PDA

View Full Version : Expectations from Ubuntu One Music Store?



ssj6akshat
February 24th, 2010, 04:29 PM
http://wp.me/pJWwU-H

Please take the Poll

doas777
February 24th, 2010, 04:41 PM
low.

I don;t know what domain your poll is hosted on, but I'm not going to that url.

Rainstride
February 24th, 2010, 05:07 PM
it leads to This. (http://ubuntuweblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/what-do-you-expect-from-ubuntu-one-music-store/)

Swagman
February 24th, 2010, 05:19 PM
In what way is the Ubuntu music store different to Amazons .deb installer ?

Dragonbite
February 24th, 2010, 06:13 PM
I'm kinda wary of Canoncial/Ubuntu going into the music market. It seems all too... Apple~ish!

I really hope if they integrate it with one music player, they try and integrate it with ALL (or as many as they can, like Rythmbox, Banshee, Exaile, Songbird, etc.) and not to ignore Kubuntu's Amarok as well.

gn2
February 24th, 2010, 06:27 PM
It's just the next step in Canonical's program of selling out it's original values.

DeadSuperHero
February 24th, 2010, 06:49 PM
It's just the next step in Canonical's program of selling out it's original values.

Right, because making your distro compete with Apple by integrating a music service is TOTALLY selling out.

Dragonbite
February 24th, 2010, 07:36 PM
Right, because making your distro compete with Apple by integrating a music service is TOTALLY selling out.

Possibly, depending on how it is done.

I don't think this is Ubuntu selling out, and diversifying from just the OS is not a bad move. They just best be clear and cautious or things can spin out of control.

Maheriano
February 24th, 2010, 07:49 PM
So these songs cost money?

RiceMonster
February 24th, 2010, 07:54 PM
Right, because making your distro compete with Apple by integrating a music service is TOTALLY selling out.

Yes, because asking people to pay for things is evil. Everything should be free and served on a silver platter,

CJ Master
February 24th, 2010, 08:14 PM
Yes, because asking people to pay for things is evil. Everything should be free and served on a silver platter,

Gold platter, actually.

Excedio
February 24th, 2010, 08:34 PM
I'm kinda wary of Canoncial/Ubuntu going into the music market. It seems all too... Apple~ish!

I really hope if they integrate it with one music player, they try and integrate it with ALL (or as many as they can, like Rythmbox, Banshee, Exaile, Songbird, etc.) and not to ignore Kubuntu's Amarok as well.

7Digital already has tight integration with Songbird. Songbird has been using them for a while now.

http://addons.songbirdnest.com/search?query=7digital

This add-on comes by default.

84Taran
February 24th, 2010, 08:50 PM
It's just the next step in Canonical's program of selling out it's original values.

I can totally see why they're doing this though. I just set up a friend's laptop as dual boot after having to do a clean install to fix a windows virus. I had to keep xp on it, because she uses iTunes and wasn't interested in learning to find mp3s through a browser. (at the time i didn't know about the amazon thing and i still haven't looked into). Making things simple and available to people who are not very computer savvy or interested in becoming so is the only way to get those people interested

kevin11951
February 24th, 2010, 09:03 PM
So these songs cost money?

Please, PLEASE, tell me your joking!

Of course these songs cost money! You want Canonical to just give songs away to you, and just absorb all the cost themselves!?

doas777
February 24th, 2010, 09:08 PM
Yes, because asking people to pay for things is evil. Everything should be free and served on a silver platter,

it's exactly as evil as not paying for something you downloaded. so either piracy AND commerce are evil, or neither is.

NCLI
February 24th, 2010, 09:13 PM
it's exactly as evil as not paying for something you downloaded. so either piracy AND commerce are evil, or neither is.
That makes absolutely no sense :huh:


Yes, because asking people to pay for things is evil. Everything should be free and served on a silver platter,
+1

Too many people confuse selling out with easy access to commercial content in order to achieve profitability.

Anyway, my expectations are this:

1. FLAC
2. No DRM(I've heard that this is already pretty much confirmed)
3. FLAC
4. Unlimited downloads(I've heard that it's currently five)
5. FLAC
6. FLAC!
7. FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC!!1!!11!!!!1!

lykwydchykyn
February 24th, 2010, 09:13 PM
I can totally see why they're doing this though. I just set up a friend's laptop as dual boot after having to do a clean install to fix a windows virus. I had to keep xp on it, because she uses iTunes and wasn't interested in learning to find mp3s through a browser. (at the time i didn't know about the amazon thing and i still haven't looked into). Making things simple and available to people who are not very computer savvy or interested in becoming so is the only way to get those people interested

This is a good point; when I see itunes installed on someone's machine, I know it's a waste of time recommending Linux. Nobody's going to give up their paid-for music collection to run another OS.

