Do people really think Ubuntu = upstream

[bruce89]

It really annoys me when people seem to think that Ubuntu is the only distribution. I think this is down to Ubuntu's marketing, they don't seem to mention GNOME or Freedesktop.org, the Linux kernel etc.

A good example is digg and almost every post with "Ubuntu" in it being dugg up. It's pathetic.

[DrMega]

I think Ubuntu's success is something to be celebrated rather than criticised. Like many people, I have tried other distros. Some are good, some not so good. I like Ubuntu best which is why I've stuck with it for nearly two years now.

For me, it wasn't the marketing that convinced me (in fact apart from the Ubuntu website, I haven't seen any Ubuntu marketing).

I think the website does mention Linux, Gnome etc but in a less prominent way than it could. This could be a good thing though as historically Linux has been the reserve of techies and in some quarters, still has a bit of a stigma attached to it. This is changing, and Ubuntu is helping to drive that change.

[LeoSolaris]

Agreed, although it may not be totally bad, at least people are looking at Linux. To the general populous, it's really all they need to know to start out with. Too much information (i.e. saying this is from here and that from there and this one from those guys) confuses a lot of people. Sometimes it really is wiser to keep it simple, especially at first. As they use Linux some, they will learn and understand all of that later.

Not everyone has a high download speed for things that are new to them, some people have dial-up input for new things, and some are even stand alone units!

Leo S

[bruce89]

Personally, I think having Ubuntu go for the Windows market is bad, as most of these people get rather excited and cause huge amounts of spamming the Web with "Ubuntu is great" style articles. These then make other distro people annoyed and this reflects badly on Ubuntu.

For the record, I've used Ubuntu since Warty (from about March 2005). I've never felt the need to move elsewhere, but the "noob" attitude annoys me.

Maybe I should do more shopping around again (I tried out Debian Testing 6 months ago, got bored of it). Maybe Debian unstable.

[Mazza558]

I think it's coincidental that digg and Ubuntu became popular at the same time. There will always be a "big distro" around, and at the moment it's Ubuntu. Maybe a new distro will come along and become more popular than Ubuntu.

[intense.ego]

To the general public there will only be one distro, Ubuntu, because it is by far the easiest and noob-frienldy to install and run. And there is a very helpful forum :)

[aysiu]

Unlike the calls for a "unified Linux," what has happened was more likely to transpire--one distro simply because more popular (or more talked-about, depending on what you think "popular" means) than the rest.

[Ripfox]

For the record, I've used Ubuntu since Warty (from about March 2005). I've never felt the need to move elsewhere.

Gee...I wonder why it's so popular then...:confused:
Just because something gets popular and gets alot of praise in the press it seems that some people automatically feel the need to have a problem with the enthusiasm. I experienced this when I was a teenager and when certain types of music got popular there was always that one kid who didn't like it because it got too much attention.

[imT]

To the general public there will only be one distro, Ubuntu, because it is by far the easiest and noob-frienldy to install and run. And there is a very helpful forum :)

+1

nothing can beat the ubuntu free support on the forums, no other distro has something close to the ubuntu forums.

[aysiu]

To the general public there will only be one distro, Ubuntu, because it is by far the easiest and noob-frienldy to install and run. And there is a very helpful forum :)
I agree about the helpful forum bit, but most "noobs" I know want proprietary codecs and software, and they're not going to get that with Ubuntu, so I'd recommend Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS to new users.

[NightwishFan]

I was that kid only with like every genre of music that was listened to when I was a teen. Well that is because it was all really bad. :)

The fact Ubuntu is so popular degrades nothing from the good experiences I am sure most of us have had here so far. I tried Ubuntu on a whim, and the install was hours faster than that of OpenSUSE 10.3. The desktop effects were easy to set up, and it had main choices of desktop environments. It really is easy, and an ambitious project such as toppling the Windows monopoly, I can only support.

[SZF2001]

Start 'em out with Ubuntu, if they really want more knowledge in what and how things work, they'll switch. I remember running Breezy for the first time in 05 - I was amazed at the concept there was even something besides a Windows computer or a Mac.

Over time I tried out other distro's out of sheer curiosity - Mandriva, Debian, SuSE, Fedora, Red Hat... Of course I'm a speed freak, so I've ended up giving Xubuntu a try. Not too bad, I think.

Everyone's gotta start somewhere.

