New Ubuntu repository -- "commercial"

[matthew]

I just found this. http://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/introducing-the-dapper-commercial-repository/

I can confirm it has two packages in it for Ubuntu: Opera and Realplayer.

Discuss.

[Rackerz]

Great :). Hopefully there are no complaints and arguements about Ubuntu beeing 'completely' free.

[wmcbrine]

Interesting. Are there other pacakges that should go there? (Java? Flash?)

I kinda thought this was covered by "Multiverse" already.

[Max Luebbe]

I agree with what the author wrote.
I believe in freedom of choice.

We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend the software doesn't exist.
People should be allowed to choose to use it if they want to, and if they do, it should be relatively easy.

If a developer is going to make a linux version of their commercial software, it by nature is available to all linuxes. Ubuntu included. Ignoring them is pointless, I for one really support the idea of the commercial repo, because it provides another incentive to choose Ubuntu over other distro.

[benplaut]

afaik, multiverse is for things that are legally 'questionable,' this repo is for things that are legally OK to be redistributed (special agreement or whatever), but wouldn't 'taint' the main, GPL-complient repo.

[Compucore]

Is there a listing of whats in that particular directory so we can see it or is it just those two in there right now to download? Just wanted to know before I append it to the actual listing over here. I don't want to add something that is not allowed. on my dapper here.

Compucore

[RavenOfOdin]

In reply to the second poster . . . I'm okay with commercial software, just not with companies that distribute patchwork thievery on a heavily locked-in and overpriced basis and then have the guts to say they're at the forefront of innovation *cough*Microsoft*cough* without giving any credit to the REAL innovators -- and that have no redeeming qualities to boot.

I wouldn't buy anything from or work for Microsoft if I were paid ten million dollars to do so, and I'd tell their recruiters pretty much to f*** off. But I'd have no problem buying a game from Mythic Entertainment or working for ID Software.

I think this can be a good thing for Ubuntu, if used appropriately.

[jimmygoon]

Just in case you missed it,
https://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/introducing-the-dapper-commercial-repository/

So, the question I was wondering was:

Where can I find a list of the packages that will be offered through this and what advantage does this provide over other repositories that alreay have these packages?


Any thoughts?

[bonzodog]

This, in my opinion, is a Good Thing(tm). I believe the community can only benefit from such a move, as this software can be hard to install and obtain at the best of times.

[woedend]

i think we should have a user contributed but verified community repo also, similar to how arch does, to bring projects like automatix, bumps, xgl and compiz cvs, bonfire, audacious etc etc together instead of having a different repo for each.

[matthew]

Is there a listing of whats in that particular directory so we can see it or is it just those two in there right now to download? Just wanted to know before I append it to the actual listing over here. I don't want to add something that is not allowed. on my dapper here.

CompucoreGo here: http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper-commercial/main/

then select your architecture (e.g. binary-i386)

click on "Packages.gz"

[Adamant1988]

I'm perfectly behind the repo. I like that Opera and realplayer were put into it, and I hope to see more aps that we'll like. Although I don't know if it's enabled by default or not, but to appease the foss crowd it should be easily disableable in edgy.

[Lord Illidan]

I like it too.

I love FOSS and free software, but I believe in freedom of choice more.

[jimmygoon]

Just in case you missed it,
https://ubuntu.wordpress.com/2006/07/08/introducing-the-dapper-commercial-repository/

So, the question I was wondering was:

Where can I find a list of the packages that will be offered through this and what advantage does this provide over other repositories that alreay have these packages?


Any thoughts?

small bump

[FredB]

For now : Opera and Real Player.

A list ?

For i386 :

http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper-commercial/main/binary-i386/

and open .bz2 / .gz file, you will get your list ;)

[ubuntu_demon]

For now : Opera and Real Player.

A list ?

For i386 :

http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper-commercial/main/binary-i386/

and open .bz2 / .gz file, you will get your list ;)
You can link directly to it as firefox understands it :
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper-commercial/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz

I posted on my blog about this repository :
http://ubuntudemon.wordpress.com/2006/07/09/dapper-commercial-repository/

[jimmygoon]

Wait, I've already got those... not exactly sure what repo from but I haven't added that one and I know I've got opera.... I've had it for a while...?

