Ubuntu Philosophy

[user1397]

I made this post as a way for people to discuss ubuntu ideas and philosophies. This is more of a "that's a cool idea" type of thread, not meant for help ;)
For example, do you think linux, or ubuntu might replace windows one day?
That should start things off!

[brandoncolorado]

It should replace it!

I love how things are built to work well for one thing instead of trying to accomplish many tasks poorly.

[user1397]

It should replace it!

I love how things are built to work well for one thing instead of trying to accomplish many tasks poorly.
I agree with that 100%

[Shampyon]

I see no reasons why Linux desktops won't overtake Windows one day. All we have to do is show that it's just as profitable for the stores and hardware vendors to use Linux as MS, and Windows goes down the tube. NVIDIA are doing well with that: they're a major company giving support for Linux, which ensures more people buy their hardware, which expands their profits.

On the consumer side, Linux desktops environments are getting slicker and easier to use as time goes on, which makes them much more appealing to the average PC user. They're not losing the command line-level power they always had, which keeps their appeal for the power user.

It's really only the hardware vendor support and the lack of publicity that's holding Linux back. Everything else - helpful suport forums, crisp interface, useful packaged software* - is already in place.

*My only open source software gripe so far is GIMP. People keep saying "It's just as powerful as Photoshop!" and hey, it probably is. Difference is, Photoshop's almost totally intuitive, where GIMP makes you search and think in logical terms - not the mindset I have when I'm trying to create digital art. GIMPShop brings it a few babysteps closer, but it's got a ways to go yet.

[caffinide]

ubuntu might replace windows one day

I will love that day

[YuHoo]

To be honest, we need microsoft as much as macs and linux. Linux will never be able to dominate as much as we want. That is because the best thing for open source is generic software. The more specialized it gets, the less support you get. If you place a powerful corporation behind it that problem dissappears.

Using Ubuntu I have had many times where I go "I love how windows did this" (I mean in win2k) and other times, "god I wish I had done this earlier." Regardless, Windows has some advantages which it could capitalize on if it took the correct moves. Competing with open source in the office software is a losing battle. It's expensive and so basic that anyone can contribute if they have some programming experiance. But microsoft is like apple where they have some perks that you don't get in the open source. Macs vs Linux there is a dramatic shift in the quality of the GUI. Windows vs Linux is a speed of getting powerful tools and moving around the computer without encombrances. Face it, windows is friendlier than linux and more openly powerful than macs. It's like the middle child between the friendly smiley face and the angry incredible hulk.

This doesn't mean I don't want Linux to succeed, in fact I emphatically wish it to blossom in the consumer markets. But it won't, not yet. There is no all purpose OS. As NASA says "Faster, Better, Cheaper, choose 2." Money talks and moves much researching and advancement power that open source doesn't have. And as the day that Linux is to decide between business power buyer and consumer dumb-as-a-brick buyer, there will need to be a choice made as microsoft has to as well. So running down microsoft isn't the answer. Telling them to wake up is what we should be doing. Mac users told apple to get the intel chips and they finally did. Linux's mantra should be around yelling at the top of its lungs that there is foul play and that it will do its best until it's fixed. Then the community will find something new that's screwed up.

I'm not one to run things down. Like politics we need to construct. Derogatory remarking about microsoft and generalized bashing does nothing to get to the heart of why microsoft has faults. Linux is like civil disobediance, it will always be around, always necessary, but will not be the ultimate long term solution. It will always be raw and cutting edge to serve this purpose. To dilute this means to run away from its roots. The greatest mistake you can make is to succeed.

[user1397]

Will ubuntu always be free? Then what is canonical???

[Shampyon]

Will ubuntu always be free? Then what is canonical???
Near as I can tell it's just a group of South Africans who worked on various Open Source initiatives in the past, banding together to achieve a common goal: promote open source as a viable alternative to close source.

Edit- Re: will Ubuntu always be free?
If a commercial version of Ubuntu came out that had instant, out of the box support for all the same hardware as Windows, and had up-to-date versions of Crossover office and/or a Cedega-type gaming program, AND was under Au$100 for at least four years of updates... I'd pay for it. I'd pay that much for any OS with a wide range of hardware and software (eps. game) support.

[caffinide]

Will ubuntu always be free?

It better be *shakes fist angerly*

[IYY]

*My only open source software gripe so far is GIMP. People keep saying "It's just as powerful as Photoshop!" and hey, it probably is. Difference is, Photoshop's almost totally intuitive, where GIMP makes you search and think in logical terms - not the mindset I have when I'm trying to create digital art. GIMPShop brings it a few babysteps closer, but it's got a ways to go yet.

I actually find GIMP to nearly as intuitive as Photoshop, but it is lacking some tools that are required for professional designers. So, sometimes I have to use Photoshop in Wine (no biggie, it runs well enough).

[aysiu]

I actually find GIMP to nearly as intuitive as Photoshop, but it is lacking some tools that are required for professional designers. So, sometimes I have to use Photoshop in Wine (no biggie, it runs well enough). I don't doubt that this is true (and I've heard it many times), but can you give some specific examples of features you use as a professional designer that are lacking in GIMP? I'm just curious as to what they are (since I'm not a professional designer myself).

[WoodyMahan]

Something will eventually replace windows. Might be Ubuntu. The MS stranglehold can't last forever, but what will everyone be using in 15 years? Ubuntu has a lot to offer. I have managed to transition with relatively minor problems (having never used any sort of Linux before). But I am an IT guy, not a banker or secretary, or lawyer. Those are the people that Ubuntu needs to address. These people aren't going to spend 3 hours online looking for a way to get their wireless card setup and running. But that is one of those things that gets added to an OS as it develops through the years. Mainly it seems that a lack of familiarity is currently the main issue. People currently see Linux as the realm of geeks or geniuses. They don't know a guy down the street who knows Linux and can introduce them to it. I think it will get there because I wasn't able to intriduce anyone to it a few weeks ago and now I'm shouting from the rooftops. My 2 cents.

[KansasJoe]

The only way linux will ever get anywhere close to windows is if they get games to run because all kids play games on comp and if they're doing that on linux then when they grow up to use other programs they'll still be using linux and so on and so on....these kids will grow up to be doctors, lawyers or whatever and then they will push the linux issue.....wouldn't hurt getting the small business involved like being able to get quickbooks (or program with same capabilities) to run on linux.....get them young and that will be the only way for linux to even come close to competing with windows.

[aysiu]

I agree with the "get them while they're young" approach, but most people I know (even young people) who play games use consoles (PS2, Gamecube, XBox), not necessarily their computers. I've never heard anyone seriously convinced that Apple computers are not "ready for the desktop" or whatever because of their lack of games support (which is pretty comparable to where Linux is).

[vayu]

can you give some specific examples of features you use as a professional designer that are lacking in GIMP?

I'm not much of a designer, but I do have to design websites fairly often. I can't speak for Photoshop magicians because my skills are somewhat limited.

What I find is that the Gimp is intutive for me coming from photoshop, and that I can figure out how to do most of the things I do in Photoshop without even having to look things up.

What makes it unusable for me is that I usually have 2 pdf files, one word doc and three browser pages open while I'm designing. At the same time I will have between 12 and 20 or more image files open in Photoshop. I need to constantly look at one of the web pages or the pdfs or the word doc to see what I was given as examples and/or specs.

With Photoshop I click on the task bar and I see the doc I need, then click back to Photoshop and I'm back to my many images. With the Gimp everything gets lost all over the desktop behind everything and I can't find anything without constant arranging. I can't even use it for what I do.