[Xanatos Craven]

I agree about the helpful forum bit, but most "noobs" I know want proprietary codecs and software, and they're not going to get that with Ubuntu, so I'd recommend Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS to new users.
By "noobs", do you mean incredibly lazy people? o.o; Somehow, I doubt even the most user-friendly distro would satisfy...

[SZF2001]

By "noobs", do you mean incredibly lazy people? o.o;

Yea... Don't you just need to install some package called 'ubuntu-restricted-extras', unmark the flashplugin one, and manually install Adobe flash for those people? That seems simple enough...

[Ripfox]

Yea... Don't you just need to install some package called 'ubuntu-restricted-extras', unmark the flashplugin one, and manually install Adobe flash for those people? That seems simple enough...

Yea...it goes back to my "silver platter" theory. If you want that, best off going to the local pc store and having them set up a Windows box for you :lolflag:

[23meg]

I think this is down to Ubuntu's marketing, they don't seem to mention GNOME or Freedesktop.org, the Linux kernel etc.

What are the places where you think upstream projects should be getting exposure, and they aren't?

I think the problem as you see it lies with the fact that most of Ubuntu's audience isn't really capable of distinguishing between what's done upstream and what's done in a distribution. As a result, you get hundreds of people thanking "the Ubuntu developers" for "their great work" when, say, a new version of HAL makes suspend work on their laptop where it's never worked before. Of course I don't mean to say that there's no work done on the Ubuntu front; what I (and I assume, you) mean is that the lion's share of the credit often gets misplaced.

I strongly doubt that giving more exposure to upstream, even though it's a laudable goal and should actually be done, will educate people on the mass scale, simply and understandably because most people don't care to get educated about these things. They want an OS that works well enough without much configuration, good support, and some degree of freedom. For the most part, free software politics and development methodologies are beyond their interest and scope.

[kinematic]

To the general public there will only be one distro, Ubuntu, because it is by far the easiest and noob-frienldy to install and run. And there is a very helpful forum :)

In what universe do you live if I may ask? It's definately not the easiest and n00b friendly disto, not by a longshot. It's the annoying Ubuntu fanboys who keep saying this and who want everybody to believe this.

[Erunno]

They want an OS that works well enough without much configuration, good support, and some degree of freedom. For the most part, free software politics and development methodologies are beyond their interest and scope.

Well, my question is then: Is it sensible to cater to this people? Does the libre software stack really need growth at all costs? This eco system worked well for a decade now without huge amounts of users. After all, the people who do not care about libre software politics and are not interested in education are the same people that will gladly trade their freedom for a little bit of convenience.

[CaptainCabinet]

I think Ubuntu's success is something to be celebrated rather than criticised. Like many people, I have tried other distros. Some are good, some not so good. I like Ubuntu best which is why I've stuck with it for nearly two years now.

For me, it wasn't the marketing that convinced me (in fact apart from the Ubuntu website, I haven't seen any Ubuntu marketing).

I think the website does mention Linux, Gnome etc but in a less prominent way than it could. This could be a good thing though as historically Linux has been the reserve of techies and in some quarters, still has a bit of a stigma attached to it. This is changing, and Ubuntu is helping to drive that change.

Same here. In case the OP hasn't noticed, try clicking the System button on the top taskbar...

[billgoldberg]

It really annoys me when people seem to think that Ubuntu is the only distribution. I think this is down to Ubuntu's marketing, they don't seem to mention GNOME or Freedesktop.org, the Linux kernel etc.

A good example is digg and almost every post with "Ubuntu" in it being dugg up. It's pathetic.

I never seen adds for ubuntu anywhere and I don't think its being marketed. (well expect for mouth to mouth)

Why do you presume that people think ubuntu is the only distro?

If someone uses ubuntu you can be pretty confident they now there are other linux distro's.

Ubuntu mentions gnome in "system -> about gnome".

I get annoyed that some people always demand that you should state every piece of software that's in a distro.
So instead of calling it ubuntu I guess we should call it : the ubuntu/Linux/gnu/gnome/firefox/openoffice/... distro?
I guess its the same people who demand you say gnu/linux instead of linux.

I don't use digg so I can't comment on that.

[Polygon]

thats the defenition of a distro...it simply takes already existing programs and sticks it with the linux kernel and includes it on a CD......who would you propose that we credit all the upstream programs and things that ubuntu or any distro uses?