[matthew]

I just merged another thread into this one as they are both discussing the same topic.

[RavenOfOdin]

xgl and compiz cvs

Yeah, that'd be good since the version on the official repos last I checked is what. . .? 2.4?

[ubuntu_demon]

Wait, I've already got those... not exactly sure what repo from but I haven't added that one and I know I've got opera.... I've had it for a while...?
If you use opera I recommend that you use this new repository.

[asimon]

The name is very bad, it implies "for money", which it is not. How do the software in the "commercial" repo differ from multiverse? Why is Opera "commercial" but Adobe Acrobat Reader not?

[Lord Illidan]

Yes, I agree with the post above. What is the difference?

[kabus]

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/2006-July/008177.html


Software in this repository requires special permission to redistribute, so
it is kept separate from the normal archive (which is mirrored globally).

[bruce89]

Lots of stuff for AMD64:

{nada}
http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/dists/dapper-commercial/main/binary-amd64/Packages.gz

It's a good thing that it's a seperate repository, but I won't use it (except for Java)

[BWF89]

That sounds like a good idea. Keep the OS free (cept for some proprietary drivers) and let the user decide what he wants to install. And if he wants to installl non-free software who are we to make him do it the hard way without apt-get/synaptic.

[imagine]

Instead of extracting the Packages.gz you can also look in the packages pool on the server: http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu/pool/main/


About the repositories:

main: free & supported
restricted: not free & supported
universe: free & not supported
multiverse: not free & not supported


And that also leads me to my question: Why on earth is a proprietary repository marked "main"?
> deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu dapper-commercial main



Btw you can also get Opera using the GUI: http://www.ubuntu.com/news/opera9

[william_nbg]

Yeah, I think it's a good idea as well. Users would have an easy way to install non-free software - other commercial distros offer a full line of commercial software:

drivers
games
crossover
cedega
nero
etc ..

I personally don't use any of these - any longer. I did in the beginning, but weened myself slowly to open source apps.

Though, I do have a few commercial linux-ported games installled.

[Briquet]

i think we should have a user contributed but verified community repo also, similar to how arch does, to bring projects like automatix, bumps, xgl and compiz cvs, bonfire, audacious etc etc together instead of having a different repo for each.

I agree with you, of course not something obligatory, it would be helpful for the newcomers

[ubuntu_demon]

Yeah, I think it's a good idea as well. Users would have an easy way to install non-free software - other commercial distros offer a full line of commercial software:

drivers
games
crossover
cedega
nero
etc ..

I personally don't use any of these - any longer. I did in the beginning, but weened myself slowly to open source apps.

Though, I do have a few commercial linux-ported games installled.
Those kind of suggestions should go here :

CommonCustomizations - feedback request
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=206535

[Frem]

This is great. Or, rather, it would be if it had more then two applications in it!
Seriously. I'm looking at the package list and it JUST has Opera and RealPlayer.

[ubuntu_demon]

This is great. Or, rather, it would be if it had more then two applications in it!
Seriously. I'm looking at the package list and it JUST has Opera and RealPlayer.
I personally hope it will have skype in the future.

[oskarloko]

About the repositories:


main: free & supported by ubuntu
restricted: non-free & supported by ubuntu
universe: free & not supported (maintained by community)
multiverse: not free & not supported (maintained by community)
commercial: non free & supported by canonical & software companies


( I mean 'supported by ubuntu' by supported by Canonical/UbuntuFoundation and Debian )

What I see here is a new vision about ubuntu repositories: commercial would be supported by Canonical and the company that makes software in it.

Why should OperaSoftware announce that the OperaBrowser is now on Linux by Canonical hand ? OperaBrowser was already on multiverse repositories, downloable by OperaWeb, on a .deb package...

¿ What's new now ?

Canonical it's not only bringing Ubuntu Linux to companies - that for example IBM employees uses Ubuntu from now.
It's bringing companies to Ubuntu Linux - so f.ex. IBM makes software for Linux and distributes it by Canonical repositorie.

This means making software with some ettiquete:

stable releases in perodic time
the company now brings it directly to repository
not a Windows5x version and Linux 2x version ( like Skyoe)
Some official support
etc...


