There is a scary discussion on the Ubuntu Developers mail list.

[aysiu]

The developers know more than us dumb users on what should be easy to install. If I download a deb, I want to install it. It should be as easy as can be, since its my computer. I make the call as to what to install. Thats freedom.

Actually, the original email to the mailing list made it clear that it would still allow you to override the clickthrough process so as not to limit power users (i.e., people like you, kilz; not "us dumb users").

I'll quote it for you, since you seem to pay attention to only parts of the email that would stir the most controversy and paranoia:

What is of course also necessary is an ability for power users to
specify additional third-parties without any blessing from Ubuntu.
However *this facility must not to be accessible to naive users*.

As I said before, this is a typical Gnome mentality: don't make it easy to deviate from the sensible defaults, but keep deviation as an available option for those who can be bothered. Just think about assigning keyboard shortcuts for commands that aren't already in System > Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts. Sure, it can be done, but it can't be done easily unless you know exactly what you're doing (and aren't intimidated by gconf-editor).

And, as I said before, I don't agree with the proposal, but it is by no means "scary." It's just a backwards way of approaching the problem (frontwards would be educating users, not thinking for them).

[Kilz]

@Kils: There you go again, attacking people instead of offering even the faintest outline of an argument. Yes, I misspoke: it's an e-mail.

Now, can you please be specific about which of the four software freedoms [gnu.org] would be compromised in the event that this proposal were ever to be implemented in an official Ubuntu release?

So far, you've said "dude, I wasn't talking about you, so I guess you must consider yourself a blind follower" and "dude, you think that's an article? You're dumb." This is flamebait, and if you do any more of it in this thread, you're getting reported. Now: please look at my argument and try to respond like a civilized interlocuter.

No one attacked anyone, if you feel you were attacked report it. You are adding things. Just because I dont sugar coat something doesnt make it flaimbait or an attack.

As for what freedom. Thats easy it gets in the way of

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
if the user I give a deb to has a hard time installing it because someone made it harder than it was before.

[Kilz]

Actually, the original email to the mailing list made it clear that it would still allow you to override the clickthrough process so as not to limit power users (i.e., people like you, kilz; not "us dumb users").

I'll quote it for you, since you seem to pay attention to only parts of the email that would stir the most controversy and paranoia:

As I said before, this is a typical Gnome mentality: don't make it easy to deviate from the sensible defaults, but keep deviation as an available option for those who can be bothered. Just think about assigning keyboard shortcuts for commands that aren't already in System > Preferences > Keyboard Shortcuts. Sure, it can be done, but it can't be done easily unless you know exactly what you're doing (and aren't intimidated by gconf-editor).

And, as I said before, I don't agree with the proposal, but it is by no means "scary." It's just a backwards way of approaching the problem (frontwards would be educating users, not thinking for them).

Making it hard even for new users is wrong imho. Perhaps we agree on that. But I find the talk of limiting freedom for anyone scary.
Imho if you are quiet and lets someone step on others freedoms it isnt long before you yourself loose them

[Kilz]

And neither do you.

Last year when the signal to noise ratio went low, posts from non-developers started to be moderated. For non-moderated discussion, which is still followed (though less frequently, which was the whole point) and replied to by the developers, a separate list called ubuntu-devel-discuss was started.

This means that your relevant replies that have some merit to whatever is posted ubuntu-devel can still go through to ubuntu-devel, or in the worst case, you can post to ubuntu-devel-discuss, which is still frequented by the developers.



How about addressing the rest of what p_quarles is saying?



Did it become flooded with half-baked ideas and repetitious feature requests or not? Did it start to host arguments between non-developers, matters of personal opinion and even flame wars, that belong to the sounder or ubuntu-users mailing lists, or not? Did people post their technical support questions to ubuntu-devel with the hope of getting "the best possible help" "straight from the developers" or not?



Asked what kind of questions? Technical support? Whether feature foo will be included in the next release? May those have been considered as factors lowering the signal to noise ratio of the list and making it inefficient?

The purpose of the list is communication and discussion between the people who actually do the work. If people's ability to do the work is inhibited by so called noise, it's an acceptable solution to switch to moderated mode, and start a separate unmoderated mailing list. It's been done in many other places. It has nothing to do with censoring people or not wanting to listen to people's opinions, but of course, for people who distort facts to make a storm in a teacup, it's perfect bait.