[Ripfox]

In what universe do you live if I may ask? It's definately not the easiest and n00b friendly disto, not by a longshot. It's the annoying Ubuntu fanboys who keep saying this and who want everybody to believe this.

Whats easier? Mint? Mint is Ubuntu (no matter how much you argue, I see Mint as SO similar to Ubuntu that I just don't care about the little differences)

[Ripfox]

Same here. In case the OP hasn't noticed, try clicking the System button on the top taskbar...

Yea there it is in black and white "about Gnome"

[aysiu]

Whats easier? Mint? Mint is Ubuntu (no matter how much you argue, I see Mint as SO similar to Ubuntu that I just don't care about the little differences)
Even though Linux Mint is extremely similar to and based on Ubuntu, it is still not exactly Ubuntu, and it's different enough to actually be easier for new users who depend on proprietary codecs. In this context, it makes sense to think of Linux Mint as something different.

[Ripfox]

I'm gonna have to politely disagree with you. I used it for awhile and it's like comparing apples to apples IMHO. But to each his own right?

[ElijahLynn]

This all relates to Bug #1. You want to confuse everyone out there then go ahead and start talking about all that stuff. Otherwise just stick with one word. Once we fix Bug #1 we can go into other areas.

[sailor2001]

To the general public there will only be one distro, Ubuntu, because it is by far the easiest and noob-frienldy to install and run. And there is a very helpful forum :)

to the general public it's UBUNTU.... what the H*** is that?

[Twitch6000]

I find ubuntu to be just fine it gets more respect then other distros because in my eyes it is one of the most user friendly distros.I have tried,Ubuntu,Opensuse,PC2007Linux,and DSL.The only one that really shined to me was ubuntu and well Pc2007Linux lol.

[PurposeOfReason]

thats the defenition of a distro...it simply takes already existing programs and sticks it with the linux kernel and includes it on a CD......who would you propose that we credit all the upstream programs and things that ubuntu or any distro uses?
Oh how inaccurate that is. If all a distro was is the linux kernel with some programs would be the same. Ubuntu is different as it has one heck of a patched kernel, a slew of programs by default, itit.d vs. rc.d, binary vs. source. There is a lot that makes a distro.

I would have to agree with the OP here and say that your comment is very much like the Ubuntu fanboys on digg who really don't know or care. Not at all flaming you but more so trying to say, "you're wrong".

[derekr44]

I get annoyed that some people always demand that you should state every piece of software that's in a distro.
So instead of calling it ubuntu I guess we should call it : the ubuntu/Linux/gnu/gnome/firefox/openoffice/... distro?
I guess its the same people who demand you say gnu/linux instead of linux.

This is a double-edged sword, IMO. When Vista was announced, people complained that there were so many different versions... Business, Home, Home Premium, Home Ultimate, Ultimate... whatever. Your average consumers want one name: XP Home, OSX. Keep it simple. Enter Ubuntu. Simple name. Catchy phrase. LinuxMint too.

I'm sorry though, even "PCLinuxOS" is a mouthful and the name itself can incite fear on the non-technical. Hell, lots of people don't even know what the acronym OS stands for...

Once you start throwing out the idea that there are lots of other "flavors", your average consumer freaks out because it's way too much to comprehend. They want it simple.

So to answer the OP's question, yes. Is this a bad thing? Absolutely not! I welcome the fact that Ubuntu is seen all over the place. Think of it this way: it's like taking someone to a luxury car dealer and saying, "Hey, come check out this fast new Porsche." Let them try the Porsche out. They may come back and say, "Hey, what about that Ferrari over there?" You've just introduced them to Linux via Ubuntu and have potentially opened up the floodgates for them to experience Linux in general.

I am an Arch user because of Ubuntu, and I approve of this post.

[ODF]

Since It's difficult to figure out about all these distros ... It's really not a bad thing to make it simplier.

People chose Ubuntu because It looks like one single and simple thing.

Ps : I'm reading derekr44 and It's exactly what I'm thinking but since I'm limited with english I can't explain it as well as him =)

[AgentZ86]

It really annoys me when people seem to think that Ubuntu is the only distribution. I think this is down to Ubuntu's marketing, they don't seem to mention GNOME or Freedesktop.org, the Linux kernel etc.