I too am curious what features are missing for someone that knows Photoshop in depth, I only use a subset of its features.

[Joshuwa]

To be honest, I'd love to see Linux and open source take the lead some day.

But part of me fears that will never happen.

Linux today, while a tad bit slicker and a little easier to use, is not much different than when I was 12 years old spending hours trying to install Red Hat nearly 10 years ago.

The install is much quicker now and more things work, but it still takes a good bit of know-how to make it work correctly.

Is your aunt going to be able to install linux (partition her drive, install linux, configure the necessary packages, etc) with the same quickness and ease she'd experience with OS X? No way.

And OS X and Windows are only going to get better as time goes on. No doubt linux will as well, but linux taking the lead isn't going to happen over night and it's not going to happen easy.

Linux neads to develop faster, and become more effecient, easier, and overall 'better' at a quicker rate than OS X and Windows are improving.

As much as I love linux/open source, I can't, in good conscience, imagine that being any time soon.

20 years from now, if Linux is not dead on-par with the competition, then it is only going to be left far in the dust.

At the point, I think it would be best to focus the intelligence and collaberation of the community on whatever the most people are using rather than try to save a sinking ship.

[Iandefor]

The install is much quicker now and more things work, but it still takes a good bit of know-how to make it work correctly. People's experiences with Linux in the realm of set-up vary wildly. I find I don't really have to know that much at all about how Linux works to get it working fine.


Is your aunt going to be able to install linux (partition her drive, install linux, configure the necessary packages, etc) with the same quickness and ease she'd experience with OS X? No way. OS X comes preinstalled on Apple computers, so that's a poor example. And just about everything you mentioned- partition drive, install linux, configure necessary packages, and the wonderfully vague "etc" is handled by the installer. Ubuntu's installer, for instance, has a default partitioning option which works for almost everybody. Ubuntu's installer handles packages configuration, and it also installs linux- hence the term "Installer" ;).


And OS X and Windows are only going to get better as time goes on. No doubt linux will as well, but linux taking the lead isn't going to happen over night and it's not going to happen easy.

Linux neads to develop faster, and become more effecient, easier, and overall 'better' at a quicker rate than OS X and Windows are improving.
Only if, as a long term goal, Linux wants to beat out Windows and OS X. I've never really seen that attitude among the Linux community, except for a small minority. And Linux already develops much, much faster than either OS X or Windows.



As much as I love linux/open source, I can't, in good conscience, imagine that being any time soon.

20 years from now, if Linux is not dead on-par with the competition, then it is only going to be left far in the dust. Not gonna happen. There are more markets for Linux than the desktop market, and Linux makes enough people in some of those markets happy to leave it with a significant share of those markets- eg, the server market. And Linux is already more modern than Windows- by a long shot. Can't really talk about OS X, since I don't really use it much, but either way, Linux is in no way about to be left in the dust.

[aysiu]

Is your aunt going to be able to install linux (partition her drive, install linux, configure the necessary packages, etc) with the same quickness and ease she'd experience with OS X? No way. OS X is built specifically for the hardware it's installed upon and vice versa. Linux is usually installed on hardware that's designed for Windows.

[Joshuwa]

People's experiences with Linux in the realm of set-up vary wildly. I find I don't really have to know that much at all about how Linux works to get it working fine.

OS X comes preinstalled on Apple computers, so that's a poor example.


While OS X comes preinstalled, it, like Linux, does have installer disks and can be installed by the user (new drive, failure, etc).

The install process, of which I am speaking, is MUCH more streamlined and effecient in OS X. You can pretty much pop in the disk and walk away.

No need to understand the root partition, swap, ext2 vs ext3, etc. These things are meaningless to the average person. A modern OS is one that is easily understood by the common person, yet is advanced so the more inclined aren't held back. Linux is not here yet.

OS X can be installed very quickly, and anyone from professional photographers, developers, and 6 year olds can begin doing work on the OS within minutes of the install completion.

The fact that this would be impossible (save for developers) in Linux is part of the issue I'm talking about. I'm not saying Linux is bad, I'm saying it's got a way to go.



Only if, as a long term goal, Linux wants to beat out Windows and OS X. I've never really seen that attitude among the Linux community, except for a small minority. And Linux already develops much, much faster than either OS X or Windows.

If this were true, why is it that Linux has so many problems with getting things to work? If it were developing faster, OS X and Windows would be taking hints from Linux and trying to follow. I surely don't see this happening; I see the opposite.

Infact, just recently the Linux desktop has shown a primative version of 3d-like features that OS X has had for years.

By "developing faster," I don't mean the rate at which versions of code are submitted to CVS, or that legacy versions are being built upon. I mean the rate at which the OS as a whole improves.

(Example: font support in Linux. Such a tiny thing, yet it has remained stagnant for years upon years. I have yet to see a Linux system (with a gui) that has 100% font consistency and clearity. Some apps here and there will do it right, but there are others who entirely get it wrong. Though this can be manually fixed by the users, the need for that to be done tells me that this OS is still not modern, and by no means developing faster than OS X or Windows).

If everyone convinces themselves that Linux is the best OS and is perfect the way it is, then that implies there is nothing to fix, and like has been the case - even though some sort of development has occured - the OS seems to remain unchanged. Linux still seems like the "geeks" OS; not the doctor's OS, not the kids' OS, not uncle Joe's OS, not the lawyer's OS, etc. Linux is an OS for people who like to work on there computer. I'd like to see it as an OS for people who work from their computer.

The only area I see where Linux is clearly ahead of the others is in its open-source and free philosophy that's focused on the community.

[YuHoo]

Originally Posted by Joshuwa
If everyone convinces themselves that Linux is the best OS and is perfect the way it is, then that implies there is nothing to fix, and like has been the case - even though some sort of development has occured - the OS seems to remain unchanged.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The intelligent minority is what is advancing linux faster than windows because they enjoy doing it for the challenge. It seems like everyone else is out to spite the big bad Microsoft counter culture.I joined Linux because I wanted something that I could change, even if it is hard, it is more open than windows. I think that Linux needs to be reexamined for what are we as a community and what we're trying to do with it. I'd rather sacrifice some popularity in favor of embracing the roots of power and flexibility. If I want ease of use I'll probably alwasy go with Apple (they're just so good:mrgreen: ) And I don't think that we should try to have a long term goal of beating Microsoft. We need to have a long term goal of making an operating system that is simply the best in all markets and more importantly enjoy the ride of getting there.

[Iandefor]

No need to understand the root partition, swap, ext2 vs ext3, etc. These things are meaningless to the average person. A modern OS is one that is easily understood by the common person, yet is advanced so the more inclined aren't held back. Linux is not here yet.

The thing is, users don't need to understand filesystem nomenclature in order to get Linux installed. Just about all the installers I've seen have a "Recommended" setup for just about all their configuration options, and they work fine.



OS X can be installed very quickly, and anyone from professional photographers, developers, and 6 year olds can begin doing work on the OS within minutes of the install completion.
It all depends on what kind of hardware you're trying to install Linux on and which distribution you're using. If you're using hardware that isn't supported at all by Linux, what can you expect? If you're using a distribution that doesn't have the right drivers available, what can you expect?


If this were true, why is it that Linux has so many problems with getting things to work? If it were developing faster, OS X and Windows would be taking hints from Linux and trying to follow. I surely don't see this happening; I see the opposite.
Because a company that will write drivers for Linux is a relatively rare thing, and a company that will release the hardware specifications so that the community can write the driver is even rarer.
It has nothing to do with the quality of the operating system or the kernel.



Infact, just recently the Linux desktop has shown a primative version of 3d-like features that OS X has had for years.

