Remix threatens to harm ubuntu's image?

[vexorian]

I for one think some answers are needed.

http://www.canonical.com/netbooks

First thing to notice "mp4 format"

Now:

Clean licensing - all work conforms with open source and commercial application licensing with audio and video codecs that are legally licensed
Later:


Market leading applications included:

* Adobe Flash
* Adobe Reader
* Real Player for MID†
* Java JVM

Licensed audio and video decoders:

* MPEG4 (H.263)
* MP3
* AAC
* Windows Media
* Real Media*


Why is remix so heck taxed, specifically MS-taxed?, and why is the advertisement only available in such format? I am already seeing things like "ubuntu is tainted" spring on certain sites, please, what's going on?

[acelin]

How about this is awesome! Linux for Human Beings, not Linux for the others.

[vexorian]

Yep, exactly it is supposed to be linux for human beings, not linux for megalomaniac corps.

[Swarms]

I know its a big issue to someone to keep everything free in a clean install, nevertheless most go install restricted formats immediately.

Doing this will just promote Ubuntu as being an userfriendly operating system, the idealistic opensource ONLY way won't.

[acelin]

Yeah well it could be an option?

[vexorian]

There's no correlation between userfriendly and proprietary crap that will make the price bigger and MS-dependent. People who wanted to remove their freedom in ubuntu were able to easily install the restricted codecs and drivers, and it worked, I don't get why in remix you will always pay for codecs and licensing on software you wouldn't use, this is no improvement over the other software choices in portable devices, if remix will still force me to pay these taxes, what's the point of it?

[Swarms]

There's no correlation between userfriendly and proprietary crap that will make the price bigger and MS-dependent.

What price? Its still free to download, and please explain on how its dependent on Microsoft?

[Midwest-Linux]

I for one think some answers are needed.

http://www.canonical.com/netbooks

First thing to notice "mp4 format"

Now:

Later:


Why is remix so heck taxed, specifically MS-taxed?, and why is the advertisement only available in such format? I am already seeing things like "ubuntu is tainted" spring on certain sites, please, what's going on?

What I read is that Remix will be only available to the OEM market and not to us mere mortals. The inclusion of codecs you described in the Remix OS might be the reason for this. In other words, the codecs are only licensed "out of the box" for the OS on a laptop and not as a freely distributed OS by itself.

I am only guessing that Remix will go directly up against Windows XP Home for this market. While Remix doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Ubuntu's other distros. Maybe there is a higher calling here that Linux as a whole is set to take off like its never done before and Remix could very well be set to be the leader in this growing and now very important market.

Anyone care to add to this?

[acelin]

Yeah maybe this is a way for Canonical to make some money so it can support more devs to work on Ubuntu which is a free OS!

[init1]

The average user is going to want to be able to play proprietary media files on their OS.

[Swarms]

There's no correlation between userfriendly and proprietary crap that will make the price bigger and MS-dependent. People who wanted to remove their freedom in ubuntu were able to easily install the restricted codecs and drivers, and it worked, I don't get why in remix you will always pay for codecs and licensing on software you wouldn't use, this is no improvement over the other software choices in portable devices, if remix will still force me to pay these taxes, what's the point of it?

This is still not userfriendly, for it to be friendly in my eyes everything should work out of the box, and not require the user to install anything for doing simple tasks as listening to different music formats, watching video, having no trouble watching flash content etc., this is not something the normal user can figure without help, and we have to embrace those for getting Ubuntu to the mainstream.

And still, please elaborate on that cost, I got all that unfree software and I don't have to pay a penny, and not doing any illegal?

[vexorian]

Yeah maybe this is a way for Canonical to make some money so it can support more devs to work on Ubuntu which is a free OS!
Yeah, and the money that goes to microsoft for this will also be used to screw us up. Everybody wins.

[acelin]

Yeah, and the money that goes to microsoft for this will also be used to screw us up. Everybody wins.

I actually read that at one time that they pay a one time fee, and then they have the license.

[cardinals_fan]

There's no correlation between userfriendly and proprietary crap that will make the price bigger and MS-dependent. People who wanted to remove their freedom in ubuntu were able to easily install the restricted codecs and drivers, and it worked, I don't get why in remix you will always pay for codecs and licensing on software you wouldn't use, this is no improvement over the other software choices in portable devices, if remix will still force me to pay these taxes, what's the point of it?
You can say whatever you like about the restricted drivers, but they are not what I would call legal. That's why I use RealPlayer to play my media. The point of Remix is to allow users to play media and get online easily and out of the box.

[Swarms]

I actually read that at one time that they pay a one time fee, and then they have the license.

If that is the case, I would happily donate some money to a trust that could buy the license for Ubuntu being even more userfriendly. Ofc., open iniatives like Gnash are to be promoted, but until its atleast on par with Adobe Flash, its not wise to expose to the public.

[vexorian]

You can say whatever you like about the restricted drivers, but they are not what I would call legalI don't care about the legality, I care about making the whole release dependent on it, thanks to restricted drivers people that don't want the codecs will never get them or pay for them and the OS won't require them to work, so there's no risk.


If that is the case, I would happily donate some money to a trust that could buy the license for Ubuntu being even more userfriendlyIt isn't.

--
But really, if people want to pay for these things let them, but it is quite cruel that you are forcing everyone into that, my big hope for remix was that it would allow me to get a non-taxed device, at least without an MS tax, I don't get why MS must receive money for every single hardware sale, it is non-sense, please canonical, give me a choice...

[cardinals_fan]

I don't care about the legality, I care about making the whole release dependent on it, thanks to restricted drivers people that don't want the codecs will never get them or pay for them and the OS won't require them to work, so there's no risk. Legality is a matter that I don't care at all.

I believe that it just includes RealPlayer anyway, so I would be OK with a one-click-to-install RealPlayer instead of including it by default.

[vexorian]

The page says that it includes the windows media codec and that it is licensed. In fact I think it looks like the only optional part of it is realplayer.

If it could be made optional it would be awesome, as a matter of fact, extend it to desktop and unleash a beast(ubuntu subdistro) that brings these codecs so those desktop users that seem to have some trauma about doing a couple of clicks to install codecs would stop complaining-

[acelin]

I don't care about the legality, I care about making the whole release dependent on it, thanks to restricted drivers people that don't want the codecs will never get them or pay for them and the OS won't require them to work, so there's no risk.

It isn't.

--
But really, if people want to pay for these things let them, but it is quite cruel that you are forcing everyone into that, my big hope for remix was that it would allow me to get a non-taxed device, at least without an MS tax, I don't get why MS must receive money for every single hardware sale, it is non-sense, please canonical, give me a choice...

Funny because over 180 million people this year decided to buy Vista in this world. No one forced them too.

[DeadSuperHero]

Heck, as long as it can play OGG files, read .ODF, and has a Synaptic-like add-on system, I'm happy.

[days_of_ruin]

Its for OEMs and they would never ship something out that didn't
have all the popular codecs installed.

[techmarks]

If there was a video player that I could buy and play videos on Linux without the troubles and illegal stuff I'd buy one in a minute.

I don't know why no one has come up with one yet.

I know Fluendo said they'd have one but it's never released.

[zmjjmz]

Funny because over 180 million people this year decided to buy Vista in this world. No one forced them too.

Erm, you mean that when they bought that computer from HP or Gateway etc. they had a choice in OS's?
Right.
Sure.
Anyways, I am quite pissed at that idea of including proprietary codecs.
But a few things to note:
This is by Canonical, not the Ubuntu team (as in, it's not a subset of Ubuntu). So they don't have to adhere to the same philosophy. Like Launchpad.
Anyways, they should've at least put that vid up in ogg not mp4.
What the frack was that about?
Did they record it with iMovie or something?

[20thCenturyBoy]

Erm, you mean that when they bought that computer from HP or Gateway etc. they had a choice in OS's?
Right.
Sure.


I don't know why you had to make such an asinine comment. His point still stands; no one force them to buy those computers. No need to say it like that.

As to the proprietary codecs, I personally couldn't care less and I doubt their target audience will either. That's what it's all about. I'm all about choice, but at the end of the day it probably wouldn't be worth having two choices.

[ubuntu-freak]

If there was a video player that I could buy and play videos on Linux without the troubles and illegal stuff I'd buy one in a minute.