A good example is digg and almost every post with "Ubuntu" in it being dugg up. It's pathetic.

What people ?
:confused:

This is a Ubuntu forum ? but I know there are lots of distributions out there, and all work well in my opinion.

[bwhite82]

Am I correct in assuming that Ubuntu is targeted at new Linux users? Or recent converts from Windows? (Linux for Human Beings) If thats the case then it makes sense not to over-advertise every little feature of Ubuntu. Average Joe computer user doesn't care about what window manager he's using or the underlying framework supporting that manager. He just wants his desktop w/ firefox icon and maybe some games.

Only later, after that new user grows accustomed to his new environment that he MAY want to know the details of everything.

/my 2 cents

[LeoSolaris]

There is a catch 22 built into attracting Average Joe users... They like it simple. Linux was not originally built on the idea of 'simple', it was, and for the most part still is more of a tinker toy. Ubuntu is actually about as much a tinker toy as Windows, since they are both fairly stable. (till ya hook them up to the net, but that's another story) To be totally and brutally honest, the only reason Ubuntu has an edge on Windows as an OS isn't because it is Linux, but because it comes bundled with more apps than the Average Joe will ever actually need, but they all LOOK cool!

It's one of those appearance of wealth ideas. In the Windows or Apple world, it would take having a lot of money to have all of the software that Ubuntu has bundled, not even including anything available through Add/Remove, Synaptic, Aptitude, or apt-get. That appearence of wealth gives it appeal. Yes, it can do that sort of appeal.

Most new to Linux users will still figure out a way to get an anti virus program, they will eventually set up firestarter, and for a while they will flip out about not having a spyware blocker. I can honestly say I did all of that at first, too. I still randomly run avast! just because it makes me smile. (Amusingly enough avast4linux found viuses on my windows partition that the paid for avast on windows couldn't detect. That makes me grin.)

I knew coming in that the software packaged with Ubuntu was not of their creation, but most will not realize that at first. It will dawn on them eventually, and if not, then atleast they are reasonibly safe poking around online.

Linux is starting to come into the limelight. The EEE really did it. A Linux UMPC that sat at the top of the Christmas wishlists. I give Linux about five to six years, and it will take off. As it sits, because of it's popularity, PC200xOS and Ubuntu will be the real major players in the Linux distro war to come. Ubuntu has a small advantage in that it's name sounds cooler, and it offers more obvious choices in the looks department. Those derivitives serve by giving Average Joes a simple straight-forward choice to start with, "How do you want it to look over all, and if you're using an old machine, here's Xubuntu."

As my dad, who is a Maintaince Engineer for a steel mill, likes to say, "KISS- Keep It Simple, Stupid! It's the only way most people will understand it." It's a techie's job to make things appear more simple than they really are for the masses.

Unfortunately that's why limiting choices works and is so widely embraced. People do not want to have to think.

That's why they pay techies to do it for them! (Yay, secure income!)

Ok, I am done ranting!

Leo S.

[herbster]

It's pathetic.

But tell us how you really feel! :D

[vishzilla]

I don't know why Ubuntu is so popular in digg! Last week I'd seen a digg mentioning Ubuntu as the best antivirus solution for 2008 with Ubuntu packaged as an Antivirus. It was utter nonsense

[DrMega]

By "noobs", do you mean incredibly lazy people? o.o; Somehow, I doubt even the most user-friendly distro would satisfy...

Wanting a computer system (regardless of hardware, software or OS) to be easy to use does not make someone lazy. It may be that they have other things that they want/need to spend their time and energy on so they just want their OS to work.

For example, if you have just spent all day at work, came home, had your dinner, and now have about two hours to yourself to do whether home work/play you want to do, you might not want to spend half of those two hours messing about getting stuff to work. This doesn't make someone "incredibly lazy".

[mozetti]

Your argument falls apart in the topic, OP. A lot of people don't even know wth you're talking about when you say, "upstream."

One of Ubuntu's goals, IIRC, was to provide a viable alternative to MS for anyone that wanted to use a computer. Well, to pursue that goal you need to make things palatable for the masses.

This isn't about the Linux/FOSS community, so to speak. If the community did fine before the multitudes of users, that doesn't mean you restrict access just because it might make things a bit more difficult. If you want to be insulated from everything that goes along with enlarging the community, by all means that's your perogative. But that doesn't mean you can force that behavior on everyone.

