoring equiment and you will not tell anyone" Google hands over the keys to the server farm and walks away.

To claim that MS cannot be trusted but Google can simply because Google says they can be trusted is more than just naive, it's outright stupidity.
Google at least seems to be supporting open standards at present, which is something Microsoft cannot claim. Personally, I find open standards are more critical than open source. With regard to personal data, I don't think anyone is even disagreeing with you.

[Knomefan]

Man, some of you just don't get it at all.

You bash MS for being "proprietary and closed" but how is Windows any more closed to you than a web application running on a corporate server? You say "google lets you use their facilities in all sorts of ways they never planned," well windows does exactly the same thing - and in each case this is allowed only so long as you don't touch the code. In this way MS is actually more open than virually anything google offers; the fact they may use open source software on their backend means absolutely nothing when that code (and all your personal data) is locked away in grey boxes thousands of miles away.

Trust? Google is a corporation. Not only are they bound to follow the orders of the shareholders and the board of directors, they are bound by the laws of the countries in which they operate. That means when the UK says "you will keep detailed records of all your transactions for the last two years" google starts running backups; when china says "you will send us the information you have regarding the person who posted this politically divisive blog" Google burns a CD - and when the US says "you will make your database connections accessible to our recording and monitoring equiment and you will not tell anyone" Google hands over the keys to the server farm and walks away.

To claim that MS cannot be trusted but Google can simply because Google says they can be trusted is more than just naive, it's outright stupidity.

If you would turn down your rhetoric a bit I even could agree with you to a large degree. However, I think one should not forget that there is a difference between my OS, running on my computer, on which I have all my files and an external service.

[poptones]

What "rhetoric?" Carnivore is real. British online record laws are real. Chinese dissidents being arrested based on information obtained from online services is happening, now.

[Curlydave]

Recently i see many blogs saying negative things about Ubuntu or GNU/Linux in general. I notice that these niggles come from a lot of new users (and Ubuntu has a lot of them!).

New users dont seem to understand what free software and open source is about. Instead i see them complaining that totem wont play a DVD without installing extra libaries. New users do not understand the implications of proprietry formats, and dont see the reason why we shouldn't use them!

The whole Linux philosophy is based on having freedom towards software, i.e open code and standards. We should be discouraging proprietry software not engaging it. Whilst in business some companys need proprierty solutions, i dont believe a home user does.

Ubuntu is based on Free Software like Debian and this is a strict rule. New users should learn about free software and open source to understand why certain implications exist, and to learn why we should choose Freedom.

Until people understand that Freedom is essential, then we will always be fighting this battle against unethical proprietry companys.

To learn more of the GNU/Linux philosophy you should understand it, see links:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)

http://www.opensource.org/

Imagine a world with no open source, would you trust your computers? We wouldnt know what they were doing behind the scenes. Microsoft systems already have clever things going on in the background to detect users habits. Be careful and dont put to much trust in these systems and software.


It doesn't matter. New users will still be thrown off from Linux if it doesn't play their DVDs without having to search the internet for a fix (downloading the libs.) The majority of computer useres (NOT computer geeks or Linux users) don't care if it's proprietory, they just want it to work without any ********.

[Arktis]

Well, as my Grandpa (bless his soul) used to say, "Wish in one hand and s*** in the other, and see which one gets filled first.". It doesn't matter what you wish for if it's unrealistic. You're not getting it, so get over it and take matters into your own hands, such as installing the needed extras yourself. The community here has already done it's level best to do much more than meet you halfway in these tasks. So once you know the facts, there's no reason to complain about ubuntu, rather there is every reason to complain about the current liscensing situation.

Here's an idea: Have a version of ubuntu that ships with mp3 and dvd support, but the user covers the cost of the fees involved. Then let's see how many people complain, how many people stick with 100% free, and how many people actually pay. This probably won't happen because that esentially turns ubuntu into a source of revenue for the controllers of the liscences. Now it's not so hard to see why there's a good reason to point to the GNU/open source philosophy as a reason why this most probably won't happen with ubuntu, which is certainly one of the more "purist" distributions.