I don't know why no one has come up with one yet.

I know Fluendo said they'd have one but it's never released.


It's only illegal for Ubuntu to ship with some codecs preinstalled. Anywho, you can install RealPlayer 11 if you feel that guilty about it all.

[ubuntu-freak]

Are the OEMs installing the non-free software? I'm only asking as I thought it would be a breach of Ubuntu's own licensing terms if they install the non-free stuff themselves. Maybe someone knowledgable can shed some light.

[swoll1980]

There's no correlation between userfriendly and proprietary crap that will make the price bigger and MS-dependent. People who wanted to remove their freedom in ubuntu were able to easily install the restricted codecs and drivers, and it worked, I don't get why in remix you will always pay for codecs and licensing on software you wouldn't use, this is no improvement over the other software choices in portable devices, if remix will still force me to pay these taxes, what's the point of it?

In the US these codecs are illegal Ubuntu adding licenses by default is nice. I guaranty you 99% of people out there don't give to craps about freedom. I am one of them. Since most Americans don't like breaking the law this makes perfect sense. Mark is trying to make money. All that crap about bug #1 is just a ploy to get free software fanatics to help him develop it. Now that a base is established they can start to show there corporate attitude

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well mandriava does this so why not, if there is a commercial version of ubuntu with codecs included we should support it.

[ubuntu-freak]

In the US these codecs are illegal Ubuntu adding licenses by default is nice. I guaranty you 99% of people out there don't give to craps about freedom. I am one of them. Since most Americans don't like breaking the law this makes perfect sense. Mark is trying to make money. All that crap about bug #1 is just a ploy to get free software fanatics to help him develop it. Now that a base is established they can start to show there corporate attitude


You don't care about freedom? You wouldn't have Ubuntu without it, so might be a good idea to start appreciating freedom.

[SunnyRabbiera]

You don't care about freedom? You wouldn't have Ubuntu without it, so might be a good idea to start appreciating freedom.

but its not like this is going to be the default, but if Canonical does try to sell this as a standalone product and if it means supporting linux I will certainly buy a copy.

[BandD]

I don't understand all this talk of MS tax. The only proprietary thing included owned by Microsoft is the WMA codec. The other's are Adobe, Apple, and whatever frickin' company own the patent on the MP3 codec (who really gave it MS several years ago...).

So stop with this MS tax gibberish!

Also like many others have already said...THIS IS NOT UBUNTU. It is based on Ubuntu, but it meant as an OEM OS. It's in a totally different cagetgory. Most of the programs included seem to be open source projects...but let's face it people the world does not fucntion on open source stuff yet.

Why is the video in mp4 format...because 90% of the population has never heard of ogg nor do they have a player that can play it! If you are trying to get the word out, then you have to be able to communicate in their language. If people don't have a player to play ogg, and they come across that video, they aren't going to care enough to go through the trouble of finding the right codec or player to play it.

Lighten up. Until the vast majority of people are using open source software, some 'sacrifices' are going to have to be made. If ogg were a more viable option (not that it isn't great!, it's just not widely accepted yet), then I'm sure they wouldn't even bother with the other codecs...but let's face it, that's not the case. OEM vendors are not going to ship something they can't sell. People want to be able to listen to their itunes music, all the mp3's they've collected over the years, etc.

Canonical is a business, plain and simple. If you want Ubuntu to be a viable option for us, then Canonical needs to bring in some money somewhere--more than the vast majority of us have donated. I'm perfectly comfortable with Remix shipping with these codecs, even if I wouldn't use them (except flash)...it's not Ubuntu.

[jimrz]

I don't understand all this talk of MS tax. The only proprietary thing included owned by Microsoft is the WMA codec. The other's are Adobe, Apple, and whatever frickin' company own the patent on the MP3 codec (who really gave it MS several years ago...).

So stop with this MS tax gibberish!

Also like many others have already said...THIS IS NOT UBUNTU. It is based on Ubuntu, but it meant as an OEM OS. It's in a totally different cagetgory. Most of the programs included seem to be open source projects...but let's face it people the world does not fucntion on open source stuff yet.

Why is the video in mp4 format...because 90% of the population has never heard of ogg nor do they have a player that can play it! If you are trying to get the word out, then you have to be able to communicate in their language. If people don't have a player to play ogg, and they come across that video, they aren't going to care enough to go through the trouble of finding the right codec or player to play it.

Lighten up. Until the vast majority of people are using open source software, some 'sacrifices' are going to have to be made. If ogg were a more viable option (not that it isn't great!, it's just not widely accepted yet), then I'm sure they wouldn't even bother with the other codecs...but let's face it, that's not the case. OEM vendors are not going to ship something they can't sell. People want to be able to listen to their itunes music, all the mp3's they've collected over the years, etc.

Canonical is a business, plain and simple. If you want Ubuntu to be a viable option for us, then Canonical needs to bring in some money somewhere--more than the vast majority of us have donated. I'm perfectly comfortable with Remix shipping with these codecs, even if I wouldn't use them (except flash)...it's not Ubuntu.

+1 ... the announcement is about the OEM version soon to be released, anybody want to bet on how long before there is a downloadable free version (without the offending codecs, etc.) available ... I'm guessing not long

[ubuntu-freak]

but its not like this is going to be the default, but if Canonical does try to sell this as a standalone product and if it means supporting linux I will certainly buy a copy.


It seemed like he didn't care about software freedom in general, that was my point.

Anywho, did you see my post further up? I'd like that answered properly by the time I wake up. I'm asleep at the moment.

[swoll1980]

You don't care about freedom? You wouldn't have Ubuntu without it, so might be a good idea to start appreciating freedom.

NO I DON'T CARE! I never will. I use Ubuntu because I like it. It works better for me than Microsoft. If Microsoft worked better I would use it.
If Ubuntu didn't exist I wouldn't care because I would never have known about it. Even if it got taken away from me now I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. It's just an operating system I can can think of a whole lot of things in my life that are more important to me, and in fact if I had to list them out from important to not Ubuntu would be almost dead last next to folding my laundry, and making sure my socks match

[SunnyRabbiera]

+1 ... the announcement is about the OEM version soon to be released, anybody want to bet on how long before there is a downloadable free version (without the offending codecs, etc.) available ... I'm guessing not long

the free version would be ubuntu itself.
Canonical can just take what mandriva started, have a free version and a commercial version... and both work great.

[ubuntu-freak]

the free version would be ubuntu itself.
Canonical can just take what mandriva started, have a free version and a commercial version... and both work great.


Yes, but it's called "Ubuntu Remix", so it is still Ubuntu. The name matters. That's why I asked if they have breached their own licensing terms. I'm not saying they have, just want someone to clarify it all.

[saulgoode]

All that crap about bug #1 is just a ploy to get free software fanatics to help him develop it. Now that a base is established they can start to show there corporate attitude

I think you are close, but not exact. The Ubuntu philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy) is the ploy to attract volunteer contributions. "That crap about bug #1" is to encourage those volunteers to compromise that philosophy in order that Microsoft be supplanted in majority market share.

[madjr]

NO I DON'T CARE! I never will. I use Ubuntu because I like it. It works better for me than Microsoft. If Microsoft worked better I would use it.
If Ubuntu didn't exist I wouldn't care because I would never have known about it. Even if it got taken away from me now I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. It's just an operating system I can can think of a whole lot of things in my life that are more important to me, and in fact if I had to list them out from important to not Ubuntu would be almost dead last next to folding my laundry, and making sure my socks match

-1

that's a bit harsh, even for you.

why are you here in the Ubuntu forums? isn't it more interesting to go fold your laundry and make sure your socks match than talk about Ubuntu?

you could make my grandma some company and chit-chat, she's folding up some laundry right now.

don't offend the project just because you had a disagreement wit another member. People disagree in everything, period.

[andrewsomething]

+1 ... the announcement is about the OEM version soon to be released, anybody want to bet on how long before there is a downloadable free version (without the offending codecs, etc.) available ... I'm guessing not long

Already done...

Debs:

https://edge.launchpad.net/~netbook-remix-team/+archive

Source code:

https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~netbook-remix-team
https://code.edge.launchpad.net/netbook-remix-launcher

I don't think there are disc images yet, but these packages are the main difference between the netbook remix and Ubuntu. Of course, I imagine the defaults are tweaked, but everything else is Ubuntu. The codecs are only on OEM installs.

