Easy Ubuntu - good or evil?

[az]

This thread was locked because of.... nevermind...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=128994

I'm sure it was another misunderstanding.


It would be a great discussion to have as to whether these types of applications (Easy Ubuntu being the first one) which make it trivial to install third-party codecs, among other things, are good for Ubuntu or bad.

Some would say that these codecs are essential, since most people would not switch to linux without them, since it would mean they have to abandon their previous collection of proprietary media as well as not be able to enjoy their current sources of such media.

Some would say that any alternative to these proprietary codecs are in need of being made popular and that will never happen without someone putting their foot down and drawing the line between what is completely free-libre and what is not.

What do you think?

[az]

This thread was locked because of.... nevermind...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=128994

I'm sure it was another misunderstanding.


It would be a great discussion to have as to whether these types of applications (Easy Ubuntu being the first one) which make it trivial to install third-party codecs, among other things, are good for Ubuntu or bad.

Some would say that these codecs are essential, since most people would not switch to linux without them, since it would mean they have to abandon their previous collection of proprietary media as well as not be able to enjoy their current sources of such media.

Some would say that any alternative to these proprietary codecs are in need of being made popular and that will never happen without someone putting their foot down and drawing the line between what is completely free-libre and what is not.

What do you think?

I don't think this sort of discussion was touched on in the automatix discussion thread mentioned in the locking.

[newuser111]

censorship apparantly

[az]

censorship apparantly
But what about the topic? What do you think about what these applications do?

[xmastree]

Well, without all the multimedia codecs etc., you're right. Hardly anyone would use ubuntu. Until I started using it, I didn't realise that MP3 wasn't actually free. With Windows, you download winamp (free as in beer) and just play them. Sure, there's some yadda yadda in the licence but does anyone actually read that stuff?

Speaking of which:
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=2/3821470860.gif&s=x7
:D

[az]

Well, without all the multimedia codecs etc., you're right. Hardly anyone would use ubuntu. Until I started using it, I didn't realise that MP3 wasn't actually free. With Windows, you download winamp (free as in beer) and just play them. Sure, there's some yadda yadda in the licence but does anyone actually read that stuff?

Speaking of which:
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=2/3821470860.gif&s=x7
:D
Well, I am of the opinion that I can easily live without the stuff. I would pay to download ogg files instead of mp3s. I think a lot of people don't even know what an mp3 is. I'm sure a lot of people would use ubuntu if there was no way to use those proprietary codecs.


Personaly, I probably would look hard for an alternative instead of installing the propriertary solution for something. If not, I will find an alternative for the product itself! For example, Skype.

[aysiu]

Well, I'll tell you right now I wouldn't be using Ubuntu except for having some proprietary stuff--including MP3 playback.

Our car stereo plays MP3 CDs... not Ogg CDs. Can you find me a car stereo that plays Oggs?

My wife's iPod and iPod Shuffle play MP3s, not Oggs. I tried to convince her to get an iRiver, but she didn't like the way it looked. As long as we share music, I can't go ahead and put everything into Ogg format. Nor can she put everything in Apple's "AAC."

I think closed source and proprietary software needs to be phased out, not left behind cold turkey. Firefox is amazing, and people have quickly left Internet Explorer (even Safari) for it. If Songbird turns out that way, maybe people will leave iTunes for it.

If I were single, it would be a lot easier, but you can't force your beliefs on people, even your own spouse. We live in the "real world," and a lot of the real world, for compatibility's sake, is proprietary.

Much as I hate Flash, I have to have Flash to visit certain websites. It also doesn't really give a very good impression to others of Ubuntu if they say, "Hey, take a look at this website," and you say, "Yeah, uh.... I have only the open source Flash reader... I can't really use that site. See, I don't believe in supporting Macromedia."

[Turtle.net]

I agree with Aysiu, I just want to add something :
Linux is about choice, the choice to use proprietary codecs or free ones, and also to use a script to implement these codecs for you or simply install them then you need them...

[TrendyDark]

Speaking of which:
http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=2/3821470860.gif&s=x7
:D

Is that real?:shock: haha

[az]

Well, I'll tell you right now I wouldn't be using Ubuntu except for having some proprietary stuff--including MP3 playback.