But that doesn't matter. New users are still going to compain, even though they don't yet fully understand what they've entered into when installing such an OS.

[Curlydave]

Well, as my Grandpa (bless his soul) used to say, "Wish in one hand and s*** in the other, and see which one gets filled first.". It doesn't matter what you wish for if it's unrealistic. You're not getting it, so get over it and take matters into your own hands, such as installing the needed extras yourself. The community here has already done it's level best to do much more than meet you halfway in these tasks. So once you know the facts, there's no reason to complain about ubuntu, rather there is every reason to complain about the current liscensing situation.

Here's an idea: Have a version of ubuntu that ships with mp3 and dvd support, but the user covers the cost of the fees involved. Then let's see how many people complain, how many people stick with 100% free, and how many people actually pay. This probably won't happen because that esentially turns ubuntu into a source of revenue for the controllers of the liscences. Now it's not so hard to see why there's a good reason to point to the GNU/open source philosophy as a reason why this most probably won't happen with ubuntu, which is certainly one of the more "purist" distributions.

But that doesn't matter. New users are still going to compain, even though they don't yet fully understand what they've entered into when installing such an OS.

Great post; all of that is true. Ubuntu, Linux etc are doing the right thing by not supporting proprietary standards or including them. This also avoids the liscense fee problem. However, none of this matters, (and it shouldn't be expected to matter) in the hands of your everyday person who wants to play a DVD, listen to an MP3 etc. They just want it to work, and they don't care why it doesn't work. I am absolutley not saying that Ubuntu should adopt propriety formats, charge for their use etc. I'm pointing out that non-geeks do have legitimate concerns.

[poptones]

All you will do by making a "paid" version of ubuntu is set the field for piracy. Look in the linux newsgroups any week that a new version of Mandrake (er, Mandriva) or Linspire or Suse comes out. By making sure the version on the CD is truly FREE you instead prime the pump for educating those users.

It's not that hard to add repositories and install software via synaptic. If people are unwilling to do that then who needs them? Let them stick in the Windows prison.

[endersshadow]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-12-07-google-phobia_x.htm

Good article in yesterday's USA Today about Google's evilness.

[poptones]

That's just the naive part of it - they make it sound as if any of these problems can be solved through legislation, and hat just ain't so.

Google (and other corps) operate internationally. So they may be prohibited from returning certain search results to this country or that, and this country over here may have laws against collecting certain types of incormation - but that country over there doesn't. So when the US passes a law saying it cannot "eavesdrop" or collect info on persons without a warrant that doesn't mean a thing - Google still has the data and any agency that wants it need only contact their field office in the UK or Germany, where no such laws exist.

I don't believe the founders of google are in any way "evil." I just think they are being naive when they imagine themselves able to build such an empire in the corporate realm without becoming every bit as evil as the governments that pull their strings.

This is why we, the people, need a trustworthy computational platform and a means of assembling computational resource collectives that exist outside the realm of corporations. The internet was meant to be peer to peer, but right now every machine is an island unto itself. So long as this remains true JP barlow's "Declaration" is just a quaint rant.

[prizrak]

I think it's funny that all the Windows users bitch about not having certain functionality out of the box, however if you ever reinstall XP from scratch (unless you bought the CD after SP2 came out) you will not even have the most essential security fixes or drivers for half your stuff. Hell an Ubuntu install from popping the CD into the drive to a fully functional desktop with complete multimedia functionality including Java and Flash as well as latest and greatest Ubuntu patches takes me less than 2 hours. An XP isntall takes me more than a day in gross time, net is probably 5-6 hours. You got the install, loading up security (firewall, A/V, anti-spyware), loading the network drivers, going to winupdate getting the service pack and the other updates that take forever then restart, go back to winupdate install updates for the updates reboot, rinse and repeat, there is also installing the latest DX and WMP and whatnot, disabling Messenger, finally loading the rest of the hardware drivers, loading the multimedia codecs, installing the Office Software, loading java, loading flash/shockwave. Yes Ubuntu is sooooo much harder :)
As far as privacy goes with Google and such, well anything that you do online can be intercepted without much effort unless you encrypt like crazy and even then it's not always possible. By comparison Windows's EFS has an encryption key loaded onto it that allows the NSA to read your files (this is going back to poptones point of corporations having to abide by local rules). The point of all of this being that when it comes to the Internet we do tend to give up a certain expectation of privacy (same with talking on the phones) we understand that the data goes through other systems and can be easily intercepted. The issue with a backdoor loaded into your local machine is the fact that we expect that w/e is on there is private. It's akin to expecting that your possessions are safe inside of your home/apartment (so long of course as you take measures to protect it such as having locks and possible alarm) and then learning that your landlord/real estate firm gave the keys to your home to the government thus allowing them to enter your home whenever they please and possibly covertly.