[cardinals_fan]

The page says that it includes the windows media codec and that it is licensed. In fact I think it looks like the only optional part of it is realplayer.

If it could be made optional it would be awesome, as a matter of fact, extend it to desktop and unleash a beast(ubuntu subdistro) that brings these codecs so those desktop users that seem to have some trauma about doing a couple of clicks to install codecs would stop complaining-
RealPlayer 11 includes a licensed Windows Media codec. I for one consider this excellent; I can play any media I receive legally.

[andrewsomething]

I should add that it's probably a bad idea to go and install this over your desktop. I'd try it out on a seperate partition or on a virtual machine.

Also, the developers warn:

"DO NOT INSTALL ume-config-netbook unless you are running an diamondville-based netbook."

[swoll1980]

-1

that's a bit harsh, even for you.

why are you here in the Ubuntu forums? isn't it more interesting to go fold your laundry and make sure your socks match than talk about Ubuntu?

you could make my grandma some company and chit-chat, she's folding up some laundry right now.

don't offend the project just because you had a disagreement wit another member. People disagree in everything, period.

I love the Ubuntu community, This I care about way more than the os it's self. You guys are people. People I care about, not so much about software. The Ubuntu community is for the most part helpful, intelligent, and caring. The software is just some crap I run on my computer. See the difference?

[madjr]

for the OP,

the goal: increase the marketshare for linux

in the real world this means: Aggressive competition (become the best)

once Linux gets enough marketshare, it can push for any open format it wants.


if marketshare == 0

then "popularity of open format" == 0


sometimes the good guys need to use the same weapons as the bad guys to beat them.

the thieves have guns and the cops only get sticks?

[madjr]

I love the Ubuntu community, This I care about way more than the os it's self. You guys are people. People I care about, not so much about software. The Ubuntu community is for the most part helpful, intelligent, and caring. The software is just some crap I run on my computer. See the difference?

no, i can't see the difference.

the "ubuntu community" = Ubuntu

no ubuntu , no "ubuntu" community

no linux , no "linux" community

no Open source , no "Open source" community

Software is not crap, just like books are not crap and art is not crap. People literally kill themselves making this so called "craps".

If you didn't like my work OK, but don't insult it calling it C.R.A.P. , specially since you didn't even paid me a dime for it.

so like i said before:

don't offend a project just because you had a disagreement with another member.

you're not only insulting the software, but everyone (the people) who were part of it.

[swoll1980]

no, i can't see the difference.

the "ubuntu community" = Ubuntu

no ubuntu , no "ubuntu" community

no linux , no "linux" community

no Open source , no "Open source" community

Software is not crap, just like books are not crap and art is not crap. People literally kill themselves making this so called "craps".

If you didn't like my work OK, but don't insult it calling it C.R.A.P. , specially since you didn't even paid me a dime for it.

so like i said before:

don't offend a project just because you had a disagreement with another member.

you're not only insulting the software, but everyone (the people) who were part of it.

I don't see how a os not being an important part of my life is insulting
Ubuntu=software (not important)
community=people (very important)
I sell Kirby Vacuums as a side job. If someone doesn't think a kirby is important I find nothing insulting about it You must be one of those cult types that think Ubuntu is more important than it is.

[RiceMonster]

NO I DON'T CARE! I never will. I use Ubuntu because I like it. It works better for me than Microsoft. If Microsoft worked better I would use it.
If Ubuntu didn't exist I wouldn't care because I would never have known about it. Even if it got taken away from me now I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. It's just an operating system I can can think of a whole lot of things in my life that are more important to me, and in fact if I had to list them out from important to not Ubuntu would be almost dead last next to folding my laundry, and making sure my socks match

Thank you. This "software freedom" stuff is ridiculous. Yes I think open source is a good thing, and I think it should be supported, but as for software freedom, I really couldn't care less. Frankly what am I really going to lose by not being able to edit the source code of something? Pretty much nothing other than that. "Oh my god, I lost my software freedom, how will I ever live my life??" There's much more important things in my life and more important issues at hand.

I use Linux because I like it, not just because I have the freedom to redistribute it and edit the source code. If you ask me, If you use software PURELY because of that, then that's just dumb. Open Source is a good thing, but you should use open source software because it's good, not because it gives you "freedom". Give me a break.

[madjr]

I don't see how a os not being an important part of my life is insulting
Ubuntu=software (not important)
community=people (very important)
I sell Kirby Vacuums as a side job. If someone doesn't think a kirby is important I find nothing insulting about it You must be one of those cult types that think Ubuntu is more important than it is.

you didn't called it "unimportant", you called it CRAP.

so am a "cult type" now? I didn't said you were the "likely to insult other's work type"

I just don't call other people's work crap, specially if i didn't pay for it.

you give me something for free and i call it crap in your face. Yeah, that would be nice.

[p_quarles]

Open Source is a good thing, but you should use open source software because it's good, not because it gives you "freedom". Give me a break.
I'm not a free software zealot, but I still find this attitude very frustrating because of the poor understanding of the issues that they exhibit. Free software is about a lot more than just programming -- it's about the free exchange of ideas. Think what you like, but don't dismiss the legitimate value others here rightly place on freedom.

[swoll1980]

you didn't called it "unimportant", you called it CRAP.

so am a "cult type" now? I didn't said you were the "likely to insult other's work type"

I just don't call other people's work crap, specially if i didn't pay for it.

you give me something for free and i call it crap. Yeah, that would be nice.

I'm sorry I offended you and I apologize. Crap is just a word I use to describe things that are not important to me. It was never intended to offend anyone. I was just expressing myself and I'm sorry I hurt you.
You must understand though that just because Ubuntu isn't important to me doesn't mean the community isn't

[jrusso2]

I actually read that at one time that they pay a one time fee, and then they have the license.

Thats true for many codecs like MP3, but not for the Microsoft ones its on a per use basis.

[jrusso2]

Well I am glad to see Mr Shuttleworth has finally realized the future is Linux for Desktops requires a combination of both Free and Proprietary Software in order to make a workable solution for for the average user.

This should cause quite a stir with the Free Software only folks though should be very interesting.

I hope this project does well and Mr. Shuttleworth will expand it to include a version of Ubuntu set up the same way.

[rhardie]

I've often thought about the totally free software (FOSS) and proprietary versions. I believe I read an article where Mark Shuttleworth believed that free software would last about 20 years. I could be wrong on that second sentence.

I've looked at Canonical's contributions to Ubuntu which aren't free at all to Canonical.

There is free open source software, which I am in favor of to the greatest extent possible, and there is a growing need for more desktop applications rolling out more quickly as Ubuntu realizes it's goal of becoming mainstream.

Ubuntu is created by both a core of "paid" software engineers ON STAFF at Canonical and by volunteers.

Mark Shuttleworth paid $20 million to the Russians to ride one of their rockets up to the International Manned Space Station. Where did that money come from? Not by doing FREE work as a lifetime vocation. Where does the money come from to pay the full time software engineers at Canonical so that YOU don't have to pay a dime for Ubuntu?

Do you think this forum and web site were put together by volunteers? I don't think so. I expect somebody got paid to produce this site.

Back to the commercialization of Ubuntu. The OS you are using is going to remain free but it is going to be the core around which other profit making businesses are going be grow.

I run a business. I need software that helps me work smarter, faster and cheaper than my competition or else someone else gets my customers and business income.

As great as FOSS is, I have needs for user applications NOW, that work right and that are actively supported during business hours. The only way I'm going to get that is by some kind of paid software or paid support. Ubuntu is free with paid support by Canonical.

If I want a software application for my business, then I pay a developer/coder to get it done when I need it.

Do they work for free? No, they have living expenses and families (sometimes with teenage and early 20's computer geeks who write code for free because mom and dad are paying the living expenses).

So I have to pay these people to develop applications for my business. Where do I get the money? Not by working for free in my profession.

I either absorb the cost into my business, develop a new business and sell the software or just give it away for FREE to the community but at a cost to me.

If I use FREE software that is developed by someone in their home while on their own time and I make lots of money through it's use, then is that equitable for the person who invested his/her time and talent?

That is another question I think about often as I use free software to make money. And if I donate, how much should I donate?