Our car stereo plays MP3 CDs... not Ogg CDs. Can you find me a car stereo that plays Oggs?

My car cd player does not play MP3. It just plays audio cds. *That's* the real world.



My wife's iPod and iPod Shuffle play MP3s, not Oggs. I tried to convince her to get an iRiver, but she didn't like the way it looked. As long as we share music, I can't go ahead and put everything into Ogg format. Nor can she put everything in Apple's "AAC."

I think closed source and proprietary software needs to be phased out, not left behind cold turkey. Firefox is amazing, and people have quickly left Internet Explorer (even Safari) for it. If Songbird turns out that way, maybe people will leave iTunes for it.

Sure. Does the combination of Free-libre Ubuntu not shipping with the codecs and the availability of such a script help with the phasing out? Is it a perfect balance of being inconvenient but not impossible? Does it do the job of increasing awareness?



If I were single, it would be a lot easier, but you can't force your beliefs on people, even your own spouse. We live in the "real world," and a lot of the real world, for compatibility's sake, is proprietary.

My wife has her own computer. It runs ubuntu but has flash and other proprietary crap on it...



Much as I hate Flash, I have to have Flash to visit certain websites. It also doesn't really give a very good impression to others of Ubuntu if they say, "Hey, take a look at this website," and you say, "Yeah, uh.... I have only the open source Flash reader... I can't really use that site. See, I don't believe in supporting Macromedia."

I wonder what macromedia is going to do. They pretty much ditched Shockwave, and made a decent flash player for linux. That just about extiguished the work on the free-libre player.

Now they have left amd64 behind and the version 7 flash player is not going to cut it for long. Things will be interesting when it comes to Macromedia flash, I reckon...

[xmastree]

Is that real? hahaDunno...

Anyway, I too agree with Aysiu. Ubuntu is my main OS, an I use windows sometimes. If I couldn't play my MP3 collection (without first converting them all to ogg) then it would probably be the other way round. I would use Windows mainly and ubuntu when I want to mess around and break things :roll:

My car stereo also plays MP3s (haven't tried it with ogg though.. :-k), and I like to make my own compilation CDs. Even if I did convert them all to ogg, if i didn't keep the originals I'd be stuck...

Edit: my car stereo cannot play ogg. I just tried.

[aysiu]

My car cd player does not play MP3. It just plays audio cds. *That's* the real world. Yes and no. If you take a look at Best Buy, for example, they have 33 MP3 playback CD stereos (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=UP0LGNPQI40CJKC4D3IFAGQ?typ e=category&id=pcmcat52600050007) and 42 regular CD stereos (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=UP0LGNPQI40CJKC4D3IFAGQ?typ e=category&id=cat03066). So, it's "real" in the sense that it's slightly in the majority of available models, but it's not as if MP3 playback on car stereos is some obscure occurence.



Sure. Does the combination of Free-libre Ubuntu not shipping with the codecs and the availability of such a script help with the phasing out? Is it a perfect balance of being inconvenient but not impossible? Does it do the job of increasing awareness? The answer... I don't know. I would say it depends on the user. I think the very fact that you need a script (or copying and pasting some commands) is awareness enough for some users. After all, distros like Linspire, Blag, Mepis, and PCLinuxOS include a lot of those proprietary codecs without a script at all. There is no Easy Mepis or Automblagtix. Users don't even have to think that something is missing or why.

In any case, I don't know. I haven't used Automatix or Easy Ubuntu, so I won't speak for other users.



My wife has her own computer. It runs ubuntu but has flash and other proprietary crap on it... My point about MP3s is that we share a music collection. Everything we share has to work on her computer and mine, her audio player and mine... and our mutual car stereo.

[cwaldbieser]

This thread was locked because of.... nevermind...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=128994

I'm sure it was another misunderstanding.


It would be a great discussion to have as to whether these types of applications (Easy Ubuntu being the first one) which make it trivial to install third-party codecs, among other things, are good for Ubuntu or bad.

Some would say that these codecs are essential, since most people would not switch to linux without them, since it would mean they have to abandon their previous collection of proprietary media as well as not be able to enjoy their current sources of such media.