If Apple won't port iTunes to Linux, what else can you do but make a competing service? I doubt it will take much from iTunes, but at least it offers an alternative to people using Ubuntu.

As for my expectations, I would expect it to be DRM-free, not locked down to a specific OS/player, and offer (not exclusively) free formats. If it is, I might actually use it.

doas777
February 24th, 2010, 10:15 PM
That makes absolutely no sense :huh:



put on your philosophers cap, and ponder a bit on the societal purpose and function of economic systems. It'll come to you.

ssj6akshat
February 25th, 2010, 05:06 AM
Wow 21% poll takers expect more attraction to ubuntu,20% want media in Vobris and FLAC,20% want UbuntuOne Sync.12% don't plan to use it.7% don't care just want coffee.1 wants reasonable prices and one said ubuntu sucks anyway.

ssj6akshat
February 25th, 2010, 05:08 AM
IMO this would be better than iTunes IF IT HAS OPEN FORMATS.but of course it has to get Open Formats or Ubuntu haters will have one more reason that ubuntu doesn't ship with Prop codecs by default but the music store has music in MP3.

kevin11951
February 25th, 2010, 05:35 AM
From what I have read, this is the jist (spelling?) of it:


Three downloads only
Can sync with Ubuntu One, although maybe not by default
No open formats, mp3 only (*see below for my views on this)


*Ubuntu could setup a proxy farm between us and 7Digital that converts mp3's to ogg (but only if you want them as ogg vs mp3). It could store them in a file server farm as a cache if a song has already been downloaded as ogg before.

lykwydchykyn
February 25th, 2010, 05:36 AM
IMO this would be better than iTunes IF IT HAS OPEN FORMATS.but of course it has to get Open Formats or Ubuntu haters will have one more reason that ubuntu doesn't ship with Prop codecs by default but the music store has music in MP3.

Well... it would be pretty poor if it didn't work with a default, out-of-the-box install of Ubuntu. Especially since obtaining codecs legally (for many of us) involves spending at least $25 USD PER MACHINE.

I mean, look, UbuntuOne is unlikely to have the content -- and it definitely won't have the marketing or brand recognition -- to compete with iTunes, Amazon, and other established music services. What it has is recognition of millions of Linux users around the world who have limited choices in digital music providers.

If they take all the right steps to gain the respect of those users, they stand to establish a tidy niche for themselves. If they turn off the only people to whom "ubuntu" means much of anything, I don't think they'll get much traction anywhere else.

ssj6akshat
February 25th, 2010, 08:20 AM
Sign the OGG for 7digital Petition.
[http://www.petitiononline.com/ovsi7ds/petition.html

NightwishFan
February 25th, 2010, 08:29 AM
If I like the music I will pay the money. However I only would pay for open or uncompressed formats. Essentially: Vorbis, Flac and Wavpack at least 44100hz 16-bit.

3rdalbum
February 25th, 2010, 10:14 AM
Well... it would be pretty poor if it didn't work with a default, out-of-the-box install of Ubuntu. Especially since obtaining codecs legally (for many of us) involves spending at least $25 USD PER MACHINE.

Fluendo gives away its licensed MP3 decoder for free. It's even available in Synaptic.

As for the person who said "What's the difference between this and Amazon", well, you've obviously never tried to download the Amazon MP3 downloader on 64-bit, and you've obviously never tried to use the service outside the USA.

toupeiro
February 25th, 2010, 10:28 AM
Canonical said ubuntu will always be free. That does not imply that everything Canonical releases in the future which may run on ubuntu will be free. If you love the freedom of ubuntu so much (personally, I think most people care about free in the monetary sense moreso than the creative sense) then why not support the tremendous expense they undertake by making that available to you by buying a song from them instead of apple or amazon next time? .99 cents is the average cost of a single song download. Is that really going to break your bank?

Seriously people, stop being so cheap.

kevin11951
February 25th, 2010, 10:34 AM
Canonical said ubuntu will always be free. That does not imply that everything Canonical releases in the future which may run on ubuntu will be free. If you love the freedom of ubuntu so much (personally, I think most people care about free in the monetary sense moreso than the creative sense) then why not support the tremendous expense they undertake by making that available to you by buying a song from them instead of apple or amazon next time? .99 cents is the average cost of a single song download. Is that really going to break your bank?