There is nothing wrong with paying for things. Money is a medium of exchange for what I call "Stored Value".

If someone performs a service or produces a product, then they add VALUE to the community. If someone uses the product or service then they benefit by the VALUE of that product or service.

Social and economic systems remain viable (that means they stay alive and vibrant) when there is a FLOW of value from one person in the community to another. Money is simply a "universal" exchange medium for translating value from one form into another. It ain't evil; only the "intent" of certain people within a socio-economic community.

We could do away with money all together. You are gong to eat today. How are you going to get the food? Will you write code for a farmer who has no computer in exchange for something to fill your empty belly? I don't think so. But you can write code for someone who fixes engines (and uses computers) and then that person can fix the farmer's tractor. The mechanic can get paid in food and then can, in turn give you some of it for the value you added to his family. But that's not very efficient or reliable, is it?

It is human nature that we will each act in our own self interest; it is when we take it to unreasonable extremes that we experience the Microsoft effect that we so much dislike.

[rhardie]

Another thought on being a profit oriented entity and FOSS.

Some people are great coders in the various languages; I'm not. Many of these people contribute their natural talents in support of the "community" of software users so that the software remains FOSS.

As a profit oriented entity, and realizing that money or currency is a universal exchange/storage medium for "value", then maybe my way of contributing to FOSS would be to contribute some of my value in the form of money to some one or organization that worked to improve the existing software. I can't code (donating time and talent) but I can translate my unique version of time and talent into money (treasure) and donate that way.

It's kind of like giving a percentage to a church, synagoge or mosque so that the religious community is taken care of.

I went to Russia in 1993 just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was interesting to learn there was no intellectual property rights laws in Soviet Russia. That is because, for the most part, nobody owned anything; the state owned everything and everyone worked for the state so what was there to protect or what rights were there to reward.

Engineers and academicians openly shared ideas and inventions because there was no 'market economy' as in a capitalist society. They surely had FOSS as a way of life.

There were a lot of really, really great ideas and scientific knowledge that existed but were never put to practical use due to the lack of financial self interest to direct the efficient use of capital. The certain laws of money dictated to the investors that only the best and most widely useful ideas made it to market.

That is the theory, anyway. It seems to work reasonably well until some dysfunctional business person decides to push everyone around and dominate the markets via "Darwainian Capitalism". Not enough of mama's milk and attention as a kid, I guess.

[madjr]

I'm sorry I offended you and I apologize. Crap is just a word I use to describe things that are not important to me. It was never intended to offend anyone. I was just expressing myself and I'm sorry I hurt you.
You must understand though that just because Ubuntu isn't important to me doesn't mean the community isn't

it's ok, i didn't get offended.

i understand what you're saying, ubuntu is not a priority in my life either.

i do have kids and tons of problems, bills, etc. at home.

But that doesn't mean i shouldn't care about it.

you're slightly contradicting yourself, because Linux is not an entity on it's own.

Linux is just as big and important as it's community.

it goes both ways:

if the community dies then linux dies.

if linux dies then the community dies.

this is why linux is a "community driven project"

just by being "part" of it's community, linux is already "part" of me.

linux is not Xorg + gnome, it can be anything. Linux is it's people.

the first time i realized it, was watching this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcxMWDpRCmU&feature=related

and in this video there's a part that describes why of the community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwL0G9wK8j4


anyway, am sure you already know what linux really is and seen all this :) :lolflag:

--edit--

by watching these i just remembered myself why i came to linux to begin with.

[eragon100]

I couldn't care less about the GPL and such as well, and being able to watch youtube on your ubuntu phone is nice! :popcorn:

[Midwest-Linux]

If Canonical wants to produce a Operating system that is sold and made to either make a profit from or sold just to cover licenses. Then I have no problem with that.

Red Hat does it, Novell does it, Linspire does it. But they offer free versions of their paid/support professional versions. If Shuttleworth has to do what he has to to get Ubuntu really out in the mainstream and go up against MSFT. I am 100% for that. The tiny laptop market now has the potential of bringing thousands of new users to Linux. Lets do it right.


If Remix costs some $$ to download and to use on my laptop and works great "out of the box" including wireless then I am 100% for that. Its bad enough that I spent days and weeks and countless "recommended" scripts trying to get my laptop wireless working on Hardy.

If I have to pay for a Linux distro that I don't have to spend countless hours trying to make it work. Its worth the money. I am not slamming Hardy or the community at all. Hardy works great otherwise, but its useless on a laptop unless one gets the wireless to work. If Remix help solves that problem. I say bring it on.

[k99goran]

Funny because over 180 million people this year decided to buy Vista in this world. No one forced them too.

Over 180 million people actually bought a retail copy of Windows Vista in 2008? I'd love to see your numbers for that.
Very few people who buy computers actually choose their operating system, they just use whatever the vendor (Dell, HP, Acer...) ships as OEM. And the vendor for most part just ships whatever Microsoft recommends. There's very little choice involved in that equation.

One more reason to make OEM versions of Ubuntu easier to use out-of-the-box. Someone should be able to buy a sub-notebook running Ubuntu without any knowledge of Linux and still be able to use it.

[drascus]

Mark Shuttleworth has already responded to this in another blog section. Here is what he had to say.


Canonical has not licensed codes from Microsoft for work with OEM’s on the netbook remix. However, we almost certainly WILL license codecs from any one of a number of sources - Real, Fluendo or others - so that users of Ubuntu can legally play content in as many formats as possible. Those codecs would be available alongside existing free software implementations for users to choose, and some OEM’s may choose to bundle them on their devices.

There is nothing in that which is a conspiracy, or bad for free software. We already have reasonable free codecs, like Ogg, but there is content out there which people have every right to access, and if they need to purchase codecs in order to do so legally in their country then we need to facilitate that. Of course, we also want to work to make sure that open codecs become more widely adopted, and we want to work against laws which are dumb enough to create artificial boundaries in an open, digital world. But we are not here to encourage people to BREAK existing law, nor are we here to to prevent people from exercising all of their options. We are stronger when we make good arguments for freedom, not when we impose particular behaviour.

I agree with many of Mark's sentiments here. especially when it comes to legally obtaining codecs rather than breaking local laws. However I still feel that it is a step in the wrong direction. people don't need these non-free codecs. they are just secondary conveniences. Offering them out of box and paying money to Microsoft is almost a kin to giving them endorsement. We are almost saying that what they do is OK or good. so good that we are willing to pay for it and enter into license agreements.

I also understand the idea that in order to promote Free Software we need to have a larger market share. yes that is true. But if we get that larger market share by being weak on our own ethics we won't have much of a platform to stand on. if I visited prostitutes and then tried to have a campaign against prostitution no one would take me seriously.

This is a frustrating issue because the answer is not entirely clear. I have a hard time seeing market share increase without making peoples normal routines available to them through these codecs. I have a hard time seeing the advancement of Free Software (the knowledge and ethics) if they are provided because they make us look weak. I would go with caution on this and say lets protect the ethics. Once people understand and agree with the ethics they won't turn back. because no proprietary company can offer freedom. But if we move in this direction we could loose that. Then any other group could offer attractive software and sway people away. just my opinion of course I am not trying to bash anyone else's

[jopari]

Mark Shuttleworth has already responded to this in another blog section. Here is what he had to say.



I agree with many of Mark's sentiments here. especially when it comes to legally obtaining codecs rather than breaking local laws. However I still feel that it is a step in the wrong direction. people don't need these non-free codecs. they are just secondary conveniences. Offering them out of box and paying money to Microsoft is almost a kin to giving them endorsement. We are almost saying that what they do is OK or good. so good that we are willing to pay for it and enter into license agreements.

He's not paying money to Microsoft, they're gonna license from other places. Didn't you read the article you quoted? If Microsoft's codecs are included, they will be added by the OEM, not Canonical.

That said, it is unfortunate that they feel any non-free codecs are needed, but unfortunately that's just the nature of the beast. As someone who has migrated from OS X, I have over 60GB of various types of media that aren't in open formats, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna compromise the integrity of my files my transcoding them to .ogg et al.


I also understand the idea that in order to promote Free Software we need to have a larger market share. yes that is true. But if we get that larger market share by being weak on our own ethics we won't have much of a platform to stand on. if I visited prostitutes and then tried to have a campaign against prostitution no one would take me seriously.