Some would say that any alternative to these proprietary codecs are in need of being made popular and that will never happen without someone putting their foot down and drawing the line between what is completely free-libre and what is not.

What do you think?

I think the applications are useful for folks that want to install the codecs without a lot of hassle. The fact is, you can install the codecs without apps to do it for you, so I don't think making it easier or harder to do is really at issue.

As for alternatives not being able to gain traction due to entrenched proprietary codecs: Basically, I think freedom is something you have to really want. It is not something you can force on people. Freedom takes time, and a lot of people don't get it right away.

Many people are likely to be more concerned about convenience than freedom, especially when it freedom with respect to computer software. A lot of people just don't relate to what software freedom even means. There are not a lot of historical examples for folks to relate to like there are for other freedoms. In the US, a lot of the other basic freedoms we take for granted are grounded firmly in stuff that any grade school student learns. Software freedom is more esoteric, especially when you try to explain it to someone who doesn't (knowingly) use a computer very much.

I think the thing to remember is that a lot of the basic human freedoms some of us take for granted these days were earned over a long time. Today, we thing of these freedoms as rights, but there was a long period of perserverance that led up to that. I think the same will be true of software freedom. Slow and steady pressure-- urging but not forcing, and education and time will be the keys.

[bountonw]

With all these heavy weights posting, dare I say anything???

Well, its newbie newbie again.

I have been using linux for two whole weeks.:-D and here is my perspective.

Ubuntu's attraction for me was its forums and what appeared to be its user friendliness. I haven't been disappointed. If I understand the ubuntu philosophy, it is to level the playing field and let everyone have equal access to knowledge and computing. In order for this to work, it must be simple: works out of the box. Click and install. Click and uninstall. etc. I live in Thailand and I am trying to inflence our church school to go linux. Currenly they use all pirated software because they can't afford propietary.:( Unfortunately, the learning curve is quite high for linux and there are questions of using Thai (which I can't answer being new.)

So, to the point of this thread, I would say make it as simple and user friendly as possible, but keep the options open. People can remove codecs (there must be a better plural for that) or other things, uninstall or do what ever they want. That is one of the nice things about linux (I am finding) is that you can make your system do what you want it to. I just think that the burden should be on the guru to adjust instead of the first time (English as a Foreign Language or no English language) newbie.

Nuff said.

[KiwiNZ]

The question was "Just wanted to know your views on Automatix"

The views regarding Automatix are documented in the thread I quoted. There was no need for a repeat thread



This thread was locked because of.... nevermind...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=128994

I'm sure it was another misunderstanding.


It would be a great discussion to have as to whether these types of applications (Easy Ubuntu being the first one) which make it trivial to install third-party codecs, among other things, are good for Ubuntu or bad.

Some would say that these codecs are essential, since most people would not switch to linux without them, since it would mean they have to abandon their previous collection of proprietary media as well as not be able to enjoy their current sources of such media.

Some would say that any alternative to these proprietary codecs are in need of being made popular and that will never happen without someone putting their foot down and drawing the line between what is completely free-libre and what is not.

What do you think?

[darf681]

I wonder how hard it would be to make an Automatix CD or set of CD's? You could boot from the Automatix (or like installer) CD, which would prompt you for the Ubuntu install, and automatically install Ubuntu, and then run the automatic installer to install all codec's, options, apps, etc..

Kind of like WinLite... :-#

[r4ik]

This thread was locked because of.... nevermind...
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=128994

I'm sure it was another misunderstanding.


It would be a great discussion to have as to whether these types of applications (Easy Ubuntu being the first one) which make it trivial to install third-party codecs, among other things, are good for Ubuntu or bad.

Some would say that these codecs are essential, since most people would not switch to linux without them, since it would mean they have to abandon their previous collection of proprietary media as well as not be able to enjoy their current sources of such media.

Some would say that any alternative to these proprietary codecs are in need of being made popular and that will never happen without someone putting their foot down and drawing the line between what is completely free-libre and what is not.

What do you think?