Seriously people, stop being so cheap.

Actually, on 7Digital, the average price of a non-hit* song is $0.77 cents, so cheaper than amazon or itunes. The albums are $7.77 or cheaper for non-hits*.

*When i say "non-hit(s)" i mean a song that isnt in the top tier now, even if it was before.

Swagman
February 25th, 2010, 12:41 PM
Fluendo gives away its licensed MP3 decoder for free. It's even available in Synaptic.

As for the person who said "What's the difference between this and Amazon", well, you've obviously never tried to download the Amazon MP3 downloader on 64-bit, and you've obviously never tried to use the service outside the USA.

That'll be me. No I haven't used the 64 bit version. Experience taught me to leave 64 bit well alone (I was on Debian 64 before Ubuntu and it was a pain). As far as I know only a few things have changed since.

The Amazon downloader (32 bit) works absolutely perfectly here in UK

http://www.upload3r.com/serve/250210/1267098042.jpeg

As for the bitrate from Amazon

http://www.upload3r.com/serve/250210/1267098548.jpeg


245kbs is acceptable to me for purchased music. Obviously I'd have preferred Flac but there you go !!

Dragonbite
February 25th, 2010, 02:52 PM
Canonical said ubuntu will always be free. That does not imply that everything Canonical releases in the future which may run on ubuntu will be free. If you love the freedom of ubuntu so much (personally, I think most people care about free in the monetary sense moreso than the creative sense) then why not support the tremendous expense they undertake by making that available to you by buying a song from them instead of apple or amazon next time? .99 cents is the average cost of a single song download. Is that really going to break your bank?

Seriously people, stop being so cheap.

Basically it is Canonical providing the core (Ubuntu) but all the add-ons are either free or cost money. Sounds fully legit and acceptible.

May not make me happy, but I can't argue with the set-up.

GMU_DodgyHodgy
February 25th, 2010, 03:19 PM
I like where Ubuntu is going. If you look at Ubuntu One and the proposed music store - they are trying to create a digital ecosystem around Ubuntu/Linux. Some of these additions also provide revenue streams that help support continued development of Ubuntu/Linux.

If I can get the music I want from the music store and it integrates seemlessly with my desktop experience - I will pay for it. I pay for the storage in Ubuntu One. Been very happy.

nmccrina
February 25th, 2010, 04:07 PM
My expectations are this:

1. FLAC
2. No DRM(I've heard that this is already pretty much confirmed)
3. FLAC
4. Unlimited downloads(I've heard that it's currently five)
5. FLAC
6. FLAC!
7. FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC!!1!!11!!!!1!

I agree with this; in addition, I would expect FLAC.

scottuss
February 25th, 2010, 04:21 PM
This is a good point; when I see itunes installed on someone's machine, I know it's a waste of time recommending Linux. Nobody's going to give up their paid-for music collection to run another OS.

If Apple won't port iTunes to Linux, what else can you do but make a competing service? I doubt it will take much from iTunes, but at least it offers an alternative to people using Ubuntu.

As for my expectations, I would expect it to be DRM-free, not locked down to a specific OS/player, and offer (not exclusively) free formats. If it is, I might actually use it.

Apple wont port iTunes to Linux because Linux is an alternative to Windows. If people get annoyed with Windows and want to switch to something else, Apple wants that "something else" to be a shiny new Mac.

Also, iTunes is an abomination and it's absence from Linux is a good thing! :)

samalex
February 25th, 2010, 04:29 PM
Actually I'm looking forward to it. I still use iTunes for most of my music (running on XP via VirtualBox), but I generally remove the DRM so I can add it to my library which is in Linux.

I have bought lots of songs from Amazon as well, so I'm very much looking forward to the Ubuntu One Music Store because if it works as I hope I'll use it exclusively. Also I'm no audiophile so I'm fine with good quality MP3's.