That's not what Canonical is doing; they promoted (and still promote) free and open formats, they're just changing the game plan slightly. To use your prostitute allegory, you're visiting prostitutes after changing your previous negative opinion about them. Is it right to flip flop like that? It's debatable. Obviously, Canonical puts more importance in increasing the Ubuntu marketshare than forcing free and open on people. If you find that offensive, no biggie, just switch to a different distro. That's the beauty of Linux: there's always another version. In fact, you don't even have to switch distros: give Gobuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/gobuntu) a try.


This is a frustrating issue because the answer is not entirely clear. I have a hard time seeing market share increase without making peoples normal routines available to them through these codecs. I have a hard time seeing the advancement of Free Software (the knowledge and ethics) if they are provided because they make us look weak. I would go with caution on this and say lets protect the ethics. Once people understand and agree with the ethics they won't turn back. because no proprietary company can offer freedom. But if we move in this direction we could loose that. Then any other group could offer attractive software and sway people away. just my opinion of course I am not trying to bash anyone else's

I completely agree with you in that it is a tough decision; ultimately, though, it's not ours to make, but Mark's. And even then Mark is courteous of free and open (*points to Gobuntu link above*). It's not like Ubuntu is the last stand for free and open. Even if Mark does turn Canonical into the next Microsoft, there will always be other options, other distros that will have awesome support forums and great ethics (although hopefully not the unfortunate color choices :) ). There's one very important thing to note, though: it's called Ubuntu Remix for a reason. It's not the original, it's a different variant for a different audience. It's the techno remix featuring Flo Rida, the one 13 year old girls listen to, not the song it samples.

[23meg]

This "software freedom" stuff is ridiculous.


I use Linux because I like it, not just because I have the freedom to redistribute it and edit the source code.

There is no way on Earth you'd have even 1% of the "Linux" that you like if it weren't for the freedom to redistribute, edit and share source code.

You don't have to be 100% pure and free or have a direct need to modify and redistribute source code to understand and respect the importance of software freedom and reap its benefits.

[aysiu]

The prostitute analogy makes no sense.

The goal of Ubuntu is to increase marketshare for open source, and allowing for the inclusion of non-free codecs on certain OEM implementations of Ubuntu might achieve that goal.

If your goal is to end prostitution, patronizing prostitutes in no way furthers that goal.

Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth seek to advance open source software not force people to use only open source software. If I were forced to use only open source and be 100% Richard Stallman, I wouldn't have much to use my computer for right now.

[BDNiner]

IMO open source zealots hurt the cause more than they help it. For me freedom means being able to do with a computer whatever i please without anyone predefining what i can do. Linux allows me to do this. I don't think that anyone has to right to tell other people how to use their own computers or any other device for that matter. I find their behaviour just as bad as people from the other side of the specturm who only want you to use their products and their products alone and try to lock you in.

Since that product is designed for OEMs, i feel the inclusion of the codecs is warrented. They have a mission to provide a solution that meets the average user's needs, and that includes support for those formats in question. I felt that they could have made it an opt-in clause so that users who don't want the software in question don't have to do anything but those who do, need to agree to have it installed.

But it is also linux, so if you feel that this product doesn't fit well within your ethics and ideals then you are FREE to create your own solution. And a lot of people would be willing to help you acheive that goal.

[drascus]

For me freedom means being able to do with a computer whatever i please without anyone predefining what i can do

I think that most open source and Free software "zealots" would totally agree with you here. I am not saying that somone should be prevented from installing any software they wish. I am saying though that having it preinstalled makes it seem OK. but others have made very good points about this being a remix and that the choice to install the codecs are up to OEMs.
in fact I think the only people that would disagree with you are proprietary software developers. they are the only ones that I have seen try to prevent people from doing whatever they wanted with their computers.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here are some answers:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/151

[BDNiner]

yes i agree with you totally, but most of the discussions like this on the forums deal with someone telling other people what they should do with their computers. I feel that that puts you in the same boat as M$, apple and all other proprietary vendors. The OEMs who sign onto this project will probably include these codecs, and some may choose Remix because it makes it easier to include these codecs.

If I was to sell systems with ubuntu pre installed i would have users opt-in instead of opt-out when it comes to codecs and other licensed software. At least that way without end-user approval the computer would be open source. But to each his own. if someone else makes a different product and does things differently then i would care that much.

[saulgoode]

I was pleased to see that the Netbooks homepage (http://www.canonical.com/netbooks) has been updated to provide an OGG Theora version of the demo video.

[quinnten83]

This should cause quite a stir with the Free Software only folks though should be very interesting.


why would it?
Novell also ships with some proprietary formats installed.

I would also like to point out to all the people screaming for blood that the OS is not even called Ubuntu, there is also a version available without the closed source formats and that it's okay to make money of GPL products.
Also the licenses don't appear in the mainstream Ubuntu distribution.
How is this different from virtualbox which had an open-source edition and a closed source 1?

[BreakDecks]

If you don't like proprietary, licensed media codecs, then don't buy the remix. However, if you want an easy to use netbook with Ubuntu Linux and support for widely used media formats, then buy it.

Canonical can produce/sell whatever they please. So long as they continue developing Ubuntu as a free, open-source OS I am satisfied.

I am tired of this Linux is the best, Microsoft must be destroyed BS that so many Linux users have. I am a dedicated Linux user, I still run Windows for games and for school, but I prefer Linux.

I even bought a Windows Mobile 6 Smartphone, and I will be honest, Microsoft made a nice system. It's easy to use, capable of running third party apps that can take advantage of any and all specialized hardware, and is unbelievably stable.

I think that it is a shame that Windows is the default OS for pretty much every OEM computer out there, but if you don't want Windows, buy an Open Source computer from Dell or build your own.

Basically, stop complaining. The Remix has potential. I think that a basic user who needs a simple computer that can access the internet and play media could get a lot out of the Remix, and it might even open them up to putting Ubuntu on a high-end computer in the future.

[original_jamingrit]

I think that most open source and Free software "zealots" would totally agree with you here. I am not saying that somone should be prevented from installing any software they wish. I am saying though that having it preinstalled makes it seem OK. but others have made very good points about this being a remix and that the choice to install the codecs are up to OEMs.
in fact I think the only people that would disagree with you are proprietary software developers. they are the only ones that I have seen try to prevent people from doing whatever they wanted with their computers.

Bang on, this is the real controversy here. It's not about what the user is doing with your computer, it's about what the OEM/developer is doing with your computer.

With ol' Bessie here getting on in years, I need a new computer at some point. I would consider supporting the Remix if it at least had an "Install Restricted Packages" option on first-run rather than automatically pre-installed non-free stuff. Not for myself, mind you, but for everyone to at least see that there is indeed non-free software on their computer, so they know what they have on there isn't strictly representative of open source and linux. It's not just about whether you have it installed or not. It's about making people think about what it is exactly that they have installed. Maybe more people would become interested in free software that way.

[twright]

Yeah well it could be an option?
just press f6 2 time on the install CD and it will leave out the proprietary stuff

i want more people to use open source software but it is their choice whether the use proprietary software

[ubuntu-freak]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but here are some answers:
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/151

Thanks for that, I get it now.

[swoll1980]

having it preinstalled makes it seem OK

It is OK that's what the other guy is talking about. foss fanatics trying to force there views on other people. Mark Shuttleworth owns Ubuntu he can do what he wants to with it. If some foss fanatic doesn't like it they don't have to use it. Linux has a hundred distros that adhere to foss standards if you don't like those make your own.

[reyfer]

This is still not userfriendly, for it to be friendly in my eyes everything should work out of the box, and not require the user to install anything for doing simple tasks as listening to different music formats, watching video, having no trouble watching flash content etc., this is not something the normal user can figure without help, and we have to embrace those for getting Ubuntu to the mainstream.

And still, please elaborate on that cost, I got all that unfree software and I don't have to pay a penny, and not doing any illegal?

So, by your own definition, a fresh install of Windows (be it XP or Vista) is not user friendly either, since I cannot watch Quicktime movies or listen to ogg files or even watch DVDs out of the box, I have to install codecs and programs for that.