Moral questoin i hate those :)
Let's get one thing clear this what I think.
At the moment there are 70.000+ forum members and even more guests and many are not enjoying Ubuntu for its color only,its the codecs they want and they want it fast and easy, the windows way.
What people are looking for is a subsitution and Ubuntu is offering one.
So in a "booming distro" sense it is a good thing "morely" it is not.
Put a foot down and kick the "illegal stuff" out ? Moraly good but very bad for Ubuntu (as a distro that is)
People would get it anyway http://easylinux.info/wiki/Ubuntu nothing you can do.
So my opinion is clear leave it as it is.

[timczer]

The discussion seems to have centered on the mp3 and codecs part of Easy Ubuntu and Automatix, but these programs (and especially Automatix) include lots of other packages that I don't believe are proprietary, just not loaded on Ubuntu on install. I think these programs are helping Ubuntu. The biggest hurdle in switching from Windows to Linux is getting your pc to run the same things.

My first shot at Linux on FC3 was terrible. I suffered through some terrible dependency hell situations, struggled to find ways to do what I used to be able to do in Windows. After messing up and bogging down my FC3 install (which was dual booted with Windows) I read about and switched to Ubuntu. Whether due to learning some things in messing up Fedora (and my hoary install) I have had a much easier time learning and getting a very well working Breezy install. I am stubborn, and have some computer literacy, so I stuck with learning Linux and Ubuntu (certainly the forums helped a ton), but I don't know that the average user would make that effort.

I think the diehard Linux user and free software proponents keep getting on the kick that you need to install stuff yourself, use the cli, etc. in order to use linux. Why? Most people can't program or use command line in Windows and they have used it for years. Most want to surf the web, read some email, watch some porn, maybe do some excel or word stuff and go to bed. Having some programs that allow them to quickly get their PC into that state, and on par with a standard Windows install (accept for MS office, which you need to get a pirated copy from a friend) will make this distro much more acceptable to someone making the switch.

And for most of us, we still live in a Windows world. Most of us work in a Windows dominated world, or interact with friends and family on Windows systems. Having proprietary codecs to allow us to smoothly and simply interact and share with them is probably vital to most people switching to Linux.

[az]

Yes and no. If you take a look at Best Buy, for example, they have 33 MP3 playback CD stereos (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=UP0LGNPQI40CJKC4D3IFAGQ?typ e=category&id=pcmcat52600050007) and 42 regular CD stereos (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid=UP0LGNPQI40CJKC4D3IFAGQ?typ e=category&id=cat03066). So, it's "real" in the sense that it's slightly in the majority of available models, but it's not as if MP3 playback on car stereos is some obscure occurence.

Yes, some people think of their car when they go out and buy a computer. But does that represent a significant portion of computer users?

Maybe it does. I dunno.



The answer... I don't know. I would say it depends on the user. I think the very fact that you need a script (or copying and pasting some commands) is awareness enough for some users. After all, distros like Linspire, Blag, Mepis, and PCLinuxOS include a lot of those proprietary codecs without a script at all. There is no Easy Mepis or Automblagtix. Users don't even have to think that something is missing or why.

In any case, I don't know. I haven't used Automatix or Easy Ubuntu, so I won't speak for other users.

My point about MP3s is that we share a music collection. Everything we share has to work on her computer and mine, her audio player and mine... and our mutual car stereo.

So you cannot compare Ubuntu to other "pay-for" distributions? Or you can because of Easy Ubuntu?

Again, though, is that good or evil? You said that it is important for you and the reason you have not quit Ubuntu, but is it evil? Does it make Ubuntu similar to proprietary OSes?

[bountonw]

As I alluded to above, one of my reasons for switching to linux was to avoid the moral problem of pirating. I also mentioned the importance of simplicity for us poor humble newbies.

So I would say, leave out all propietary stuff and let people install if they want, but other than that make the thing work out of the box and slowly wean them off the gui and not (to mix metaphors) throw them in the deep end to drown in endless google searches of computer mumbo jumbo.

[Jimmey]

I think that there may have been an misunderstanding as to the nature of my origional question.

I'd seen alot of information regarding Automatix, the majority of which in it's favour. That said, there where indeed some instances where negative comments where made regarding Automatix - comments which I, myself agreed with.