By "developing faster," I don't mean the rate at which versions of code are submitted to CVS, or that legacy versions are being built upon. I mean the rate at which the OS as a whole improves.

Which OS? You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that Linux is an operating system. It's not. It's a kernel. All the distributions you see are separate operating systems built on a common kernel. And Microsoft's track record on "3d-like" effects is even worse than Linux's- Linux has the option, Windows does not. Vista won't be released for a little under a year, and it's holding Linux to a double standard to complain that it's behind OS X in terms of eyecandy while completely ignoring the fact that Windows' interface hasn't changed in five years.

The kernel devs have nothing on the XGL developers, so if you think that the rate at which the GUI evolves (Rather than the Linux kernel, which you seem to be criticizing) is too slow, go to the people working on XGL, but don't call it a fault in Linux.



(Example: font support in Linux. Such a tiny thing, yet it has remained stagnant for years upon years. I have yet to see a Linux system (with a gui) that has 100% font consistency and clearity. Some apps here and there will do it right, but there are others who entirely get it wrong. Though this can be manually fixed by the users, the need for that to be done tells me that this OS is still not modern, and by no means developing faster than OS X or Windows).

Again, not a fault in Linux, and, again, people's experiences vary wildly on this. I've never had a problem with fonts before, nor have the majority of people I know who use Linux.

[mstlyevil]

OS X can be installed very quickly, and anyone from professional photographers, developers, and 6 year olds can begin doing work on the OS within minutes of the install completion.

How is installing OSX a fair comparison when both the Operating System and the hardware are closed formats? Try installing OSX on a non Apple PC and you will run into a lot worse problems due to lack of hardware drivers and support. Linux is far superior to OSX in the area of hardware detection and configuration.

Let me see your 6 year old and elderly grandma install OSX on a regular PC. I know both kids and elderly people that have no problems installing Ubuntu using the default automated partitioning. When Apple opens up OSX to be installed on all hardware and not just it's own, then you can make a fair comparison.

[briancurtin]

Is your aunt going to be able to install linux (partition her drive, install linux, configure the necessary packages, etc) with the same quickness and ease she'd experience with OS X? No way.
thats like asking "is your aunt going to be able to install a chevy motor in a ford car as fast as she can install a chevy motor in a chevy car?"

[aysiu]

Can we all agree that these comparisons to installing OS X are ridiculous?

Seriously.

It's like having a Toshiba DVD player and comparing "setting up" a Toshiba remote control with it to setting up a universal remote control with it.

Toshiba is made to work with Toshiba. Universal remote controls try to work with everything, but not everything wants to work with the universal (trust me--we have a "universal" remote that doesn't work with our Samsung DVD player).

Mac OS X is designed for Apple hardware.
Apple hardware is designed with Mac OS X in mind.
Why is that hard for people to grasp?

Linux distros tend to be "universal remotes"--they're trying to interface with a whole bunch of hardware of varying types that are generally not designed with Linux in mind.

I would urge people to disregard any further comparisons to the "installation" of Mac OS X.

[Joshuwa]

News flash:

OS X is still software, that still installs on hardware, just like linux.

Linux installs on the hardware it was made to, and OS X installs on the harware it was made to.

No one is making the comparison of installing one on the other's hardware, and as such, the comparison is completely valid.

Making such petty ributals as "Well, of course it doesn't install the same since Apple designed the hardware." are entirely insignificant.

1) Apple does not make the hardware.
2) Both OS's are designed to work with their target hardware.

To claim that this is not a fair comparison is the same as saying that linux does not install on it's target hardware as easily as OS X installs on its, in which case my point remains.

Remove the fanboy goggles and simple points are easy to get.

[AndrewCaul]

Can we all agree that these comparisons to installing OS X are ridiculous?

Seriously.

It's like having a Toshiba DVD player and comparing "setting up" a Toshiba remote control with it to setting up a universal remote control with it.

Toshiba is made to work with Toshiba. Universal remote controls try to work with everything, but not everything wants to work with the universal (trust me--we have a "universal" remote that doesn't work with our Samsung DVD player).

Mac OS X is designed for Apple hardware.
Apple hardware is designed with Mac OS X in mind.
Why is that hard for people to grasp?

Linux distros tend to be "universal remotes"--they're trying to interface with a whole bunch of hardware of varying types that are generally not designed with Linux in mind.

I would urge people to disregard any further comparisons to the "installation" of Mac OS X.
Exactly. (Most) Linux distros are not trying to be Windows or Mac OS X. They are different operating systems using different kernels with a very different philosophy (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html).
As more hardware and software companies start to embrace free software (http://www.fsf.org/), installing and using Linux distros should become easier. Whether companies are willing to do that remains to be seen.

[aysiu]

Making such petty ributals as "Well, of course it doesn't install the same since Apple designed the hardware." are entirely insignificant. No, they're not.



1) Apple does not make the hardware. But they commission it. Intel is never going to pump out an Apple computer that Mac OS X won't install on. Dell will, however, make plenty of computers not designed for Linux distributions.



2) Both OS's are designed to work with their target hardware. But both don't have hardware designed to work with the software. Take, for example, a PowerPC Mac that has an Airport Extreme wireless card. The driver for that card is closed source. Who has the source? Apple. Who do they release it to? Themselves only. Who designs Mac OS X? Apple. So is it any wonder that Mac OS X can use that Airport Extreme wireless card out of the box and Linux can't?



Remove the fanboy goggles and simple points are easy to get. Remove the anti-fanboy goggles and live in the real world. Some things are designed to work with each other. Others are designed to work with things they are not supposed to work with. Ubuntu has no idea what computer you'll install it to. The x86 edition could be installed on a Dell, an HP, a put-it-together-yourself... all sorts of hardware combinations. Almost every purchased Mac OS X operating system will be installed an Apple-designed and Apple-approved computer produced by IBM or Intel specifically for Mac OS X's specifications.

Your failure to acknowledge this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about what's involved in designing software for hardware. If the drivers for the hardware are not released, it's very difficult to design software for it.

When I was growing up, there was a card game very popular among my friends, and the game was called Mao (http://www.pagat.com/eights/mao.html). One of the rules of Mao was that you couldn't explain the rules of Mao to someone else. Naturally, my friends were better at playing the game with each other than I was at playing it.

Apple and its hardware manufacturing partner are playing their own game of Mao. It's a wonderful achievement that Ubuntu and other Linux distributions work at all with the Mao computers of the Windows and Mac worlds.

[mstlyevil]

News flash:

OS X is still software, that still installs on hardware, just like linux.

Linux installs on the hardware it was made to, and OS X installs on the harware it was made to.

No one is making the comparison of installing one on the other's hardware, and as such, the comparison is completely valid.

Making such petty ributals as "Well, of course it doesn't install the same since Apple designed the hardware." are entirely insignificant.

1) Apple does not make the hardware.
2) Both OS's are designed to work with their target hardware.

To claim that this is not a fair comparison is the same as saying that linux does not install on it's target hardware as easily as OS X installs on its, in which case my point remains.

Remove the fanboy goggles and simple points are easy to get.

Just by the content of this post I can surmise that you are the one with the fanboy goggles on.

[blueturtl]

For example, do you think Linux, or Ubuntu might replace Windows one day?