[swoll1980]

So, by your own definition, a fresh install of Windows (be it XP or Vista) is not user friendly either, since I cannot watch Quicktime movies or listen to ogg files or even watch DVDs out of the box, I have to install codecs and programs for that.

A fresh install of windows is completely unusable in most cases from what I've seen to call it user friendly would be ludicrous

[aysiu]

So, by your own definition, a fresh install of Windows (be it XP or Vista) is not user friendly either, since I cannot watch Quicktime movies or listen to ogg files or even watch DVDs out of the box, I have to install codecs and programs for that. Yes, and I'd agree with that definition. No one should ever have to do a fresh install of Windows. That's why Windows comes preinstalled. It would be too difficult for most users to set up drivers and codecs themselves.

[reyfer]

Yes, and I'd agree with that definition. No one should ever have to do a fresh install of Windows. That's why Windows comes preinstalled. It would be too difficult for most users to set up drivers and codecs themselves.

And yet, the major gripe of all those that defend Windows here is that things don't work out of the box in linux. That's why I always ask if any of those people had ever installed Windows, and I mean install.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

If it has not been made clear yet, I'll try to sum this up...

This has been completely blown out of proportion. Someone(s) who seems to see a conspiracy in everything (*cough*boycottnovell*cough*) immediately jumped to a random assumption and pointed fingers as soon as he heard that Canonical would dare provide a commercially interesting product. This seems to have created a disturbing chain reaction.

And no, the Notebook Remix is not a commercial product either. There is a Launchpad PPA (https://launchpad.net/~netbook-remix-team/) with what you will be interested in right now. This is essentially a set of packages that manufacturers can use to make images suited for UMPCs. It is not another edition of Ubuntu; just some packages you can install on top of vanilla Ubuntu at any time.

Of course, those OEMs can happily license codecs, and I believe what is sparking the fury here is simply the suggestion that this will be made easy for equipment manufacturers who preinstall Ubuntu. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and it baffles me that anyone would. After all, there is a good chance those manufacturers will be licensing proprietary drivers, anyway...

You may like to see Mark's response (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2008-June/004510.html) to the discussion which appeared on ubuntu-devel-discuss.


PS:
Speaking of OEMs preinstalling Linux, I had an interesting encounter with someone a while ago. He was looking for a computer peripheral and asked if it worked on Linux. This startled me because he did not seem the technical type. I asked him to confirm he was a Linux user, and he told me that he had bought an EEE laptop. He was quite impressed with it, in particular that things "just worked"; no messing around with hardware configuration, no weird popups. He could just plug in any peripheral and expect to use it. Neat :)

[ubuntu-freak]

If it has not been made clear yet, I'll try to sum this up...

This has been completely blown out of proportion. Someone(s) who seems to see a conspiracy in everything (*cough*boycottnovell*cough*) immediately jumped to a random assumption and pointed fingers as soon as he heard that Canonical would dare provide a commercially interesting product. This seems to have created a disturbing chain reaction.

And no, the Notebook Remix is not a commercial product either. There is a Launchpad PPA (https://launchpad.net/~netbook-remix-team/) with what you will be interested in right now. This is essentially a set of packages that manufacturers can use to make images suited for UMPCs. It is not another edition of Ubuntu; just some packages you can install on top of vanilla Ubuntu at any time.

Of course, those OEMs can happily license codecs, and I believe what is sparking the fury here is simply the suggestion that this will be made easy for equipment manufacturers who preinstall Ubuntu. I see nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and it baffles me that anyone would. After all, there is a good chance those manufacturers will be licensing proprietary drivers, anyway...

You may like to see Mark's response (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2008-June/004510.html) to the discussion which appeared on ubuntu-devel-discuss.

I know what you're saying. I'm perfectly okay with it now that I've read up on it properly. This is a Canonical OEM venture, not a Ubuntu OEM venture. Canonical have every right to make some money anywho. Also, it will only help the open source movement, things are already changing for the better because of how good and popular Ubuntu is.

[Polygon]

i dont see what the problem is about this, it seems to be from mark's blog that the OEM's themselfs are allowed and have paid for the licences to put flash and all those restricted codecs in. Its just like how windows comes with mp3 support playback by default, microsoft paid for it and therefore can use it

sure its not purely open source, but the majority is, except for those few bad eggs (codecs) which ubuntu would prefer to have open source, but cant.

This looks like an interestering project and i wish them the best =P

also, to the OP. they provide OGG video as well as mp4. And isnt mp4 like..open source? cant you use ffmpeg or some other similiar program to create a mp4 video?

[Luke has no name]

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2008-June/004510.html

Mark's reply to the more detail-curious users.

[cardinals_fan]

no, i can't see the difference.

the "ubuntu community" = Ubuntu

no ubuntu , no "ubuntu" community

no linux , no "linux" community

no Open source , no "Open source" community

The Ubuntu community != Ubuntu. Ubuntu is one of the last Linux distros I'd use right now, but I'm still here adding this comment. This community is usually an interesting place to discuss things, which is why I'm here.

[saulgoode]

i dont see what the problem is about this, it seems to be from mark's blog that the OEM's themselfs are allowed and have paid for the licences to put flash and all those restricted codecs in. Its just like how windows comes with mp3 support playback by default, microsoft paid for it and therefore can use it

The opening post of this thread was made before Mark's weblog article appeared.


also, to the OP. they provide OGG video as well as mp4. And isnt mp4 like..open source? cant you use ffmpeg or some other similiar program to create a mp4 video?

Again, the OGG Theora version was only recently made available (and certainly not available when the OP was made). Also, the Netbooks webpage has been updated to more accurately describe the codec licensing as being available as an option -- it originally called them "Licensed codecs", not "Licenseable".

Mr Shuttleworth has assured in the past that Ubuntu/Canonical would never make patent covenant deal with Microsoft. Microsoft has been adamant that any code licensing negotiations with distros be contingent on such patent covenants. While this has been cleared up by Mr Shuttleworth's responses, it was not known at the time the bulk of the comments in this thread were posted how this seeming contradiction might be reconciled.

Finally, the question being asked by the OP is whether Ubuntu's image is threatened, not whether or not Canonical is violating any Free Software licenses (I doubt comparing the situation to "just like how windows" handles things would be considered glowing praise by most of the Free Software community.)

[OpposingForce]

The average user is going to want to be able to play proprietary media files on their OS.

Agreed. If ubuntu wants to become a mainstream OS, the average users want to be able to play music, watch videos, etc. and not have to go searching for plugins and downloading all kinds of crap.

[twright]

the problem is that thanks to US law it is illegal for the source code to many media codecs to be open source, fluendo have contributed a huge amount to gstreamer but they still have to keep their codecs closed/legal. gstreamer still works great with the illegal (they are not yet illigal in the UK where i live) codecs. microsoft have even been sued over the same issue (when they tried to provide mp3 support without paying "microsoft" tax)

i think that smart codec install works great for systems with reliable internet access but not so well for laptops (you can't get codecs when offline or on a high cost wireless/3g network)

ps. i hate microsoft's business strategies as much as the next person but when there is so much which is their fault why blame the for stuff which isn't:-)

[23meg]

Mark Shuttleworth owns Ubuntu he can do what he wants to with it. If some foss fanatic doesn't like it they don't have to use it.

He owns Canonical, not Ubuntu.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

In fairness to the other viewpoint, I really like the comment by Slated (http://slated.org/free_software_diseased_by_mono#comment-121) at the bottom of the post on BoycottNovell (http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/07/ubuntu-remix-codecs/).


This issue of support for proprietary formats, of whatever type, is obviously a contentious one, fraught with difficult choices, but IMHO capitulating to the demands of the pro-software patent lobby is not the right choice.

Canonical cannot compromise it’s business by wilfully breaking the law, therefore distribution of unlicensed patented software is not possible within countries that enforce these ridiculous laws.

So that just leaves one of three choices:

1. Do not support proprietary formats, ever.
2. License proprietary formats at cost, thus tainting Free Software distributions (e.g. direct licensing per distro from Microsoft, or indirect licensing per user from Fluendo).
3. Do not provide pre-installed support for proprietary formats, or commercial codec installers, but instead point users to third party repos located outside the jurisdiction of software patents, where they may obtain e.g. MPlayer.