I think the general argument supporting the use of Automatix is, as has been stated in previous posts, that it brings an ease of use to Ubuntu that the less confident user can benefit from.

The argument against is that Automatix takes, from the less confident user, the ability to gain confidence and knowledge - By automating processes that would otherwise have to be performed manually.

My personal perspective is that Automatix, and programs like it, have now the ability to change the way that people view, and use Linux. Where before, only the more computer literate users where able to use Linux effectively, now, even beginners can make the most out of the OS. I wanted your opinions on weather this was a good, or a bad thing.

Thanks.

[az]

My personal perspective is that Automatix, and programs like it, have now the ability to change the way that people view, and use Linux. Where before, only the more computer literate users where able to use Linux effectively, now, even beginners can make the most out of the OS. I wanted your opinions on weather this was a good, or a bad thing.

Thanks.

I think these kind of applications are neither good or bad for Ubuntu. They exists and will continue to exist until there is no more need to serve.

The fact that Ubuntu itself does not serve the need is the important thing. I think the ubuntu policy is powerful enough to get people motivated to fix the problem - motivate vendors to use free-libre codecs.

I think one thing that is missing is proper licencing for these codecs. If a library wanted to magrate their computer stations for internet browsing to ubuntu, they would probably want proper support for these codecs. Right now, you cannot get a proper licence for the- you can use hacked and borrorwed codecs.

Other linux distributers (vendors) have licecnes to redistribute these codecs. It would be great if such a vendor were to offer a codec pack for ubuntu. You pay the five or six dollars it costs to obtain the licences and you get properly licenced, legal codecs to use.

Ubuntu itself will never do this. That is a good thing. Some third-party company may do that, and they probably will end up selling a lot of them.

[Kyral]

Ahem, shouldn't this belong in the Community Chat Forum?

[aysiu]

Yes, some people think of their car when they go out and buy a computer. But does that represent a significant portion of computer users?

Maybe it does. I dunno. True, but I was just giving an example of how you can feel the need for proprietary codecs. In some ways, using me and my wife as an example is beside the point because neither of us has used Automatix or Easy Ubuntu, anyway.



So you cannot compare Ubuntu to other "pay-for" distributions? Or you can because of Easy Ubuntu? Well, Mepis, Blag, and PCLinuxOS are "free as in beer" right now, even though they include proprietary codecs (I'm not sure how that works, legally). My point was that even with Automatix and Easy Ubuntu, there's a small awareness of free v. nonfree because people do need something extra (no matter how "easy" it is) to install their proprietary codecs.

In a distro like Mepis, those things come without any separate program at all.



Again, though, is that good or evil? You said that it is important for you and the reason you have not quit Ubuntu, but is it evil? Does it make Ubuntu similar to proprietary OSes? I think it makes Ubuntu different. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but when my wife and I were in the UK and at a pub ordering Red Bull and vodka, the bartender was not allowed to mix the two for us and would give the two drinks to us separately.

Granted, the bartender would still give us the two drinks... just separately so we'd have to mix them ourselves. I don't know why mixing the two would be illegal for a bartender to do (again, it may just be urban legend), but just having them separate creates a small awareness.

Likewise, Ubuntu, even with Easy Ubuntu and Automatix keeps things separate. If you're going to mix the two (free and nonfree), you have to know you're missing something.

[carlosqueso]

Well, Mepis, Blag, and PCLinuxOS are "free as in beer" right now, even though they include proprietary codecs (I'm not sure how that works, legally).

Well....at least as far as Blag is concerned.....anarchists are userul sometimes ;)

[KiwiNZ]

Ahem, shouldn't this belong in the Community Chat Forum?

Agreed

[tseliot]

I think it makes Ubuntu different. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but when my wife and I were in the UK and at a pub ordering Red Bull and vodka, the bartender was not allowed to mix the two for us and would give the two drinks to us separately.

Granted, the bartender would still give us the two drinks... just separately so we'd have to mix them ourselves. I don't know why mixing the two would be illegal for a bartender to do (again, it may just be urban legend), but just having them separate creates a small awareness.