My bet is that by natural selection Linux and other open and/or more fully featured operating systems will replace Windows in the long run. Why? Because Windows just doesn't cut it. It's primitive. It's an imitation. A perversion if you will, of what good computing should be. All of the good things people attribute to Windows have to do with it's dominant position in the market (and this position was acquired by clever advertising and management, not by being best). Once you strip Microsoft of it's monopoly, there aren't very many good things to say about the software in itself. A good example of this would be how we continually have to tune our computers so they'd at least keep working! Ever since I used DOS I became accustomed to replacing MS apps with superior (and often even free) counterparts to improve my computing experience. Starting with commandline utilities, bit by bit by bit I'd replace things in the system so that it was very little MS and pretty much everything else. Oh and everytime there'd be an MS upgrade you'd have to be afraid of it breaking something else.

I remember Microsoft's diskcopy utility. No matter how much RAM the system had it would still only copy a floppy disk in parts. I had to be switching disks all the time. It didn't strike me as stupid back then because I knew of no better way, but obviously now I know even back then better functionality could have been (and propably was) available.

MS still suffers of the same kind of stupid problems. My head aches whenever I see people using WindowsXP. It's such a fix. Nothing is simple or well designed by default. You start using the system by fixing all the poor design decisions (that you can) and installing a bunch of "must-have" applications while trying to remove or disable MS ones. Windows firewall? Useless. Internet Explorer? Turn that thing off before you get your computer full of malware! User documents are by default on the same partition as program files so in case you'd happen to reinstall you'll have to do some serious moving around (if you're not knowledgeable enough to save them on a different drive in the first place). All these are just the tip of the iceberg. Yes Windows can be secure and easy and even functional, but all that comes at a hefty price tag and a lot of time and dedication.

Ubuntu already is easier and I have a firm belief that MS will eventually lose it's top-dog position. The amount of people who know how to troubleshoot Linux installs and do things is on the increase which means the average Joes who seek convenience will more often find their calls for help answered. What do the people using Windows do? They call their next door neighbor, Billy the geek to come over and fix their computer. Except in the future Billy is more likely to be a user of Linux and he'll go "How about away with all them spywares and viruses and stuff? I can install this one program that does all the same things but it does them better; it's called Linux." I don't see why this couldn't be happening already. :)

P.S. Don't say games. :mrgreen:

[simon_is_learning]

I have been thinking about the future of modern OS.
When Vista is released I think stuff will start to change.

In the future the cildren will learn in school that a computer isn't windows.
A computer is hardware and a OS is something necessary for it all to work.

Ubuntu is one Linux Distro, and we shouldn't stare us self blind on ubuntu. Suse and Red Hat is large distros to, we should work together otherwise windows will be a superior choice of that reason. Windows or choose between 20 different distros.
the .deb and .rpm is something not user-friendly from my point of view. Someday it should come a ."linux-standard" as a alternative to .exe

A whole lot of complaints there - I'm no negative person it's just some small stuff I have thought about.

Am I wrong?

[user1397]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. The intelligent minority is what is advancing linux faster than windows because they enjoy doing it for the challenge. It seems like everyone else is out to spite the big bad Microsoft counter culture.I joined Linux because I wanted something that I could change, even if it is hard, it is more open than windows. I think that Linux needs to be reexamined for what are we as a community and what we're trying to do with it. I'd rather sacrifice some popularity in favor of embracing the roots of power and flexibility. If I want ease of use I'll probably alwasy go with Apple (they're just so good:mrgreen: ) And I don't think that we should try to have a long term goal of beating Microsoft. We need to have a long term goal of making an operating system that is simply the best in all markets and more importantly enjoy the ride of getting there.
Wise Words.

[Stormy Eyes]

the .deb and .rpm is something not user-friendly from my point of view. Someday it should come a ."linux-standard" as a alternative to .exe

I won't speak for distros that use RPM, but under Debian and its derivatives, you shouldn't be installing individual .deb files under normal circumstances. You're supposed to use the repositories and either apt-get or a GUI front-end to APT.

[Iandefor]

News flash:

OS X is still software, that still installs on hardware, just like linux.

Linux installs on the hardware it was made to, and OS X installs on the harware it was made to. Linux isn't made for any single piece of hardware- Mac OS X is. In fact, in terms of hardware detection, Linux is better than OS X- try to install OS X on a PC on which Linux works flawlessly and see how it goes. Conversely, install Linux on an Apple and see which has a broader range of hardware support.



Making such petty ributals as "Well, of course it doesn't install the same since Apple designed the hardware." are entirely insignificant.

1) Apple does not make the hardware.
2) Both OS's are designed to work with their target hardware.

Apple doesn't make all the hardware. But they do have full access to all the specifications they need to make fully-functioning drivers for their hardware, which doesn't change too much across the board. And you keep talking about Linux's target hardware. What, pray tell, is Linux's target hardware? Linux will run on pretty much anything with a microprocessor if it has the right drivers- hell, I remember hearing a while back about a Linux-based parking meter being used in Canada. So, is Linux's target hardware anything with a microprocessor?


To claim that this is not a fair comparison is the same as saying that linux does not install on it's target hardware as easily as OS X installs on its, in which case my point remains. Linux has no single piece of target hardware. If you download and install Ubuntu onto a random computer, there's no way to ensure you're using hardware for which drivers exist. It's the hardware makers' decision to provide drivers/specifications or not. Don't complain about it on a Linux forum.

[YuHoo]

Ok, comparing Linux to macs over the determination of installation has nothing to do with philosophy. It has only to do with massaging our egos for switching to Linux. And in terms of macs vs linux, macs win the race of usablity. You put my mom in front of a mac and she'll start using it right away and also be able to install software. She's tried it, it took all of 5 seconds to switch from PC to mac. She's also tried Linux. She gave up after 3 hours. Macs = Happy Non-Techsavy Users ; Linux = Happy Techsavy Users. That's all that needs to be said.

As for the Linux vs Windows debate. It comes to what you've grown up with. My brother in law always used DOS, Win95, and even the first distros of Linux. Switching to WinXP was not hard for him though. The GUI in Windows does not limit you with super administrative rights nor does it layer itself like Linux does. This makes maneuvering around it very simple with the mouse, it also makes it incredibly vulnerable. It really comes down to what you are used to (GUI or text) and what you want (power and control = linux, ease and compatability = windows). As a community we need to address this with multiple distributions that cover different area. That is how we will win, by offering the choice between many options. Right now the differences are small and known only to those who are familiar with it. In the future it will become custom tailored Linux distros for SOHOs, Home user, Power user, etc...


The amount of people who know how to troubleshoot Linux installs and do things is on the increase which means the average Joes who seek convenience will more often find their calls for help answered. What do the people using Windows do? They call their next door neighbor, Billy the geek to come over and fix their computer.
P.S. I'd estimate only 1 in 10 know how to trouble shoot well, and maybe 1 in 1000 who actually enjoy doing it all the time for the other 9 who know squat. When all those 1s switch to Linux, the other 9 will say to hell with them and call Dell's customer support.

[aysiu]

Ok, comparing Linux to macs over the determination of installation has nothing to do with philosophy. It has only to do with massaging our egos for switching to Linux. And in terms of macs vs linux, macs win the race of usablity. You put my mom in front of a mac and she'll start using it right away and also be able to install software. She's tried it, it took all of 5 seconds to switch from PC to mac. She's also tried Linux. She gave up after 3 hours. Macs = Happy Non-Techsavy Users ; Linux = Happy Techsavy Users. That's all that needs to be said. Your mom was switching from Windows.

Linux is entirely different. Mac is a little different.

It's like saying Chinese is too difficult because someone natively speaks French and was able to pick up Spanish easily. Chinese requires not only a new vocabulary, syntax, and grammar, but an entirely different way of thinking about language. In Chinese, the tones don't indicate only the meaning of the sentence but can also entirely change the meaning of the word. In Chinese, there's no alphabet--every word is a character or a combination of characters.