Point 1 is desirable from a political standpoint, but quite impractical in reality. It is the best choice for distros like gNewSense (and Gobuntu, had it not shut down due to a lack of support from the vendor for the promotion of freedom).

Point 2 is the route that Canonical and Fedora have both taken, and that I strongly disagree with, because it taints Free Software by default.

Point 3 is, IMHO the best solution, since it means that no GNU/Linux distro is distributed in a tainted state, and does not even promote the patentability of software. Equally this solution does not compromise the integrity of the company backing the distro, as no law has been broken. Users are not encouraged to support software patents, and the Intellectual Monopolists don’t get a penny from Free Software users.

AFAICT the third method is the way this used to be done, but for some reason many distros have recently taken to capitulating to the demands of Intellectual Monopolists, by both supporting and promoting software patents and proprietary software.

I can only assume that these distro vendors are getting nervous about the imminent prospect of being sued. Perhaps there have been talks (i.e. threats) going on in secret that we are not privy to.

Whatever the reason, I cannot support this latest development, or any similar developments that seek to promote proprietary and/or encumbered software.

I do not really understand the "tainting" idea, (likely because I try a more pragmatic perspective when it gets to that point), but I completely see where Slated is coming from with point 3 there and suddenly find myself in agreement. If people suddenly had the choice to pay or not pay for proprietary codec licenses, the tremors would be amazing. I would love to see that happen. After all, the codec making business model is gross. It's essentially to make a widespread codec (possibly by having a decent audio player or streaming system that supports only it), making customers "need" that codec. Operating system developers, in efforts to stay user-friendly, must them shovel money to those developers. Boom: Constant cash flow.

Trouble is, that ideal solution won't happen unless people have a reason to use Linux in the first place. People won't like the change if it involves fees further on; from a marketing perspective, even if it is still "cheaper", it looks nasty. They may be entirely justified fees and not Linux's fault, but they will be unique to the platform which is no better. Right now, it seems those two ideas overlap. Down the line, hopefully that will be different.

(When a Linux-based laptop has tricorder-like functionality... then we should return to this discussion).

[aysiu]

I doubt you could get major OEMs to preinstall and advertise your distro if you went with #3.

Asus went with Xandros and HP went with Suse for a reason - stuff (yes, even proprietary stuff) "just works." Those companies don't want people buying their computers and then complaining that they can't watch YouTube or play MP3 files.

It's nice to say #3 in theory, but there are real economic realities Mark Shuttleworth has to deal with that "Slated" doesn't have to.

It's easy to be judgy when you're not a company. Go, peanut gallery!

[wolfen69]

What price? Its still free to download, and please explain on how its dependent on Microsoft?

yeah, i dont see vex's point.

[wolfen69]

It's easy to be judgy when you're not a company. Go, peanut gallery!

exactly. it's easy to criticise, but then the real world slaps you in the face.

[swoll1980]

He owns Canonical, not Ubuntu.

He owns the copyrights to Ubuntu the name Ubuntu is owned by Shuttleworth I'm not playing dumb games. If I own a acre of land and it has trees on it I own the trees too.
To say he doesn't own Ubuntu is silly.

[p_quarles]

He owns the copyrights to Ubuntu the name Ubuntu is owned by Shuttleworth I'm not playing dumb games. If I own a acre of land and it has trees on it I own the trees too.
To say he doesn't own Ubuntu is silly.
The copyrights that matter are owned by the creators of individual applications within the distribution, none of which (as far as I know) is Mark Shuttleworth. His company owns the trademark Ubuntu, and that's about it. To say that Shuttleworth "owns" Ubuntu is to not understand how the free software ecosystem works, which in turn may explain why you (and a few others) have so little regard for it.

[Riffer]

Among purist perhaps. But among the rest absolutely not.

I think this is a sound business decision of trying to get into a rapidly growing market, nothing more. I believe that the popularity of netbooks will increase exponentially over the next couple of years. And to ignore this market would be foolish.

[swoll1980]

The copyrights that matter are owned by the creators of individual applications within the distribution, none of which (as far as I know) is Mark Shuttleworth. His company owns the trademark Ubuntu, and that's about it. To say that Shuttleworth "owns" Ubuntu is to not understand how the free software ecosystem works, which in turn may explain why you (and a few others) have so little regard for it.

I know exactly how it works this is his distro he decides what goes and what stays. He chooses what deals he's going to have with who. He is the one that makes these decisions because it's his. I understand you can take his distro and rename it, and distribute it as your own. I understand that the programs that make it are not his, but I also know that I don't get to pick what the default theme will be in 8.10 because it's not mine to make that decision. I know I can't make my own distro, and call it Ubuntu because there already is a distro called Ubuntu, and it's owned by Mark. Some people don't like the remix, but they can't stop it for some reason, oh wait I know why because it's not there distro it's Mark Shuttleworths distro. Your a pretty smart guy I don't know why I even have to explain this to you.

[p_quarles]

Some people don't like the remix, but they can't stop it for some reason, oh wait I know why because it's not there distro it's Mark Shuttleworths distro.
Well, no: anyone could create a similar remix, whether they owned the Ubuntu trademark or not. It has nothing to do with who owns the distribution, but rather the fact that there is nothing restricting anyone from creating the remix.

[23meg]

He owns the copyrights to Ubuntu the name Ubuntu is owned by Shuttleworth I'm not playing dumb games.

I'm not playing games either; I'm trying to counter the common unquestioned assumption around here that Canonical = Ubuntu, which your post echoed. You said


Mark Shuttleworth owns Ubuntu he can do what he wants to with it.

and my point was against that: he owns Canonical, which in turn can do certain things with Ubuntu, such as using it as the basis of an OEM-focused remix (NOT an Ubuntu edition like Kubuntu) and ending up as the preferred provider of it due to its position as trademark owner, but can't take arbitrary actions that would undermine their basic promise to the community, such as introducing proprietary codecs into standard Ubuntu. More importantly, they wouldn't: they have no incentive to, and they don't lack the vision not to. Your post seemed to imply otherwise.

Canonical is the main sponsor of Ubuntu, not its sole controller in the sense that Microsoft is the sole controller of Windows (even the latter is arguably not true in certain cases, but I digress). They have always clearly delineated their area of involvement in their participation in Ubuntu, and as Mark has put in his recent post, their position in the Ubuntu system has always seen a good dose of scrutiny from the wider community. Their owning the Ubuntu name has very little to do with what they can do with Ubuntu as a social system and community product.


If I own a acre of land and it has trees on it I own the trees too.

Not necessarily under all jurisdictions, and in any case, the analogy of ownership of land does not translate at all to trademark ownership, sponsorship and governance involvement, which make up the subject here.

[swoll1980]

Well, no: anyone could create a similar remix, whether they owned the Ubuntu trademark or not. It has nothing to do with who owns the distribution, but rather the fact that there is nothing restricting anyone from creating the remix.

They absolutely could, but then it would be there distro, they would give it a name, they would choose the packages, they would pick the artwork, they would make deals with oems, they would market it, and distribute it, because it's there distro.

[madjr]

They absolutely could, but then it would be there distro, they would give it a name, they would choose the packages, they would pick the artwork, they would make deals with oems, they would market it, and distribute it, because it's there distro.

thats what distro makers do, take some basic decisions.

you could create a distro too, so i don't understand where are you getting to? :confused:

even if you create a distro, you can't boss around the gnome, kde or kernel developers.

They have the power over Ubuntu (and most linux distros). They decide most distro's future by 80% or more.

[swoll1980]

thats what distro makers do, take some basic decisions.

you could create a distro too, so i don't understand where are you getting to? :confused:

even if you create a distro, you can't boss around the gnome, kde or kernel developers.

They have the power over Ubuntu (and most linux distros). They decide most distro's future by 80% or more.

I'm not trying to go anywhere other than the distro named Ubuntu belongs to Mark Shuttleworth.....
that is all....

[madjr]

I'm not trying to go anywhere other than the distro named Ubuntu belongs to Mark Shuttleworth.....
that is all....

umm, it's like being president of the USA

the president usually gets a final word on many "decisions" (good or bad), but that does not mean that the USA belongs to him.

if Mark wanted to have final word on everything, he would not post his ideas on the blog for others to give an opinion.

neither would we have http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ and let "anyone" ask for features, ideas, etc.