Likewise, Ubuntu, even with Easy Ubuntu and Automatix keeps things separate. If you're going to mix the two (free and nonfree), you have to know you're missing something.
Nice image that of the bartender :) , I completely agree with your post.

[Lord Illidan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by azz
Yes, some people think of their car when they go out and buy a computer. But does that represent a significant portion of computer users?

Maybe it does. I dunno.

True, but I was just giving an example of how you can feel the need for proprietary codecs. In some ways, using me and my wife as an example is beside the point because neither of us has used Automatix or Easy Ubuntu, anyway.

Quote:
So you cannot compare Ubuntu to other "pay-for" distributions? Or you can because of Easy Ubuntu?
Well, Mepis, Blag, and PCLinuxOS are "free as in beer" right now, even though they include proprietary codecs (I'm not sure how that works, legally). My point was that even with Automatix and Easy Ubuntu, there's a small awareness of free v. nonfree because people do need something extra (no matter how "easy" it is) to install their proprietary codecs.

In a distro like Mepis, those things come without any separate program at all.

Quote:
Again, though, is that good or evil? You said that it is important for you and the reason you have not quit Ubuntu, but is it evil? Does it make Ubuntu similar to proprietary OSes?
I think it makes Ubuntu different. I don't know if this is an urban legend or not, but when my wife and I were in the UK and at a pub ordering Red Bull and vodka, the bartender was not allowed to mix the two for us and would give the two drinks to us separately.

Granted, the bartender would still give us the two drinks... just separately so we'd have to mix them ourselves. I don't know why mixing the two would be illegal for a bartender to do (again, it may just be urban legend), but just having them separate creates a small awareness.

Likewise, Ubuntu, even with Easy Ubuntu and Automatix keeps things separate. If you're going to mix the two (free and nonfree), you have to know you're missing something.

I like the bartender image too.. But what are you missing exactly? You are missing having completely free software? But then, you are also missing the freedom to play your media.

IMHO, this whole legality issue is stupid. It may be illegal to distribute mp3s themselves, but the codecs should not be illegal to distribute.

I like ogg, and I would use it, but as you said, there is a lack of media players that can play ogg. But the way to create awareness, imho, is to go directly to the manufacturer, and make him do an ogg capable player.

[az]

But then, you are also missing the freedom to play your media.

IMHO, this whole legality issue is stupid. It may be illegal to distribute mp3s themselves, but the codecs should not be illegal to distribute.


But they are. Instead of freedom to play your media, do you mean free ride?



The Redbull/vodka issue (legend means you just heard about it or you saw it for yourself?) is based on something that involves only the user (buyer beware) while the Ubuntu/codecs issue is a matter of intellectual property.

The (only?) thing that distiguishes Ubuntu from windows or Mac OS is that Ubuntu is free-libre software and Windows and Mac OS are proprietary.

[aysiu]

The Redbull/vodka issue (legend means you just heard about it or you saw it for yourself?) Actually being handed them separately was actual experience. The reason for the separation is the possible legend--maybe it isn't illegal at all... maybe it's just tradition to serve them separately.


is based on something that involves only the user (buyer beware) while the Ubuntu/codecs issue is a matter of intellectual property. While that distinction is true, the relevant part of the analogy was the fact that the separate (for whatever reason) breeds awareness. Integrated solutions (as opposed to a separation that's easily mixed together) spark absolutely no awareness or thought as to why the two might be separate... or that they are separate.



The (only?) thing that distiguishes Ubuntu from windows or Mac OS is that Ubuntu is free-libre software and Windows and Mac OS are proprietary. That's one outstanding feature, but it's clearly not the only thing that distinguishes Ubuntu. The interface is entirely different, the software management, the community support, etc. I can't just plop a Gtk theme into the "theme" box of Mac OS X. I can't just apt-get install something in Windows (free or non-free).

[super]

do people really care that much about free-libre software as opposed to free-beer software? :-k

personally, i don't care all that much. if mp3 codecs are available for free, i'll use them for as long as i don't have to pay for them.

if you want to know the truth, in 6+ years of using linux, i have never, ever needed to edit the source code of any app/program.

so, yes, i think easybuntu/automatix are both valuable (even tho i haven't used either) because they both help ubuntu to just work for people new to linux.

there is nothing evil about proprietary software so long as there exists other choices. :cool:

[TechSonic]

Our car stereo plays MP3 CDs... not Ogg CDs. Can you find me a car stereo that plays Oggs?