In the end, does it hurt Ubuntu, Linux, or FOSS if a large number of people that don't care about tech beyond ipods, myspace, and the internet are confused about the differences between the kernel, the distro, and the window manager? No, IMHO, it doesn't matter one bit.

Finally, the OPs first statement just seems like the standard, "if it's popular it can't be cool, and by making Ubuntu/Linux popular you're taking away something cool" -- if that's the case, then I'm sorry but everything else in the thread is on such a higher level than that unfounded claim.

[DrMega]

Your argument falls apart in the topic, OP. A lot of people don't even know wth you're talking about when you say, "upstream."

One of Ubuntu's goals, IIRC, was to provide a viable alternative to MS for anyone that wanted to use a computer. Well, to pursue that goal you need to make things palatable for the masses.

This isn't about the Linux/FOSS community, so to speak. If the community did fine before the multitudes of users, that doesn't mean you restrict access just because it might make things a bit more difficult. If you want to be insulated from everything that goes along with enlarging the community, by all means that's your perogative. But that doesn't mean you can force that behavior on everyone.

In the end, does it hurt Ubuntu, Linux, or FOSS if a large number of people that don't care about tech beyond ipods, myspace, and the internet are confused about the differences between the kernel, the distro, and the window manager? No, IMHO, it doesn't matter one bit.

Finally, the OPs first statement just seems like the standard, "if it's popular it can't be cool, and by making Ubuntu/Linux popular you're taking away something cool" -- if that's the case, then I'm sorry but everything else in the thread is on such a higher level than that unfounded claim.

+1

[Linuxratty]

I agree about the helpful forum bit, but most "noobs" I know want proprietary codecs and software, and they're not going to get that with Ubuntu, so I'd recommend Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS to new users.

Klikit also fits in that category.

[Ripfox]

PC200xOS and Ubuntu will be the real major players in the Linux distro war to come

Distro war? :lolflag:

You mean PCLinuxOS I think, btw.

[DrMega]

Distro war? :lolflag:


A distro war would be great, there'd be a race for innovation. Competition drives innovation.

Seriously though, I can't see there ever being one. As most distros are free, and most people like the idea that Linux is about choice, what would be the motivation for a "distro war"?

[Changturkey]

They all have the same base, its what the developers put on top that differentiates them. And really, I think the Linux community would be wasting it's time on "distro wars", instead, they should be promoting FOSS and alternatives to Windows.

[NightwishFan]

I believe I read all OS are all trying to improve upon their "perceived weak areas". All we need to do is find what those weak areas actually are. Perhaps hardware support. Not bad at all in my experience, but could be better from what i hear.

[intense.ego]

I agree about the helpful forum bit, but most "noobs" I know want proprietary codecs and software, and they're not going to get that with Ubuntu, so I'd recommend Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS to new users.

Am I missing something? When I did a fresh install of Gutsy from Feisty and played the first mp3, I got a popup telling me that it would have to install a package in order to play it. I clicked OK and it was done. Except for it coming installed already, I don't see how it can get any easier than this.

[aysiu]

Am I missing something? When I did a fresh install of Gutsy from Feisty and played the first mp3, I got a popup telling me that it would have to install a package in order to play it. I clicked OK and it was done. Except for it coming installed already, I don't see how it can get any easier than this.
You are missing something. First of all, easy codec installation is a great concept, but sometimes it breaks (think the MD5sum error with Flash that occurred recently) or doesn't work properly (if you double-click an MP3 to play in Totem, Ubuntu will install MP3 playback for you, but if you try to add MP3s to your library in Rhythmbox before that, you'll just get error messages). Additionally, it requires a working internet connection, but Ubuntu does not include ndiswrapper with it any more. Linux Mint, on the other hand, includes and preinstalled ndisgtk.

Lastly, Ubuntu does not include libdvdcss2 or make it part of easy codec installation.

In other words, yes, you are missing something--preinstallation of proprietary codecs and such is easier for new users than even easy codec installation.

[intense.ego]

You are missing something. First of all, easy codec installation is a great concept, but sometimes it breaks (think the MD5sum error with Flash that occurred recently) or doesn't work properly (if you double-click an MP3 to play in Totem, Ubuntu will install MP3 playback for you, but if you try to add MP3s to your library in Rhythmbox before that, you'll just get error messages). Additionally, it requires a working internet connection, but Ubuntu does not include ndiswrapper with it any more. Linux Mint, on the other hand, includes and preinstalled ndisgtk.