Switching from Windows to Mac isn't that difficult because they're not that different--at least when compared to Linux.

Sure, Linux and Mac share a *nix core, but your mom doesn't see the core--she sees the interface.

And this really has nothing to do with the previous discussion at all, which was about the ease of installation.

[Iandefor]

I think this thread has strayed wildly enough. Anybody mind if I take it back to the original topic?



For example, do you think linux, or ubuntu might replace windows one day?


Nope. I think/hope it'll take a sizable chunk out of the Microsoft market, but I don't think it'll overtake Windows. But it'll probably take a more multimedia-capable distribution to outstrip Windows. And Linux PVR software needs to catch up in terms of stability (I dunno about Freevo, but MythTV is still in early beta!) in order for Linux to start catching up to Windows in terms of user base.

@Aysiu: I agree with you regarding ease of use. And I really like the language analogy- it works particularly well.

[az]

In the future the cildren will learn in school that a computer isn't windows.
A computer is hardware and a OS is something necessary for it all to work.

Ubuntu is one Linux Distro, and we shouldn't stare us self blind on ubuntu. Suse and Red Hat is large distros to, we should work together otherwise windows will be a superior choice of that reason. Windows or choose between 20 different distros.
the .deb and .rpm is something not user-friendly from my point of view. Someday it should come a ."linux-standard" as a alternative to .exe

...
Am I wrong?


Getting back to the point, it's all about the source.

Yes, you are wrong. The question, however, should be about proprietary versus free-libre software and not Ubuntu versus Vista, since that is the only fundemental difference between the OSes discussed. The question is, on what side of the intellectual property fence their authors live.

People write software for a lot of reasons. Usually it's to solve a problem. The free-libre development philosophy is that you shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel every other day.

Software is a bunch of ideas that take shape in the form of code. Since there are usually not a whole lot of ways to solve the same problem, it doesn't make sense to claim some code as your property just because you wrote it first. It is easily argued that anyone else trying to solve the same problem would write the same - or very similar code.

There is also the reality that it should be a fundemental right to be able to know what your computer is doing. Your computer is useless without software. Likewise, if you don't konw what the software is doing, you do not know what your computer is doing with your data. This is another aspect of software freedom. You should be free to obtain the source code and inspect it as well as to improve it and pass it along.

There are a lot of practical repercussions involved with open source. People can "stand on the shoulders of giants" and use existing code to build their applications. People can audit the code and pass along bug fixes and security patches. You can make two things work together because you can have access to how they are built. In general, you get more choice.

So that fact that there are several linux distributions is irrelevant. Hardware vendors should not have to worry about which distro their drivers will support. If they release the source code under a free-libre licence, they will work in *all* of the linux distributions.

The problem arises when you conflict software vendors with free-libre software projects. Poeple who deal with selling software cannot reconcile the idea of making money but not being able to sell their software.

The free-libre software programmer makes money by writing code and supporting the software (professional services - maintenance, customisations, etc..)

It will just be a matter of time before free-libre software competes enough for the tables to turn. Right now, it is the freakish little application that is "free" (often not free but freeware or shareware).

In time, you will probably see people who are not willing to pay for the software and then pay again for the services that go with it.

I'm seeing the future as software being free-libre and if someone wants to sell software without releasing the code to the public, that will raise an eyebrow and people will think of it as the freakish little application which is (by definition) unsupported and may not always be compatible with other software, unlike code distributed in source form.

[KiwiNZ]

For me its not important if its free or proprietary.Its all about providing high quality software that does what the user needs it to do when they want it to do it.

I dont believe that free is the holy grail and I dont believe proprietary is the only answer. Both can live side by side and offer ....choice.

And I dont see it as sinfull to make money from software.

[az]

I dont believe that free is the holy grail and I dont believe proprietary is the only answer. Both can live side by side and offer ....choice..

While I don't go around telling people they are naughty because they use proprietary software, I don't think that the two can coexist for very long. If something is just as viable an option and is free, why pay for it?

All that free-libre software needs to be more compelling to users is more people to use it which in turn provides more people contributing to it. Like a snowball. I don't assume that there are any strategies that current proprietary software vendors can use to stop that, only slow it down.

Another example is google. Why isn't one of the pay-for web seach services the number one web-search service on the net? Because you already have an excellent (many, actually) ressource available for free.




And I dont see it as sinfull to make money from software.

Who said that? I do thing it is morally objectionable to remove user's rights. I think it is a right to be able to know what my computer is doing with my data.

In that respect, is that what you mean? You don't have a moral problem with software being property? If so, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with making money from it. You can happily make money from free-libre software by supporting it.

[Patrick-Ruff]

Ah yes, the Linux vs All Other OSes race. I'll admit its pretty much up there but there is no way its going to hit the lead any time soon. Main issues holding linux down? Lack of user friendly everything basicly. Lack of hardware support. Lack of drivers, Lack of compatable software. the thing is, everyone is under the false illusion of Linux being the programmers/hackers OS that is too hard for the general public, that has obviously changed quite a bit (not completely but to a good extent). Linux isant pre-loaded onto most computers..yet. What linux needs is to have companys like Dell HP Acer giving the option to load a certain Linux distro onto it. Ubuntu is by far the best one that could possibly be loaded onto it, Ubuntu Kubuntu Xubuntu all them. Best community. I would be enjoying Ubuntu more if I had modem drivers that worked 100%... but I have the Linuxant modem drivers that limit me to 14.4kbs unless I pay them 20 bucks, which is insane and I'm obviously not going to do it. iono tho, I never figured out how to use ndiswrapper 100% completely. but yes, linux has many opsticles to overcome, but it looks like its going to be a large battle between Mac and Windows. Apple being the makers of the iPod brought people to Macs and then they discovered them being the best for photo/media editing and that led tuns of people to them. but yeah thats gonna be interesting to watch. Apple is a pretty awesome OS I'll have to admit, I used it and I was instantly addicted. possibly because of the UI. which is insanely awesome, its becomming more popular and all that, I'll prolly only buy one for a work computer but yeah thats how it goes. best to work on. Linux distros will eventually reach this stage, but with all desktop enviornments they all have they're disabilitys. that can be fixed with tuns of work. like KDE is pretty buggy graphically but it has a great concept. Gnome isant the best to look at you know as far as eye candy, but it can be fixed up with themes and all that but most people don't like going through all that stuff, and it all will inevitabilly lead to problems as far as the ubuntu or whatever distro's os is like now.


but you know, there will be a larger battle between all 3 of them soon. especially since google is making a linux OS.

[Artemio]

"Switching from Windows to Mac isn't that difficult because they're not that different--at least when compared to Linux."

Here I will not agree. I used Windows for 1 year, then Linux for 4 years and now I am in front of a Mac with OS X. I can say that Linux is somewhere in between Windows and OS X when it comes to the interface. Both KDE and GNOME took some ideas from both Win and Mac, and added some own (great) things. I would say Linux is closer to Mac OS just because it's UNIX. Mac is still much closer to Linux than to Windows I think.

[aysiu]

Here I will not agree. I used Windows for 1 year, then Linux for 4 years and now I am in front of a Mac with OS X. I can say that Linux is somewhere in between Windows and OS X when it comes to the interface. Both KDE and GNOME took some ideas from both Win and Mac, and added some own (great) things. I would say Linux is closer to Mac OS just because it's UNIX. Mac is still much closer to Linux than to Windows I think. In terms of structure, Mac and Linux, of course, share the same *nix base, but there are several key differences between Mac and Linux / similarities between Windows and Mac that would throw people off, I think:

1. Installing software. Mac is similar to Windows in this respect--you buy a CD or download an installer from a website and go through an installation wizard. In Linux, you almost never do this. You either use a package manager, manually install a .deb or .rpm, or compile from source.