[matthewstory]

poptones, i think you you're being too naive.

I don't hate google for keeping my personal information about searches etc. on their server anymore than i hate my bank for keeping records of all of my personal purchases with my credit card. It is necissary for Google to provide a good search engine to keep track of what links people are clicking on for given searches and what links they aren't clicking on. That is there business. I fail to see how one could replicate the ability of the google search engine without a corporation (or government) of some kind. That is to say, how is someone going to have the kind of CPU power needed for a competetive search engine and the bandwidth necessary to run it without some form of money being made from it.

Aside from that even if they could accomplish this you'd still have to store the same kind of information about users and querries etc. to get the job done. All search engines do this, and i choose to use google for the same reason i choose to use citibank, which is, i trust them. If google ends up releasing information about me to some government, that will be the corrupt government's doing and not google's doing.

Google has supported open source and been possible only because of open source from the beginning. They make several closed source applications, but their server runs on linux and is only possible because of linux (try linking millions of terrible pcu's together on any other operating system) and they've also given back to linux, among other open source projects (firefox, apache, php etc.)

The only reason open source is as prevelant today as it is, is in fact because of corporations. Open source broke of from Free Software as a philosophical distinction, but also to attract corporations to form around open source software. Corporations have resulted in or contributed to most of the open source software written today including: firefox (formerly netscape navigator) openoffice (formerly spark suite from sun) the linux kernel (being maintained by the open source developement labs, a corporation and also IBM), the source forge websites (created by and maintained by VA Linux), SuSe linux (now maintained and distributed by Novell), MySQL (written, maintained and distributed by the MySQL corporation), apache (written and maintained by the apache foundation and the apache group), and the list could go on and on. Even the ones that are not created by or maintained by a corporation were predominantly created and maintained out of corporate necessity (PostGreSQL for example was created out of a need for an SQL database that was as powerful as oracle but not as unnecissarily complicated or as expensive, and is maintained by coders who need to use the DB for their job or their corporation).

I just think it's a bit naive to expect google to do their job without using the information they collect, and also to believe that it is possible to support something like the internet without corporations, let alone open source software or linux.

regards,
matt

[Arktis]

Two words: Off topic. :D

You guys should just start a new thread about google.

[poptones]

I don't hate google for keeping my personal information about searches etc. on their server anymore than i hate my bank for keeping records of all of my personal purchases with my credit card.

Non sequitur; I nevr said anything about hating Google. Hating or Loving corporations is, to me, idiocy.

It's all about awareness, which is (I thought) the essence of this discussion.

The only reason open source is as prevelant today as it is, is in fact because of corporations.

Irrelevant; open source software will exist with or without corporations. It makes me not one iota of difference whether gnome or ubuntu or any other software is adopted by corporate america. In fact I would often prefer it NOT be since this only brings with it the baggage of design by comittee and law.

I'm no great developer but I worked more than a year on avisynth and brought to it some great value. I did not do this at the behest of corporations, I did it because I wanted to use it in a way no one else had forseen so I shaped the tool to do my bidding. If I can do it so can you or anyone else; so long as there are people there can be open source, shared tools. I do not need Evian or Crystal Springs in order to obtain fresh clean water and I do not need Redhat (or Google) in order to obtain usable software.