Making it more professional, just one word - but preserving Ubuntu-core and most packages free as beer and as a bird...

For me it's great, so if only: it not compromise freedom on the system; EULA's or LicenceAgreemnt is very clear on install, spyware is out, shareware software is clear in limits and cost, ads are minimmun if they are, not changing system internals, never by default - and enabled only if user wants to,etc..

Really, not making ******* software as for Windows is made so often. Canonical is required to watch over this... not to get Ubuntu and Linux prestige down...

But this is really a change, to companies, not to see Linux as the little freaky brother. It's a server,desktop,etc.. mayor OS. It's more freedom to Linux, more respect to Linux too.

¿ Can Ubuntu handle risks of opening a way to commercial software ? I think yes, and I'm waiting to see more software on dapper-commercial...

¿What do you think?

[asimon]

( I mean 'supported by ubuntu' by supported by Canonical/UbuntuFoundation and Debian )

I would just write "supported by Canonical" otherwise it looks like the KDE and XFCE packages in main are not supported. And of course there is no support by Debian. Debian does not give support for Ubuntu. The packages originate from Debian, but that doesn't mean that Debian gives any support for Ubuntu packages.



What I see here is a new vision about ubuntu repositories: commercial would be supported by Canonical and the company that makes software in it.
I wonder what support that will be? Canonical can't fix Opera or other propritary stuff. They don't have the source. They only can fix packaging issues, like a missing or wrong .desktop-file or forward bugs upstream.



Why should OperaSoftware announce that the OperaBrowser is now on Linux by Canonical hand ? OperaBrowser was already on multiverse repositories, downloable by OperaWeb, on a .deb package...

The upstream .deb package is missing a .desktop file. Canonical's package in the commercial repo fixed that. It's the only difference I am aware of.



¿ What's new now ?

Canonical it's not only bringing Ubuntu Linux to companies - that for example IBM employees uses Ubuntu from now.
It's bringing companies to Ubuntu Linux - so f.ex. IBM makes software for Linux and distributes it by Canonical repositorie.
Now? Maybe in the future. So far there are only two packages in the commercial repo and none of them is from IBM. ;-)

Making it easier for people to install commercial software is surely a good thing, but the focus should stay on Free Software and that should always be the software which gets recommended.



This means making software with some ettiquete:
[LIST]
stable releases in perodic time
What speaks against uploading a package when a new software version gets released?



the company now brings it directly to repository

Hopefully there will be some QA by Canonical before it hits the repos. For example the official Opera package came without a .desktop-file, so Opera didn't appear automatically in the application menue. People installed the debian package but couldn't easily start the new browser. Canonical fixed this packaging error in their package in the commercial repo. This shows that upstream may not have the competence to make good packages which integrate well into the distribution.



Some official support
I wouldn't expect much here unless the Linux software generates some revenue.



Making it more professional, just one word - but preserving Ubuntu-core and most packages free as beer and as a bird...
Preserving Ubuntu-core? How nice. The commercial repo should be optional, not required, and of lower priority. I would rather like to see more resources put into the Free Software part of Ubuntu then making the commercial add-on more professional, which means to put more resources into it. Isn't it Mark Shuttleworth's long-term goal to have for everything in the computing space a good Free Software solution? At least I remember him saying so in some talk. Making commercial software easily installable is a resonable thing to do before this goal is reached.



For me it's great, so if only: it not compromise freedom on the system; EULA's or LicenceAgreemnt is very clear on install, spyware is out, shareware software is clear in limits and cost, ads are minimmun if they are, not changing system internals, never by default - and enabled only if user wants to,etc..
Of course the Freedom is always compromised once you install/use propritary software. ;-)



But this is really a change, to companies, not to see Linux as the little freaky brother. It's a server,desktop,etc.. mayor OS. It's more freedom to Linux, more respect to Linux too.
For most propritary software vendors (especially desktop stuff) Linux will mean nothing and is no major OS unless it's market share it big enough to bring them the money and make it attractive enough to invest into it. I also wouldn't say that better conditions for propritary vendors means "more freedom to Linux".



¿What do you think?
That I hope to have no need to use the commercial repo. ;-)