There's nothing keeping anyone from posting to ubuntu-devel-discuss or joining #ubuntu-devel on Freenode to get involved in development discussions.

Nice attempt at revisionist history.

[p_quarles]

No one attacked anyone, if you feel you were attacked report it. You are adding things. Just because I dont sugar coat something doesnt make it flaimbait or an attack.

I don't "feel" attacked, and my feelings are not hurt. I was simply pointing out that you are behaving inappropriately, and I stand by that. Go back and read your posts.

As for what freedom. Thats easy it gets in the way of

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
if the user I give a deb to has a hard time installing it because someone made it harder than it was before.

Nonsense. It's quite easy to run dpkg to install a .deb from the command line. By the same token, just because I have the freedom to drive a car does not mean that I should be allowed to do so without any kind of training or licensing.

The issue here boils down to what I believe is a very poor understanding on your part of the meaning of "freedom." It's not the same as convenience, and it's never unconditional.

[23meg]

Nice attempt at revisionist history.

Nice attempt at a charismatic one liner due to lack of a counter argument.

[eentonig]

I really don't see the reason why this stirrs up so much emotions. Isn't this the way how all significant linux development has been done in the past?

1. Somebody recognizes a problem/solution and voice his concerns.
>> People have the opportunitie to discuss whether his concerns are legit or not.
2. Proposes a solution for discussion. Maybe already knowing that it is NOT the ideal solution, but to get discussion going
>> Other people discuss this solution, point out obvious flaws, propose alternate workarounds, solution, ....
3. A blueprint is written to get going on implementation
>> Again this is reviewed and commented on.
4. ....

There is no decission taken yet. Someone had a (genuine) concern and is trying to find a solution for it. Maybe his way of thinking is flawed, but then he will be pointed out to his flaws by the community. Sometimes, to come to a good solution, you have to start your thinking from a thing you know is bad, but by reviewing it's flaws, you end up with somethin usefull. But you never get their alone. You always listen to the pro's and contra's being raised by everyone involved. In this case devs, users, system admins, Canonical, ...
This is one of the reasons why Linux is amongst the safest OS existing. Because all security matters have been discussed extensively and been reviewed from different angles.

If you don't like debating/discussion, then linux isn't for you.

[toupeiro]

This one is a tough call, given the fact I can see the incentive in what they are wishing to accomplish.. However, One change in this direction stems another, and another, until you've made Ubuntu as debilitating as windows. In the end, I think the developers are crossing the line if they would ultimately choose to inhibit functionality over fear in a free and Open source Operating System. The last I checked, (which was a few days ago) the first time you fire up a terminal window in a fresh installation of ubuntu, you are presented with the ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY disclaimer, Let me then, hold the responsibility of my actions and level of awareness.

Awareness is the solution to this problem. Making a solution tailored to the concept of "it just works" more difficult to use is not the right answer. If I want fear as a technological driver over innovation, I'll go back to running Windows.

ok, I won't go that far, but more likely, another Linux distribution lacking the self-assigned moral obligation to protect me from myself.

[the yawner]

@Kilz
Curious. May I know your exact position on the matter if it's all right with you?
1. Do you agree about the problem the letter presented has merits?
2. If so, how do you think should they solve it?

And on another note. Do you think these same developers are not giving you enough freedom by providing you with a distro that comes in a live CD with pre-selected software?

[conehead77]

Making it hard even for new users is wrong imho. Perhaps we agree on that. But I find the talk of limiting freedom for anyone scary.
Imho if you are quiet and lets someone step on others freedoms it isnt long before you yourself loose them

Following this logic, is sudo also too much a limitation for new users? Maybe its too hard for new users to edit a Textfile with sudo? lets just have everybody as root by default, cos thats where you get the most freedom.

This whole discussion is all about how Ubuntu should be by default, completely customizable for an advanced user.

I use Ubuntu for some months now and i only needed an external repository once, for making DVDs work.
If i had the choice, i would probably limit myself to official repositories only, on my main installation.

As for the initial statement, i dont see anything scary.