2. Buying hardware. Sure, Windows has a lot more hardware support (think printers, scanners, etc.) than Mac, but even Mac at least has some vendors marking explicitly on the box that the hardware is "Mac-compatible." If you want to know if a piece of hardware is Linux-compatible, you've either got to hope (most likely in vain) that a salesperson at a computer store would actually know what the hell she's talking about or do some research on-line for some Linux hardware compatibility lists.

3. Support. In my experience, every Mac user knows another Mac user who can help troubleshoot her problems, and every Windows user knows another Windows user who can help troubleshoot her problems. And when I say "know," I mean "know in person." Linux has excellent online support (these forums, for example), but it's still online--a totally different way of thinking.

4. Preinstalled. Whether you buy from Apple or Dell, it's very likely that with both Windows and Mac, you'll have your operating system preinstalled. The vast majority of Linux users install their own operating systems.

5. Command-line. Related to #4--if you have to install and configure your own operating system (unless you're using Linspire), it's very likely that at some point you're going to have to touch the command-line. In Mac and Windows, you almost never have to--it's all point-and-click.

6. Multiple Desktop Environments. In Mac, there's the Aqua. In Windows, there's Luna/Silver/Classic (basically just different colors for the same desktop). In Linux, there's KDE, Gnome, XFCE... and don't forget all the window managers (IceWM, Fluxbox, Enlightenment). Again--a totally different way of thinking.

My point about Mac being similar to Windows isn't in its look and feel or its underlying structure--it's the entire computer user experience.

[user1397]

6. Multiple Desktop Environments. In Mac, there's the Aqua. In Windows, there's Luna/Silver/Classic (basically just different colors for the same desktop). In Linux, there's KDE, Gnome, XFCE... and don't forget all the window managers (IceWM, Fluxbox, Enlightenment). Again--a totally different way of thinking.

I'm interested in which windows environment goes with which os. for ex. does luna go with vista and silver go with xp and classic go with 2000 and down?

[mstlyevil]

6. Multiple Desktop Environments. In Mac, there's the Aqua. In Windows, there's Luna/Silver/Classic (basically just different colors for the same desktop). In Linux, there's KDE, Gnome, XFCE... and don't forget all the window managers (IceWM, Fluxbox, Enlightenment). Again--a totally different way of thinking.

I'm interested in which windows environment goes with which os. for ex. does luna go with vista and silver go with xp and classic go with 2000 and down?

Luna is XP's DE. Silver is one of three color options for Luna. (Blue, Silver, and Olive.)

[user1397]

Luna is XP's DE. Silver is one of three color options for Luna. (Blue, Silver, and Olive.)
Ah I see.....

[Bob Gould]

Another example is google. Why isn't one of the pay-for web seach services the number one web-search service on the net? Because you already have an excellent (many, actually) ressource available for free.

Who said that? I do thing it is morally objectionable to remove user's rights. I think it is a right to be able to know what my computer is doing with my data.



Which is it really? How can you tout the virtues of Google on one hand & say what you have about users' rights? What about Google copying your files to their servers? Do you know what they are doing with those files? Do you take their word for it?

[user1397]

Which is it really? How can you tout the virtues of Google on one hand & say what you have about users' rights? What about Google copying your files to their servers? Do you know what they are doing with those files? Do you take their word for it?
What do you mean? So what are they doing with those files?

[Iandefor]

Which is it really? How can you tout the virtues of Google on one hand & say what you have about users' rights? What about Google copying your files to their servers? Do you know what they are doing with those files? Do you take their word for it? Pardon me if I sound rude, but take a ****ing chill pill, dude.

Do you have any evidence Google is abusing files left on their servers? If you don't, then your case immediately weakens. You already sound like a conspiracy theorist. "Google's doing something naughty with your files! But I don't know what it is! And I'm going to ignore the fact that your files are being stored on their server with your prior knowledge and consent and you have to start using a feature not automatically enabled on google desktop search!"

[Bob Gould]

Pardon me if I sound rude, but take a ****ing chill pill, dude.

Do you have any evidence Google is abusing files left on their servers? If you don't, then your case immediately weakens. You already sound like a conspiracy theorist. "Google's doing something naughty with your files! But I don't know what it is! And I'm going to ignore the fact that your files are being stored on their server with your prior knowledge and consent and you have to start using a feature not automatically enabled on google desktop search!"

My original point I was trying to make re AZZ's post was that he seems to have a double standard regarding Google who are colluding with the Chinese government to restrict access of Chinese computer users. First he touts their services then states he thinks it's morally objectionable to remove users' rights which is precisely what Google have done in China. Is this a case of if it doesn't affect me I couldn't give a damn?

Google don't need to copy other people's files to their servers to provide the service they do. Other search engines don't. Maybe some do but most don't.

It's like Yahoo!'s TOS for Yahoogroups where they claim intellectual property rights for anything on their servers. Other email group providers don't do it.

[bjweeks]

What do you mean? So what are they doing with those files?

Ditto this is just fud.

[Iandefor]

My point is they don't need to copy other people's files to their servers to provide the service they do. Other search engines don't. Maybe some do but most don't.

It's like Yahoo!'s TOS for Yahoogroups where they claim intellectual property rights for anything on their servers. Other email group providers don't do it.It's true they don't need to. But it's a design decision. They have latitude there. Anywho, I believe the rationale is so that your search isn't limited to just a LAN. You could search across your remote machines, too.

[DarkED]

Personally I love Ubuntu, but I need Windows for some things. As current trends go, it looks like I'll have to keep it around for some time, Windows just has that compatibility I need for games/level design and such.

I use Windows to play games and work on the Unreal engine, and Ubuntu for everything else (so long the hardware I am using works in Ubuntu.)

[Bob Gould]

Since this is a thread on Ubuntu philosophy & this is only my 2nd visit to the forum I'd like to know what Ubuntu means to people. And I'm talking about the philosophy, not their preferred desktops, as it is stated on the Ubuntu Home site.

How do people understand the application of the following statement?

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.

[user1397]

Since this is a thread on Ubuntu philosophy & this is only my 2nd visit to the forum I'd like to know what Ubuntu means to people. And I'm talking about the philosophy, not their preferred desktops, as it is stated on the Ubuntu Home site.

How do people understand the application of the following statement?

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world.
It basically means that ubuntu is a very user-friendly linux distro that brings the "spirit" of linux and its freedom.

[user1397]

So who actually sponsors ubuntu? Is it Canonical or some rich guy?

[white_tiger_daniel]

It should replace it!

I love how things are built to work well for one thing instead of trying to accomplish many tasks poorly.
AMEN to that. Linux rox! \\:D/

[aysiu]

So who actually sponsors ubuntu? Is it Canonical or some rich guy? It's Canonical and some rich guy (Mark Shuttleworth).

[user1397]

It's Canonical and some rich guy (Mark Shuttleworth).
Double whami!

[user1397]

what does it mean when someone posts: "bump"?

[mostwanted]

what does it mean when someone posts: "bump"?

That they're bumping the topic so it goes to the top of the topics list which means more people will see it. It's topic life-support.

[user1397]

Ah I see

[user1397]

bump! (lol)

[user1397]

I can't believe over 1,000 people have read this thread, i just noticed that. I thought the cafe was sparsely populated:)

[Horizon]

colluding with the Chinese government to restrict access of Chinese computer users.

