Walt Mossberg

[Mr. T]

This is exactly what it says when you try to play an MP3: And when the search comes up, you see Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the terms "ugly" and "bad" used somewhere for the codecs in Ubuntu. Probably through Synaptic. Otherwise he saw the terms somehow. Are you saying he lied?

[tbroderick]

Then why is his conclusion But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Linux? Shouldn't his conclusion instead be But for now, I still advise mainstream, nontechnical users to avoid Ubuntu?

Except it seems like people were telling him Ubuntu was the most polished, mainstream ready distro. And the Dell deal might enforce that notion.

That's what you say. This is what Walt Mossberg says: He didn't complain that they weren't supported out of the box. He complained about being told they were bad or ugly, which isn't the case, actually, as you can see from the screenshots in the link I posted previously.

I was told I had to first download special files called codecs that are built into Windows and Mac computers.

He also mentions mp3 'just play' in Windows and OSX in the video review.

This is exactly what it says when you try to play an MP3: And when the search comes up, you see Gstreamer extra plugins, not anything about bad or ugly.

Maybe he is confused with something else, but what the message says isn't the issue.

[Scarlett]

I think a good word to put in would be proprietary instead of either bad, ugly, or non-free. That word is less confusing to new users.

Huh. Is that what "bad" and "ugly" means? I had no idea. I first ran across that when trying to make embedded WMA and Flash files work with Mplayer. I think. Actually, I've been through so many acrobatics with those formats I'm not sure exactly what all I've done and how I've eventually made them work.

But I definitely remember pausing the first time I saw that terminology and then shrugging and figuring I could always reinstall if ugly and bad ended up breaking something. I just thought that meant maybe it wasn't coded very elegantly. (Don't laugh... I'm just a mainstream nontechie. )

[Bothered]

I'm pretty sure I've seen the terms "ugly" and "bad" used somewhere for the codecs in Ubuntu. Probably through Synaptic. Otherwise he saw the terms somehow. Are you saying he lied?

Absolutely not. The terms "gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad" and "gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly" are names of packages, I'm guessing in reference to their "free" status (as opposed to "gstreamer0.10-plugins-good"). I'm commenting on his reference to them as a warning - it's the name of the packages, not a warning.

[Nano Geek]

Huh. Is that what "bad" and "ugly" means? I had no idea. I first ran across that when trying to make embedded WMA and Flash files work with Mplayer. I think. Actually, I've been through so many acrobatics with those formats I'm not sure exactly what all I've done and how I've eventually made them work.

But I definitely remember pausing the first time I saw that terminology and then shrugging and figuring I could always reinstall if ugly and bad ended up breaking something. I just thought that meant maybe it wasn't coded very elegantly. (Don't laugh... I'm just a mainstream nontechie. )

Absolutely not. The terms "gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad" and "gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly" are names of packages, I'm guessing in reference to their "free" status (as opposed to "gstreamer0.10-plugins-good"). I'm commenting on his reference to them as a warning - it's the name of the packages, not a warning.

The names are a take on the old western, The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly.

[eljoeb]

Wasn't there already a thread on this?

Anyway.

I really like my Ubuntu box (even if Gnome is crashing my computer every five minutes right now), but I think it highlights some issues with Dell's Ubuntu offerings. Those things need to work to justify paying for them. Many people here say that a lot of Linux's compatibility problems stem from it not being installed right off the bat. Now, with a large distributor selling Ubuntu computers, they have compatibility/driver issues. Why does this happen?

I think its important to look at it from the perspective of the writer's readers. He identifies them in the beginning of the article; he is looking at Ubuntu from the perspective of a user that wants their products to work as promised with little hassle.

That is simply not a characteristic of Linux/Ubuntu. Sure, the fixes are easy. But they take TIME. A lot of people are willing to learn but they don't have the time (The only reason I had the time to configure my computer was because I got my foot crushed by a fork lift and had to be immobile for a couple months). Of course the "Linux Way" of doing things (terminal tango, anyone?) is powerful, but not everyone wants to spend an hour searching the internet/forums looking for the commands to punch into the CLI.

He identifies some strengths of the platform, namely virus protection and he seems sympathetic to the open source concept. So while the article was negative, its important to consider the audience of the article. It also shows some of the (possibly mis-)conceptions people have about Linux/Ubuntu. These are areas to improve! The criticism doesn't have to be inflammatory; just reacting negatively to all criticism doesn't make the community look very mature. But that is clearly not what's going on here, I just don't like it when people treat stuff like this as flamebait.

[salsafyren]

Instead of going all "FUD FUD FUD" you should concentrate on people's concerns, document where these are invalid when they are, and otherwise spend your valuable time (if you even care) on identifying on how to improve them.

I completely agree.

There are lot of people in the linux world who don't know anything about usability and they excuse the terrible UI in linux "there is a more powerful method".

Linux needs constructive criticism and people working on the real problems. People shouting "FUD" in forums are wasting their time.

Honestly, the average PC is horrible in usability because there are too many things that can wrong. I think that is one of the reasons why people have so many problems.

[ddrichardson]

I completely agree.

There are lot of people in the linux world who don't know anything about usability and they excuse the terrible UI in linux "there is a more powerful method".

Linux needs constructive criticism and people working on the real problems. People shouting "FUD" in forums are wasting their time.

Honestly, the average PC is horrible in usability because there are too many things that can wrong. I think that is one of the reasons why people have so many problems.

The problems with UI extend far beyond a simple argument between CLI and GUI - the fact of the matter is that current design philosophy generally focuses on making the person work around the computer rather than the computer working how the user expects it to.

This is as true of Windows as it is of Linux, where there are just as few improvements. Look at the Start button, only just removed from Windows yet people have been saying for years that Start is not a natural place to look for Shutdown.

Linux GUI, generally, tend to take a different approach to design and I personally think that a lot of the complaints being levelled aren't neccesarily that the Windows way is better, just that the Linux way is different to Windows.

[debianchick]

The names are a take on the old western, The Good, The Bad, And the Ugly.

Absolutely not. The terms "gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad" and "gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly" are names of packages, I'm guessing in reference to their "free" status (as opposed to "gstreamer0.10-plugins-good"). I'm commenting on his reference to them as a warning - it's the name of the packages, not a warning.

Bothered, your close. The names have to with functionality and the type of license they fall under.

GStreamer Good a set of plug-ins that is consider to have good quality code, correct functionality, there preferred license (LGPL for the plug-in code, LGPL or LGPL-compatible for the supporting library).

GStreamer Ugly Plug-ins is a set of plug-ins that have good quality and correct functionality, but distributing them might pose problems. The license on either the plug-ins or the supporting libraries might not be how they like. The code might be widely known to present patent problems.

GStreamer Bad a set of plug-ins that aren't up to par compared to the rest. They might be close to being good quality, but they're missing something - be it a good code review, some documentation, a set of tests, a real live maintainer, or some actual wide use.