So I have high hopes that it succeeds :)

Sam

nerdy_kid
February 25th, 2010, 05:07 PM
i dont see why people are so skeptical about this, Canonical needs some cash, and Linux needs an iTunes replacement, and Canonical is trying to fix both issues. Why the skepticism? I mean, yeah iTunes is bloated and all, but you have to admit it was a big hit none the less. In fact, if im not mistaken, iTunes is one of the main reasons windows VMs stay around (for the average user). It is for me anyway, and if Canonical could come up with a replacement then iTunes is gone for good, at least among many Linux using people.
I think this is a great idea, and i fully support it. As long as they have the music i want, then i will buy every last album from this store.

nmccrina
February 25th, 2010, 05:22 PM
Also I'm no audiophile so I'm fine with good quality MP3's.
Sam

Don't say that! If you don't care then FLAC should be just as good, and the people that do care can be happy too. :)

ikt
February 25th, 2010, 06:02 PM
Don't say that! If you don't care then FLAC should be just as good, and the people that do care can be happy too. :)

flac = big file size

I would like to see an option to get the songs in flac, but in all honesty I do not have high hopes for the music store beyond drm free mp3's and ubuntu software centre integration.

gn2
February 25th, 2010, 06:10 PM
~ May not make me happy, but I can't argue with the set-up.

I can.
Once upon a time Canonical's mission statement included a bit about promoting open source software.
Now they are using proprietary software to provide these new services.
It stinks.

FuturePilot
February 25th, 2010, 06:16 PM
I can.
Once upon a time Canonical's mission statement included a bit about promoting open source software.
Now they are using proprietary software to provide these new services.
It stinks.

But have they stopped promoting open source all together?

sudoer541
February 25th, 2010, 07:53 PM
I am a bit disappointed of the music store. I already have my music from elsewhere but they never thought of how we gonna sync our music in our flash based iPods?

castrojo
February 25th, 2010, 08:13 PM
I can.
Once upon a time Canonical's mission statement included a bit about promoting open source software.
Now they are using proprietary software to provide these new services.
It stinks.

? The plugin is all open source.

https://edge.launchpad.net/rhythmbox-ubuntuone-music-store

Chronon
February 25th, 2010, 09:28 PM
I am a bit disappointed of the music store. I already have my music from elsewhere but they never thought of how we gonna sync our music in our flash based iPods?

What? Why would a music store care about that?

gn2
February 25th, 2010, 09:42 PM
? The plugin is all open source.

https://edge.launchpad.net/rhythmbox-ubuntuone-music-store

Infrastructure and servers: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntuone

castrojo
February 25th, 2010, 10:14 PM
Infrastructure and servers: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntuone

This is a web service.

gn2
February 25th, 2010, 10:50 PM
This is a web service.

So it is.
A web service bearing the Ubuntu "brand" which is provided using proprietary software.

sudoer541
February 26th, 2010, 02:39 AM
What? Why would a music store care about that?

because, many people have iPods now and they take their music with them everywhere.

Chronon
February 26th, 2010, 07:11 AM
because, many people have iPods now and they take their music with them everywhere.

It seems like feature bloat to me. I think a music store application should deliver music to your PC library. I don't think it should be its job to cater to a particular brand of audio player (particularly one that goes out of its way to not play nicely with others).

toupeiro
February 26th, 2010, 07:20 AM
Just because they are using it as a mechanism to make money does not make it proprietary...

kevin11951
February 26th, 2010, 07:39 AM
Just because they are using it as a mechanism to make money does not make it proprietary...

No, but being closed source does make it proprietary...

Either way, I dont think being closed source is wrong as long as the right things are closed source... For example: As long as the front end installed on your pc is open source (avoiding vendor lock-in) then the back end can be as closed as you like.

gn2
February 26th, 2010, 09:50 AM
~ As long as the front end installed on your pc is open source (avoiding vendor lock-in) then the back end can be as closed as you like.

Yes and no.
In the case of Ubuntu One, the closed source nature of the backend means that one cannot use a local backend on one's own server, in order to use the open source Ubuntu One client one has to use the proprietary backend server and pay for the service.
Personally I would far rather use my own server on my own network for Ubuntu One but I can't.

kevin11951
February 26th, 2010, 09:59 AM
Yes and no.
In the case of Ubuntu One, the closed source nature of the backend means that one cannot use a local backend on one's own server, in order to use the open source Ubuntu One client one has to use the proprietary backend server and pay for the service.
Personally I would far rather use my own server on my own network for Ubuntu One but I can't.

If you used your own backend then it wouldnt be Ubuntu One

gn2
February 26th, 2010, 10:37 AM
If you used your own backend then it wouldnt be Ubuntu One

Sorry, don't understand your point.
Ubuntu One client is part of a default 10.04 installation.
To use the client software requires using a remote server.
If a local server is used how does that stop Ubuntu One client from being Ubuntu One...?

ikt
February 26th, 2010, 04:45 PM
honesty I do not have high hopes for the music store beyond drm free mp3's and ubuntu software centre integration.

ta da.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/02/ubuntuone-music-store-your-questions.html

mickie.kext
February 26th, 2010, 04:58 PM
From what I have read, this is the jist (spelling?) of it:


Three downloads only
Can sync with Ubuntu One, although maybe not by default
No open formats, mp3 only (*see below for my views on this)


*Ubuntu could setup a proxy farm between us and 7Digital that converts mp3's to ogg (but only if you want them as ogg vs mp3). It could store them in a file server farm as a cache if a song has already been downloaded as ogg before.