Wow, looks like I'm going to have to re-adjust my stereotyping...and here I thought such retarded, ignorant statements which could only be done purposefully or from a complete lack of knowledge on the subject they comment on was something only found on slashdot...

Well, Bob Gould, if you ever had any intention of programming for a career I'd advise you to stop right there. Your logic fails...it _Just_ Fails™ (or should that be service mark?)

[Bob Gould]

The facts are that Google are applying double standards & have restricted the access of the Chinese people to websites that mention democracy, human rights, Tibet, etc, etc. You appear, like many others, to buy into those double standards quite readily. If it's not affecting you then you don't care how other people are treated.

Bob Gould

[Horizon]

The facts are that Google are applying double standards & have restricted the access of the Chinese people to websites that mention democracy, human rights, Tibet, etc, etc. You appear, like many others, to buy into those double standards quite readily. If it's not affecting you then you don't care how other people are treated.

Bob Gould
_BS_ It's called following the law...I really don't see a problem. The only problem I have ever seen with it is the way the chinese government alter websites/articles etc. "Google restricting access to human rights websites" is really "Google not helping people to break the law". They're not giving out people's information to the chinese government like certain people I won't name...and they're not impeeding people's rights when those rights don't exist.

This whole cencsorship thing in china is political. If the american government doesn't like it, that's great, because politics is their field NOT the field of private multinational corporations.
The "do no evil" thing i like to think of in regards to business ethics NOT personal ethics/morals. If google started hurting its users in pursuit of profit then i'd say they were being hypocrtis. Since when did following the law = hurting users? The law is the law, if anyone is hurting the users then it's the government and even more so the users doing things they know are against the law. It's different if they went the extra mile (or 10,000 miles in cisco's case) but they haven't.

Now from what I understand, Cisco _supplied_ the chinese government with "the great firewall" knowing what they were going to use it for. I don't see a problem with this. Yahoo are giving its users-who-break-thelaw-and-post-comments-criticizing-repression-ofthe-chinesepeople's data away like hotcakes apparently. Now if that is true then I can kind of see a problem with it. As I would see a problem with it if it hapened here as well even if the law or government commanded it.

At the end of the day if the chinese government pressure Google to give up information on people who aren't even breaking a specific law then they can always just pack up and go home. Until they start giving user's data away I suggest you stop all this bs about double standards, it just makes you sound ignorant.

The american government needs a scapegoat and decides to use google...I thought it would only be average-amarican joe schmoe and retarded human rights activists who bought that crap. Judging from your profile you're not american so I guess that leaves only one option...

[Iandefor]

^^
I agree. Mostly.

Just wanna disagree on one point:

they're not impeeding people's rights when those rights don't exist. Yeah, they are. People have rights no matter what the laws of their government say. But they do have to work in the framework of China's system of laws, which doesn't grant so many freedoms as might be found in the US.

Or, by rights, do you just mean the ones the governments grant people?

[Bob Gould]

_BS_ It's called following the law...I really don't see a problem. The only problem I have ever seen with it is the way the chinese government alter websites/articles etc. "Google restricting access to human rights websites" is really "Google not helping people to break the law". They're not giving out people's information to the chinese government like certain people I won't name...and they're not impeeding people's rights when those rights don't exist.

This whole cencsorship thing in china is political. If the american government doesn't like it, that's great, because politics is their field NOT the field of private multinational corporations.
The "do no evil" thing i like to think of in regards to business ethics NOT personal ethics/morals. If google started hurting its users in pursuit of profit then i'd say they were being hypocrtis. Since when did following the law = hurting users? The law is the law, if anyone is hurting the users then it's the government and even more so the users doing things they know are against the law. It's different if they went the extra mile (or 10,000 miles in cisco's case) but they haven't.

Now from what I understand, Cisco _supplied_ the chinese government with "the great firewall" knowing what they were going to use it for. I don't see a problem with this. Yahoo are giving its users-who-break-thelaw-and-post-comments-criticizing-repression-ofthe-chinesepeople's data away like hotcakes apparently. Now if that is true then I can kind of see a problem with it. As I would see a problem with it if it hapened here as well even if the law or government commanded it.

At the end of the day if the chinese government pressure Google to give up information on people who aren't even breaking a specific law then they can always just pack up and go home. Until they start giving user's data away I suggest you stop all this bs about double standards, it just makes you sound ignorant.

The american government needs a scapegoat and decides to use google...I thought it would only be average-amarican joe schmoe and retarded human rights activists who bought that crap. Judging from your profile you're not american so I guess that leaves only one option...

Well you got one thing right. I'm not American.
As far as I'm concerned there are good laws & bad laws. Good laws I obey mostly. Bad laws I regard as a duty to disobey. We all, each & everyone of us, have a duty of care to each other to see that our basic human rights are not infringed by political or economic or commercial interests. Politics & business are not seperate enties living on different planets. They go hand in hand with each other. Is the Iraq debacle political or economic? It's certainly not democratic!

Was it just coincidence that Iraq had just agreed to sell it's oil to Russia? And now as Iran makes deals with China the US pressures them. If you think Politics & business can be separated you obviously don't know much about either.

The basic human rights were set out in 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatory countries are supposed to work within the framework of those rights. Otherwise why become signatories? Of which China is one. The problem is there is no comeback for those who don't. If you don't know what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is you can read it here http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I have a background of 11 years study at tertiary level in Chinese culture, language, history, art, calligraphy, etc, so maybe I'm a bit more aware of how things are done in China than most "westerners". The Chinese government handles its people very roughly, quite at odds to the basic human rights as set out.

We all have a human responsibility to see that governments only make laws that are within the framework of the DHR. Laws are not to be obeyed blindly. They are merely a guideline for people to live by.

You obviously have not lived in a country where people can disappear for 3 weeks because they parked their motorbike in the wrong place.

"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world. How does that fit with what Google has done in China?

Regards
Bob Gould

[Iandefor]

Well you got one thing right. I'm not American.
As far as I'm concerned there are good laws & bad laws. Good laws I obey mostly. Bad laws I regard as a duty to disobey. Google is a solely legal entity. It has laws it has to follow. Whether or not Google agrees with those laws isn't relevant.


Laws are not to be obeyed blindly. They are merely a guideline for people to live by. You actually believe laws are just guidelines to help people live? So that's why it's illegal to ride an ugly horse in Wilbur, Washington!



"Ubuntu" is an ancient African word, meaning "humanity to others". Ubuntu also means "I am what I am because of who we all are". The Ubuntu Linux distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world. How does that fit with what Google has done in China? Google is Canonical now?

[G Morgan]

The idea that laws are just guidelines not set in stone is great and absolutely correct in theory but in reality is far too open to abuse to be a practical system*. Anyway Google has to obey the law, it maybe the case that Western politicians will be the best friend of anyone with a large enough bag of money but it doesn't seem to be the case in China so Google has no leverage to make changes. Better to allow people limited freedoms rather than shut down completely and leave them with less.

*we have judges who are supposed to rule against the law for the exceptional cases but it rarely seems to be the case.

[Iandefor]

The idea that laws are just guidelines not set in stone is great and absolutely correct in theory but in reality is far too open to abuse to be a practical system*. Anyway Google has to obey the law, it maybe the case that Western politicians will be the best friend of anyone with a large enough bag of money but it doesn't seem to be the case in China so Google has no leverage to make changes. Better to allow people limited freedoms rather than shut down completely and leave them with less.

*we have judges who are supposed to rule against the law for the exceptional cases but it rarely seems to be the case. No, the idea of laws is to be followed. This is why it's usually so painful to break a law. Law is an expression of what a government or authority will not tolerate and will punish. Government will not tolerate citizens killing one another. Government will not tolerate citizens stealing from one another. Hence, there are laws against the both of those things.