The devs actually respond to the best ideas at brainstorm. We're not asking Mark, we're communicating our views directly to the devs.

i don't see microsoft's brainstorm... or Bill/Baldmer's blog...

Even if Mark 1 day decides to retire, ubuntu would still be up and running without problems.

[jethro10]

Yeah maybe this is a way for Canonical to make some money so it can support more devs to work on Ubuntu which is a free OS!

Yeah, that type of answer is always how I think, let's get the best we can out of it and be happy.

J

[original_jamingrit]

... Mark Shuttleworth owns Ubuntu he can do what he wants to with it. If some foss fanatic doesn't like it they don't have to use it.


He owns the copyrights to Ubuntu the name Ubuntu is owned by Shuttleworth...


...how it works this is his distro he decides what goes and what stays....it's Mark Shuttleworths distro.

As people have already mentioned, the idea that Mark owns Ubuntu isn't the same as him having the copyright to it. Just like Linus Torvalds owns the linux name and penguin logo (See www.linuxmark.org). It is licensed under the GPL, and neither Mark or Canonical actually 'own' Ubuntu software, (although Canonical is considered a 'preferred partner'). And it is true indeed that people don't need to use Ubuntu. It's very easy to simply remove all the trademarked content (The Ubuntu name, symbol, etc;) and call it something different, like what Linux Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/) or gNewSense (http://www.gnewsense.org) does (neither of which are directly linked with Canonical, but are Ubuntu derivatives). But people might be upset because that's a hassle.

And it's more about that, it's about getting a message out. My personal opinion is this: I want people to at least know that open source exists, and is different from proprietary software. I want people to be presented with proprietary software as though their opinion on it is important. I do not like the idea of people buying a Linux laptop, with proprietary stuff pre-installed as though it's only natural, like the OEM is saying in fine print ("You don't need an opinion about this"). I want people to have an opinion on it, whether they decide they should care about free software or not, it's okay, just as long there's actually a decision being made by them.


I do not really understand the "tainting" idea...

The tainting idea actually is more of a pragmatic idea than it is than a idealistic one. For example, if you're having problems with a tainted kernel (tainted as in has one or more proprietary blobs in it), it becomes increasingly difficult to diagnose/fix the problem. If you have a proprietary blob in a kernel that's not very modular, then you may have to recompile rather than simply remove it. That is why the kernel is 'tainted', it means it's just not as understandable anymore. This applies to different parts of a Linux operating system.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Thank you, original_jamingrit. I understand tainting the kernel, but I have trouble seeing how that carries over to userspace or to simply the politics of distribution.

[original_jamingrit]

Well, the relationship between an open source dev and an 'end-user' can be like the relationship between upstream and a derivative. The bugs and problems found in a tainted distro become much less helpful to upstream and the community at large. Sure, it's good for the distro in question to jump some proprietary-caused hurdles, but all that the rest of the community can do is stand around, clapping their hands saying "good for you!" (If they're on friendly terms, that is). If a lot of proprietary stuff is used in that distro, the open-source related "Eurekas!" coming from that distro are very few and far in between. More of the interested hackers migrate to more interesting (free) distros. Then the people saying "what's wrong with non-free" get something that turns into Xandros or Linspire, simply yet another windows wannabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet-point_engineering).

Mind you, this doesn't matter as much for a hardware specialized edition like Remix, but at the same time, isn't the hardware it's supposed to run on supposed to be open source itself? (I thought I read it somewhere, but now I can't confirm it)

[drascus]

If you don't like proprietary, licensed media codecs, then don't buy the remix. However, if you want an easy to use netbook with Ubuntu Linux and support for widely used media formats, then buy it.

I think this is interesting. It is OK for microsoft to have a default windows media format that no one can impliment without a license and of course you have to install a codec if you want mp3 support. yet if you say lets have ogg vorbis and then people can install mp3 if they want people say its to hard. the reason ogg vorbis is not a widely used media format is because not enough people try to live with it. not enough people demand it. I expect it will continue that way if we don't give people the chance to just try it out and decide if they like it.

[aysiu]

I think this is interesting. It is OK for microsoft to have a default windows media format that no one can impliment without a license and of course you have to install a codec if you want mp3 support. yet if you say lets have ogg vorbis and then people can install mp3 if they want people say its to hard. the reason ogg vorbis is not a widely used media format is because not enough people try to live with it. not enough people demand it. I expect it will continue that way if we don't give people the chance to just try it out and decide if they like it.
It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of what's supported in the mainstream. Apple really likes AAC and uses that as its default format in iTunes, but do you think people would have bought iPods in the first place if they didn't play MP3s out of the box? You can certainly, like Apple, have Ubuntu default to saving in a non-mainstream format, but to ignore that car CD players, every portable music player, and most online vendors (Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc.) support MP3 and not Ogg is not going to win you any new customers.

Microsoft is able to get away with .wma because Windows is so ubiquitous. "Everyone" uses Windows, so Microsoft can do whatever it wants. "No one" uses Ubuntu, so Ubuntu can't say, "Use Ogg or else" or most people will "or else."

[twright]

It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of what's supported in the mainstream. Apple really likes AAC and uses that as its default format in iTunes, but do you think people would have bought iPods in the first place if they didn't play MP3s out of the box? You can certainly, like Apple, have Ubuntu default to saving in a non-mainstream format, but to ignore that car CD players, every portable music player, and most online vendors (Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc.) support MP3 and not Ogg is not going to win you any new customers.

Microsoft is able to get away with .wma because Windows is so ubiquitous. "Everyone" uses Windows, so Microsoft can do whatever it wants. "No one" uses Ubuntu, so Ubuntu can't say, "Use Ogg or else" or most people will "or else."
i think one of the biggest things Ubuntu could do to support ogg and flac would be to replace rhythmbox with banshee 1.0 in intrepid, it supports on the fly transcoding so people wouldn't have to keep all of their music in mp3 just to use an iPod (my iPod forced me transcode a lot of my music from flac to mp3)

rhythmbox is nice but is just too lacking in features :(

[jopari]

i think one of the biggest things Ubuntu could do to support ogg and flac would be to replace rhythmbox with banshee 1.0 in intrepid, it supports on the fly transcoding so people wouldn't have to keep all of their music in mp3 just to use an iPod (my iPod forced me transcode a lot of my music from flac to mp3)

rhythmbox is nice but is just too lacking in features :(I agree except for the fact that Banshee is written with Mono, which brings us back to the whole "supporting Microsoft's technology" issue. It's not that hard to install Banshee, and I'm pretty sure there are instructions how to on the iPod Ubuntu wiki page.

[twright]

I agree except for the fact that Banshee is written with Mono, which brings us back to the whole "supporting Microsoft's technology" issue. It's not that hard to install Banshee, and I'm pretty sure there are instructions how to on the iPod Ubuntu wiki page.
i know but most new users will not even know they need to, currently all they see is that transferring music to ipod just won't work if it's in ogg

as of version 1.0 banshee is the best gnome media player (IMHO)

microsoft didn't invent .NET, it is open and a standard. all they did is create a popular implementation (more MONO means more windows programmers switching to linux which in tern means more open source programs)

[cardinals_fan]

there != their

Just throwing it out there... :)

[WeeWoh]

I really like rhythmbox because it has the podcast feature and support for loads of different media formats. It is less pretty than Windows Media Player, but hey it works better. I personally wish Ubuntu would include all the codecs and propertary drivers because I hate having to download them, especially because I usually have bad luck with wireless drivers. Linux Mint does not cut it for me. Its a reason why I prefer Mandriva Linux, because it includes the drivers and codecs, but I prefer Ubuntu for reliablility and support.

Im fully for open source, but sometimes you have to compromise.

[twright]

I really like rhythmbox because it has the podcast feature and support for loads of different media formats. It is less pretty than Windows Media Player, but hey it works better. I personally wish Ubuntu would include all the codecs and propertary drivers because I hate having to download them, especially because I usually have bad luck with wireless drivers. Linux Mint does not cut it for me. Its a reason why I prefer Mandriva Linux, because it includes the drivers and codecs, but I prefer Ubuntu for reliablility and support.

Im fully for open source, but sometimes you have to compromise.
banshee is built ontop of gstreamer so it should support all the same formats as rhythmbox. it also has a cool podcast tool (though i have just been using google reader recently)