Lastly, Ubuntu does not include libdvdcss2 or make it part of easy codec installation.

In other words, yes, you are missing something--preinstallation of proprietary codecs and such is easier for new users than even easy codec installation.

Oh, okay. I suppose that installing these codec would be quite a task for the average user. Why doesn't ubuntu include the codecs pre-installed, like Linux Mint? If it is for legal reasons, how are other distros doing it?

[daengbo]

To the original poster:
This "Ubuntu is the only distro" tirade is nothing new. Five years ago, people were complaining about RH in the U.S., Connectiva in South America, TurboLinux in east Asia, and Suse in Europe. Anytime a mainstream story was written, it involved one of those four, depending on the locality of the publication. Common people didn't know what Debian was, nor would they have cared. Just about ditto for Mandrake.

Suse people complained about RH getting the press in America, and the smaller distros complained about everyone.

The mainstream media likes things simple. They don't want to educate the public on this kind of stuff. The public doesn't want to know, either. Get over it. That's just the way it is.

[aysiu]

Oh, okay. I suppose that installing these codec would be quite a task for the average user. Why doesn't ubuntu include the codecs pre-installed, like Linux Mint? If it is for legal reasons, how are other distros doing it?
It's a combination of legal and philosophical reasons.

Ubuntu wants to include as few proprietary elements as possible, because it is committed to Free software.

Ubuntu also wants to comply with the most conservative international laws. Other distros like PCLinuxOS and Linux Mint are, in fact, illegal in some countries, but they just don't care. Funnily enough, as far as I can tell, PCLinuxOS is illegal in the US but is also based out of the US... so I'm not sure how long that distro can last.

[bruce89]

Sorry I went away from this thread.


I think the problem as you see it lies with the fact that most of Ubuntu's audience isn't really capable of distinguishing between what's done upstream and what's done in a distribution. As a result, you get hundreds of people thanking "the Ubuntu developers" for "their great work" when, say, a new version of HAL makes suspend work on their laptop where it's never worked before. Of course I don't mean to say that there's no work done on the Ubuntu front; what I (and I assume, you) mean is that the lion's share of the credit often gets misplaced.

This is indeed it.


Yea there it is in black and white "about Gnome"

I realise that, I was more interested in people's perceptions of what Ubuntu is.


But tell us how you really feel! :D

Ach, I can't be bothered.


Your argument falls apart in the topic, OP. A lot of people don't even know wth you're talking about when you say, "upstream."

That's my point really.


One of Ubuntu's goals, IIRC, was to provide a viable alternative to MS for anyone that wanted to use a computer. Well, to pursue that goal you need to make things palatable for the masses.

To be honest, I don't think Ubuntu should go for just anyone.


Finally, the OPs first statement just seems like the standard, "if it's popular it can't be cool, and by making Ubuntu/Linux popular you're taking away something cool" -- if that's the case, then I'm sorry but everything else in the thread is on such a higher level than that unfounded claim.

Thanks.

I was mainly commenting on about an article I saw at digg (not that it's brilliant or anything) which said "Free software for Ubuntu". This is my issue.

[Ripfox]

Yes I hate free software for Ubuntu as well. :lolflag:

[vexorian]

I agree about the helpful forum bit, but most "noobs" I know want proprietary codecs and software, and they're not going to get that with Ubuntu, so I'd recommend Linux Mint or PCLinuxOS to new users. Really, double click a music/video file, get asked to install codecs, accept,, done! Even windows requires you to download codecs, I don't get what's the problem with that...

--
You are perfectly right Ubuntu != upstream and that's exactly the reason things like Linux, gnome, and every other single term should be avoided to be mentioned to introductory users, they will get into that stuff later.

[bruce89]

Really, double click a music/video file, get asked to install codecs, accept,, done! Even windows requires you to download codecs, I don't get what's the problem with that...

I know, it can't even play Theora or Vorbis by default!

I suspect many an installation has been screwed by unofficial codec pockling.

[vexorian]

I know, it can't even play Theora or Vorbis by default!It can.

Else the examples folder would have been a huge failure.

[bruce89]

It can.

Else the examples folder would have been a huge failure.

I meant Windows.