[Bob Gould]

Google is a solely legal entity. It has laws it has to follow. Whether or not Google agrees with those laws isn't relevant.

You actually believe laws are just guidelines to help people live? So that's why it's illegal to ride an ugly horse in Wilbur, Washington!

Google is Canonical now?

What differentiates humans from animals? Our capacity to conceptualise abstract concepts such as altruism, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. Without expressing our duty of care to other humans we become nothing better than animals.

Canonical needs to say to Google that they won't take any more research dollars or in kind payments until Google starts giving everyone equal access regardless of what their governments say.

And yes, laws are only guidelines. Laws don't prevent people from killing each other or stealing. If they did there wouldn't be any prisons. And I guess you have never ever in your life broken the law.

[Bob Gould]

The idea that laws are just guidelines not set in stone is great and absolutely correct in theory but in reality is far too open to abuse to be a practical system*. Anyway Google has to obey the law, it maybe the case that Western politicians will be the best friend of anyone with a large enough bag of money but it doesn't seem to be the case in China so Google has no leverage to make changes. Better to allow people limited freedoms rather than shut down completely and leave them with less.

*we have judges who are supposed to rule against the law for the exceptional cases but it rarely seems to be the case.

You are wrong. The only reason the Chinese government has allowed Google & Yahoo, etc, to operate in China is money. They need the foreign expertise to make money. It's too costly to train enough of their own people in the short term.

When people have "limited freedoms" it diminishes all of us a world society. That's what I understand Ubuntu to mean.

Do you ever use Wikipedia? Google have stopped Chinese users from accessing Wikipedia. If you think that's ok that's a double standard, limited access for some so long as I have my "freedom". If Canonical thinks that's ok then they should change the name from Ubuntu to Kowtow Klub or something.

[Iandefor]

What differentiates humans from animals? Our capacity to conceptualise abstract concepts such as altruism, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. Without expressing our duty of care to other humans we become nothing better than animals. I'll have an easier time trusting your statements if you stop assaulting your own credibility by framing your statements in ethnocentric value judgements.



And yes, laws are only guidelines. Laws don't prevent people from killing each other or stealing. If they did there wouldn't be any prisons. And I guess you have never ever in your life broken the law. Laws are made to be followed; whether or not people bother to follow them is a different matter entirely.

I would think a moral system would be more appropriate in terms of guidelines.

And I have broken laws. I have no regard for laws. I'm just saying that whoever makes them wants them to be followed.

[IYY]

This was asked on one of the earlier pages, but I'll answer anyway:


I don't doubt that this is true (and I've heard it many times), but can you give some specific examples of features you use as a professional designer that are lacking in GIMP? I'm just curious as to what they are (since I'm not a professional designer myself).

So far, the most important missing feature is good CMYK support. Without it, it's impossible to make anything designed for print. So, no designer who wants to print his/her works will be able to use this program.

[Horizon]

What differentiates humans from animals? Our capacity to conceptualise abstract concepts such as altruism, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. Without expressing our duty of care to other humans we become nothing better than animals.

Newsflash, we are animals. Another newsflash, "duty of care to other humans" is stupid. Just because you think you have a duty or humans as a whole have a duty to care for one another doesn't make it so.


Do you ever use Wikipedia? Google have stopped Chinese users from accessing Wikipedia. If you think that's ok that's a double standard, limited access for some so long as I have my "freedom".
It being a double standard or not depends on the reason I think it is ok. And no I don't think it is ok but this wasn't about whether the Chinese government is right in doing what it does, this is about blaming Google when your real problem lies with the Chinese government.

The American government can't insult china because they don't want to mess up their relationship, and so tried to blame Google. That's actually counter-productive (especially as the Chinese government are slowly getting better, at least they're actually trying to look like they're playing fair now) and if you really want China to get better I suggest you complain about certain governments shifting the blame from the Chinese government to multinational corporations just as a part of their political games in their own country.

Well I think this topic has strayed far enough. Let's just agree to disagree. Well I guess that's easy to say seeing as that would mean I got the final word but we should try to wind up now ;)

[sharkboy]

What differentiates humans from animals? Our capacity to conceptualise abstract concepts such as altruism, democracy, freedom of expression, etc. Without expressing our duty of care to other humans we become nothing better than animals.



I'll have an easier time trusting your statements if you stop assaulting your own credibility by framing your statements in ethnocentric value judgements.



Newsflash, we are animals. Another newsflash, "duty of care to other humans" is stupid. Just because you think you have a duty or humans as a whole have a duty to care for one another doesn't make it so.

Bah, what Bob Gould said is neither ethnocentric (for how is democracy or dictature an ethnic trait?) nor stupid. It's antropocentric, but what do you expect in a distinction between humans and animals? I find the ability to participate in, observe and conceptualise the social to be a very good distinction of what is human. A monkey is social, and will even act to contitute and maintain a group. But when it comes to conceptualising his actions he will do so in a very limited way, like signal 'eat', 'danger' etc, which aren't very complex concepts.

[Bob Gould]

We were evil, Google founder admits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
June 7, 2006

Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin acknowledged the dominant internet
company has compromised its principles by accommodating Chinese censorship
demands. He said Google is wrestling to make the deal work before deciding
whether to reverse course.

Meeting with reporters near Capitol Hill in Washington, Brin said Google had
agreed to the censorship demands only after Chinese authorities blocked its
service in that country.

Google's rivals accommodated the same demands - which Brin described as "a
set of rules that we weren't comfortable with" - without international
criticism, he said.

"We felt that perhaps we could compromise our principles but provide
ultimately more information for the Chinese and be a more effective service
and perhaps make more of a difference," Brin said.

Google's corporate motto is "don't be evil".

Brin also addressed internet users' expectations of privacy in an era of
increased government surveillance, saying Americans misunderstand the
limited safeguards of their personal electronic information.

"I think it's interesting that the expectations of people with respect to
what happens to their data seems to be different than what is actually
happening," he said.

Google has battled the US Justice Department in court seeking to limit the
amount of information the government can get about users' internet searches.
It also says it has not participated in any programs with the National
Security Agency to collect internet communications without warrants.

Google's free email service, Gmail, is among the internet's most popular.

Brin visited Washington to ask US senators to approve a plan that would
prevent telephone and cable companies from collecting premium fees from
companies such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! for faster delivery of their
services.

Brin, dressed casually in jeans, sneakers and a black sport jacket, said he
wasn't sure whether he changed any lawmakers' minds.

Google's China-approved web service omits politically sensitive information
that might be retrieved during internet searches, such as details about the
1989 suppression of political unrest in Tiananmen Square. Its agreement with
China has provoked considerable criticism from human rights groups.

"Perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense," Brin said.

The Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders said on Tuesday that
Google's main website, http://www.google.com, was no longer accessible in
most Chinese provinces due to censorship efforts, and that it was completely
inaccessible throughout China on May 31.
Brin said Google is trying to improve its censored search service,
Google.cn, before deciding whether to reverse course. He said virtually all
the company's customers in China use the non-censored service.

"It's perfectly reasonable to do something different, to say, 'Look, we're
going to stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually
operate there.' That's an alternate path," Brin said. "It's not where we
chose to go right now, but I can sort of see how people came to different
conclusions about doing the right thing." (AP)

[Horizon]

Yeah, I guess all that political and public pressure was too much. They really disappointed me, giving in like that. It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they did it because it was damaging their image...but the damage was already done, this just harms it more.