Do you have any link which say that there will not be FLAC? If really no FLAC, that is totally selling out.

I am not paying money for distorted music, especially not one which is distorted with patented crap. At least OGG would be good.

Excedio
February 26th, 2010, 05:08 PM
Do you have any link which say that there will not be FLAC? If really no FLAC, that is totally selling out.

I am not paying money for distorted music, especially not one which is distorted with patented crap. At least OGG would be good.

From the link directly above your reply...



Q: What are the details about the music in the Ubuntu One Music Store?

Songs purchased through the Ubuntu One Music Store are available in high quality 256 kbps (sometimes higher) MP3 audio encoding and without digital rights management (DRM). MP3 purchases can be:

burned to a CD any number of times
played through any software on any type of computer that you own that supports MP3
synced to any MP3-enabled device such as a portable music player
You may occasionally find songs in WMA format. We're working with our partner to remove these songs from the Ubuntu One Music Store. Until this is resolved, we don't recommend purchasing these songs in this format. An MP3 version can typically be found by using the store's search feature.
Some have asked for songs in other formats such as Ogg Vorbis or FLAC. Acquiring popular songs in this format was not possible at this time, but Canonical will continue to look for future opportunities to improve the quality of the songs found in the Ubuntu One Music Store.

Dragonbite
February 26th, 2010, 06:44 PM
So they are providing MP3s? I guess they'll make it easier to install or "pop-up" with the option to install Fluendo's MP3 codecs (a'la Flash in Firefox?).

scottuss
February 26th, 2010, 11:59 PM
For me, using Open Source has many advantages, and probably the main two are 1) Trust, do I trust the software? If it's Open Source, then yes, generally. 2) Is it Open in terms of Standards, and can I take load of data X and migrate it to service Y easily, and for no cost?

OK, the back-end is closed, but I trust Canonical, as far as any closed company goes, 7Digital are not gaining any access to my system and the MP3s are DRM free, so I can pretty much do what I want with them.

For me, this is fine. I don't push the whole freedom thing too far, although I can see why some people are cautious of this service. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and for those people, I'd simply recommend they don't use it (and perhaps uninstall the plug-ins and any other necessary components)

ikt
February 28th, 2010, 12:33 PM
For me, this is fine. I don't push the whole freedom thing too far

I think for most people it's fine, there does appear to be a vocal minority pushing for flac and ogg, and I think they are actually pushing for something that isn't to difficult to implement and should be implemented however I'm not aware of many phones/mp3 players supporting flac (my own htc hero doesn't) or ogg so I can see it's still a minority vote for a less useful codec which doesn't impress that many people :/

the mp3's are legal and I'm technically supporting the artists by buying them, and my speaker systems aren't good enough to notice the difference between 256k-320kbit vs flac so I don't see an issue.

gnomeuser
February 28th, 2010, 12:55 PM
I was really hoping this would give me a one click store for buying FLAC. MP3 files just aren't the same and doesn't allow me to transcode as I need without significant loss.

Add to that the dependency on Ubuntu One which seems pointless to me. Most people aren't likely to need that and it certainly isn't essential for the shopping experience. In fact it is seeming like a move that pushes out competitors in the synchronization business by bundling it unneededly with the store and disallowing alternative backends. Also you do not appear to have any way of opting out of using Ubuntu One and retaining the store capability.

Lots of people might either like me not care for synchronization as a solution or already have bought a solution with a competitor such as dropbox.

I am seriously hoping that it will be possible to develop a local storage backend as well as plugins to support other services.

Right now, this is utterly useless to me. Content isn't available in my primary format and I am forced to use a service I neither want nor need for no good reason.

NCLI
February 28th, 2010, 08:36 PM
Add to that the dependency on Ubuntu One which seems pointless to me. Most people aren't likely to need that and it certainly isn't essential for the shopping experience. In fact it is seeming like a move that pushes out competitors in the synchronization business by bundling it unneededly with the store and disallowing alternative backends. Also you do not appear to have any way of opting out of using Ubuntu One and retaining the store capability.