Mine does.
JVC, supports MP3, WMA, OGG, APE, WAV, RAM, RA, and AU


Thats...
MPEG/Layer 3
Windows Media Audio
Ogg Vorbis
Ape
Wave
Real Audio Media
Real Audio
and what ever AU stands for.

[aysiu]

Mine does.
JVC, supports MP3, WMA, OGG, APE, WAV, RAM, RA, and AU Can you link to the brand and model? That may be my next car stereo...

[MetalMusicAddict]

As far as Ubuntu improving my awarness of libre codecs/software it has. I try to use/switch everything I can but, Mp3s havnt been one of them because of my car stereo supporting Mp3 and OGG-Vorbis being a more CPU intensive codec for my H340. Therefore draining my batteries almost twice as fast. Ive tested.

I almost switched till I thought of those reasons. Re-ripping is no problem because I own all my music.

Maybe one day Ill be able to switch over everything but untill then its nice to be able to play my Mp3s. :)

[xmastree]

Mine does.
JVC, supports MP3, WMA, OGG, APE, WAV, RAM, RA, and AU
Hmm...
Google for: wma site:http://www.jvc.com = 283 hits
Google for: mp3 site:http://www.jvc.com = 856 hits
Google for: ogg site:http://www.jvc.com = nothing :-k

Edit: Let's aim a little wider...
Google for mp3 site:http://www.onlinecarstereo.com = 16,300 hits
Google for ogg site:http://www.onlinecarstereo.com = nothing :cry:

However, according to slashdot (http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165980&cid=13852878), this unit (http://www.yakumo.com/produkte/index.php?pid=1&ag=Autoradio#1037880) does. It also has a SD card slot and a USB port for a memory stick.

[Deaf_Head]

If Ubuntu was so crippled that I couldn't play mp3's or video files on it I would not use it. End of story.

It really is bad enough that I need to open different video players for different types of video files, or need to log into windows in order to watch stuff that is completely broken in Ubuntu.

[poofyhairguy]

It would be a great discussion to have as to whether these types of applications (Easy Ubuntu being the first one) which make it trivial to install third-party codecs, among other things, are good for Ubuntu or bad.

Some would say that these codecs are essential, since most people would not switch to linux without them, since it would mean they have to abandon their previous collection of proprietary media as well as not be able to enjoy their current sources of such media.

Some would say that any alternative to these proprietary codecs are in need of being made popular and that will never happen without someone putting their foot down and drawing the line between what is completely free-libre and what is not.

What do you think?

First of all I think both projects do far more than allow users to install non-libre stuff. Their job overall is to autuomate the most popular modifications to a normal Ubuntu install. It just happens to be that one of the (if not THE) most popular things to do is add these codecs. Why?

Because the Ubuntu community is not a community of ideologes. The distro itself allows for nonfree things to be installed by default (madwifi drivers for my wireless card anyone?). Its a distro of compromise for normal users. If people really care about the libre thing then they would use Debian.

Oh course, such an explination does not examine the heart of the matter. The main issue is if all the Ubuntu users (and all Linux users in general) need to stop supporting such things in order to help remove their dominance from the public arena. Two points on that:

1. Without modest support for the rest of the proprietary world, there would not even be half as many Ubuntu users (or Linux users in general).

2. I don't think even all the Linux users in the world together can effect the policy of codecs and whatever with ANYTHING. We are still mostly a minority

Look at the OSS things that become popular. Apache. Firefox. Oggs in video games. etc.

In almost every single case such programs only get popular because:

1. They are far better than the alternative.

2. They are cheaper than the alternative.

Since most companies that hold patents on these codecs do not defend their works and sue people and whatever for using them (which would make using them more expensive) then neither situation applies. If whoever owns the rights would start suing Windows users for using their codecs in those megacodec packs then the world would switch to OSS codecs overnight. But that has not happened.