Lots of people might either like me not care for synchronization as a solution or already have bought a solution with a competitor such as dropbox.
It's not simply used for synchronization. Canonical is trying to make your Ubuntu One(AKA Ubuntu Single Sign-in) the one account you need for buying music, synchronizing data, etc, etc. That is, I believe, also a big part of the reason why you can't use your own backend with the service.

gnomeuser
February 28th, 2010, 08:41 PM
It's not simply used for synchronization. Canonical is trying to make your Ubuntu One(AKA Ubuntu Single Sign-in) the one account you need for buying music, synchronizing data, etc, etc. That is, I believe, also a big part of the reason why you can't use your own backend with the service.

Why does this have more than just the slight feel of evil to it?

FuturePilot
February 28th, 2010, 08:46 PM
Why does this have more than just the slight feel of evil to it?

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Feb/456 :roll:

ElSlunko
February 28th, 2010, 09:09 PM
I'm looking forward to it. I don't buy music online much and when I do it's from Amazon. This might encourage me to do so more often whenever I hear a good track somewhere.

I'm pretty sure the choice to roll out before they had made a decision on FLAC and OGG had to do with timing & capabilities. I think legalities can become rather complicated when dealing with distribution companies & I'm sure that also has something to do with the closed source back end.

But I'm sure the biggest reason is controlling user experience to protect profits.

That big brother crap is non-sense. They just want to make money by making their product attractive to the masses. We don't need to invite social activity discussions into this.

tommorris
February 28th, 2010, 09:49 PM
This is a good point; when I see itunes installed on someone's machine, I know it's a waste of time recommending Linux. Nobody's going to give up their paid-for music collection to run another OS.

Why do you presume that anyone who uses the iTunes application purchases music from the iTunes Music Store?

And, you know, iTunes does come on every Mac. Given this, there is no reason for you to suggest Linux to Mac users... :p

I'm perfectly happy to move to Linux - I actually really want to. It is some of the features of iTunes that have kept me using iTunes (and thus Mac OS) - specifically the fact that for audiobooks and podcasts, it remembers where I am and syncs that position between the computer and the iPod. See iTunes-style resume support (http://tommorris.org/wiki/iTunes%20style%20resume%20support). Everything else I'm cool with - all my development work is done with open source language implementations (Ruby, JRuby, Python, Scala, Java) and tools (Vim), and my academic work is done with LaTeX and LyX.

lykwydchykyn
February 28th, 2010, 10:36 PM
Why do you presume that anyone who uses the iTunes application purchases music from the iTunes Music Store?

And, you know, iTunes does come on every Mac. Given this, there is no reason for you to suggest Linux to Mac users... :p

Ok, let me ammend that for those who want to split hairs. When I see iTunes and a big collection of music obviously downloaded from iTunes, there's not much point in recommending them to linux. At the very least, it puts a damper on the suggestion.

gn2
March 2nd, 2010, 12:54 PM
Why does this have more than just the slight feel of evil to it?

I agree it feels that way, however I am reserving judgement till 10.04 is released.
If it isn't possible to remove Ubuntu One and the Ubuntu Software Store (Centre?), I won't be using Ubuntu anymore.

NightwishFan
March 2nd, 2010, 01:07 PM
Just uninstall the corresponding packages. I really do not see the Ubuntu project going in an ill direction. Any arguments I would make toward it just seem overly paranoid in my opinion. I would definitely like to continue to use it, though Debian is a viable option as well.

gn2
March 2nd, 2010, 01:30 PM
Just uninstall the corresponding packages. ~

Won't know what the dependencies are till the final release.
Might be easy, might not, need to wait and see.

thatguruguy
March 2nd, 2010, 02:06 PM
The music store is a rhythmbox plugin. SRSLY, just uninstall it if you don't want it.

gn2
March 2nd, 2010, 02:23 PM
The music store is a rhythmbox plugin. SRSLY, just uninstall it if you don't want it.

I want to remove the Ubuntu Software Store and Ubuntu One.
That lot is seriously more than a rythmbox plug-in. :)

Sporkman
March 2nd, 2010, 03:53 PM
http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Feb/456 :roll:

http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Feb/462

Eruaran
March 2nd, 2010, 04:29 PM
Amarok integration? Anybody?

Swagman
March 2nd, 2010, 04:51 PM
Amarok integration? Anybody?

For Gnome ?

Excedio
March 2nd, 2010, 04:53 PM
Amarok integration? Anybody?

Go for it man! Be a trailblazer and develop that plug-in! :-D