I appreciate RMS for what he has done. Plenty of good work in his history. But the fact of the matter is that his extremist attitude (like putting a coat over a Realplayer feed camera) does NOT appeal to the majority of computer users in the world. People like moderate solutions. Not many people chose Linux for its freedom unfortunatly.

And lets not kid ourselves. If Ubuntu or Desktop Linux ever grows to 30% marketshare or so it won't be because it offers all these new users Free Software Foundation style freedom. It will be because it offers them a free, safe replacement for Windows (despite many Linux users hating that concept). And since the 1990's to a large percentage of people Windows is a media box just as much as it is a productivity box.

I can promise you that there is whole dorms at my school that are filled with people that were only exciting to get a new computer because then they could steal songs off the internet to put them on their proprietary iPods or to play proprietary DVDs. Computers are worthless (besides the random boring word document) to many without this "feature." If most of the songs on the pirate networks were oggs then we would be in good shape. they are not. Napster made MP3 popular and thats the way it will stay. Often I am thankful it WAS Mp3 and not a more restrictive format (AAC or WMV).

Should these people be turned away? Because make no bones about it, thats what you are saying if you say no to Automatix and Easy Ubuntu and the like.Its hard enough we ask people to give up their proprietary computer games, but their media and flash players too? Then you remove the point for computer to the majority of the home population.



The (only?) thing that distiguishes Ubuntu from windows or Mac OS is that Ubuntu is free-libre software and Windows and Mac OS are proprietary.

And the community. And the fact that Ubuntu costs nothing. And the fact that Ubuntu works on a wider range of hardware.

Make no mistake- for many people (most?) these things matter more than the proprietary issue.

And it depends on how you want to look at it. If you see an Ubuntu with codecs, flash, and closed drivers bolted on as "a completely tainted OS that is just as bad as Windows XP or OSX" then you MUST know that you have an extremist point of view and that you should never expect any such attitudes to go mainstream. If you instead see it as I do - "a free system with a few proprietary bits bolted on to communicate with the rest of the world"- then you hit a middle ground that supports OSS but does not restrict those whose needs cannot be filled in the libre world.

I have supported Automatix through thick and thin for this reason. I pushed for something like Automatix and Easy Ubuntu to be made originally for this reason. I don't see it as black and white. Ubuntu can be the (only?) shade of grey in a world that seems to like grey more. A modern OS for the modern times. What proprietary bits we bolt on are holdovers from the olden days before the time of Ubuntu- like emulating dos to play a few old games. It should not be an issue for anyone.

Now if we were talking about making these things a part of the regular Ubuntu then its a whole different story....

[az]

Now if we were talking about making these things a part of the regular Ubuntu then its a whole different story....

I agree. That's my point to Aysiu about mp3's in the car. You have to consider the OS for the OS and not every little thing you can or cannot use it for. It's not broken. It is what it is.

About RMS, I don't think that is a every-user example. The fact is that you do not have to be RMS to use linux. You don't have to be an extremist to think free software is important.

It is important for some people to take a stand and to do things that bring awareness to certain issues. In that context, it is great that he got people talking about real player's choice of licencing.

Do you listen to U2? Bono is very active in fighting third-world debt. You can enjoy their music without having to start a protest-rally on the streets, can't you?


As for the free-libre not being important, well I really doubt that any of the developers who have brought linux this far in the past years would have done it if they had thought their work could be wrapped up into a licence which would prevent others from excercising their freedom.

Users benefit from this because they know they are not going to get screwed by their software choices. Users also benefit because this software thrives on it's community. You cannot seperate that connection; Windows has it's share of user who want to help - they have thousands of forums just like our's. They have users groups and evangelisation teams. Do you every hear how great *their* community is? Why not?

[XDevHald]

In the post I have here: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=739389&postcount=22

It says a lot of what I think about Easy Ubuntu. (evil)

[aysiu]

I agree. That's my point to Aysiu about mp3's in the car. You have to consider the OS for the OS and not every little thing you can or cannot use it for. It's not broken. It is what it is. I don't see how this works.

An OS is meant to be used.

If I don't use my computer's operating system to burn myself mixes for my car stereo, how do I listen to mixes on my car stereo?