ubuntu turned into ads

[vegetali]

Today, I was surfing the net using the new 8.10 beta. As I accessed a page with a video plugin (I guess windows media), the video was properly displayed but... ubuntu warned me that I had not the right plugin installed (why? it worked) and... SUGGESTED TO BUY SOME PLUGIN STUFF FROM THE CANONICAL WEBSITE.

I think this is what you expect from m*crosoft or *pple, not from ubuntu. I mean, there is nothing bad about buying software. But if software for sale is advertised in the OS, well, you never know how far you can go. Even worst, I was redirected on the commercial page in just one click, while the plugin was actually working. I know of software houses that were sentenced for similar behaviour (telling the user they had safety issues and to buy antivirus, when their system was ok).:confused:

Please stop this crazy stuff. I am considering not installing Ibex on my production machine later this year, and instead switching to some other distro.

What do you people think?

[Naiki Muliaina]

Could you post a couple of links please to the website that gave you the message and the canonical site you ended up at. Ive never seen that before.

[davidryder]

What do you people think?

I'd like to know how specifically to produce this.

[Heinzelotto]

probably this item: http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=244&osCsid=1f290d490addb0a743d6b373002dd282

[eragon100]

Today, I was surfing the net using the new 8.10 beta. As I accessed a page with a video plugin (I guess windows media), the video was properly displayed but... ubuntu warned me that I had not the right plugin installed (why? it worked) and... SUGGESTED TO BUY SOME PLUGIN STUFF FROM THE CANONICAL WEBSITE.

I think this is what you expect from m*crosoft or *pple, not from ubuntu. I mean, there is nothing bad about buying software. But if software for sale is advertised in the OS, well, you never know how far you can go. Even worst, I was redirected on the commercial page in just one click, while the plugin was actually working. I know of software houses that were sentenced for similar behaviour (telling the user they had safety issues and to buy antivirus, when their system was ok).:confused:

Please stop this crazy stuff. I am considering not installing Ibex on my production machine later this year, and instead switching to some other distro.

What do you people think?

Which webpage did you go to??

[Naiki Muliaina]

probably this item: http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=244&osCsid=1f290d490addb0a743d6b373002dd282

Thanks for the find. Isnt that stuff in the free restricted extras download?

[ZarathustraDK]

Just a guess here, but if it is the above-mentioned software, then it's probably just Fluendo hitching a ride on the Ubuntu-brand, not Ubuntu itself.

That doesn't make it "ok", though I couldn't care less but I see why it would set of alarms to people like us.

[samjh]

Today, I was surfing the net using the new 8.10 beta. As I accessed a page with a video plugin (I guess windows media), the video was properly displayed but... ubuntu warned me that I had not the right plugin installed (why? it worked) and... SUGGESTED TO BUY SOME PLUGIN STUFF FROM THE CANONICAL WEBSITE.

I think this is what you expect from m*crosoft or *pple, not from ubuntu. I mean, there is nothing bad about buying software. But if software for sale is advertised in the OS, well, you never know how far you can go. Even worst, I was redirected on the commercial page in just one click, while the plugin was actually working. I know of software houses that were sentenced for similar behaviour (telling the user they had safety issues and to buy antivirus, when their system was ok).:confused:

Please stop this crazy stuff. I am considering not installing Ibex on my production machine later this year, and instead switching to some other distro.

What do you people think?

I think it's great that Canonical is giving Ubuntu users a way to obtain patent-protected codecs in a legally-safe way.

Sure, you can get equivalent codecs from Medibuntu repositories, but that's not legal in some countries.

[vegetali]

Thanks for your replies. I was on the multimedia page of a widespread italian newspaper. Most of the videos are in flash, but some of them use windows media plugin. I cannot find again the exact page, but this is the website
http://tv.repubblica.it/home

The warning redirected me to this page
http://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=19

Please, note that I am happy as well that commercial companies like canonical are providing free and nonfree support to ubuntu. That's sure. I am not so happy that my OS pops up windows suggesting to buy software, even more if the warning is completely inappropriate as the plugin actually worked. This remembers me antivir houses, that so many people blame.

I am a bit more quiet now, as I remembered that I installed restricted-extras on this laptop (usually I install java and flash manually). Still, I do not see which package in the list of dependency may provide such an unwanted service. Also, the description of the metapackage "ubuntu-restricted-extras" does not mention anything like this, and it seems indeed to be just a metapackage. I wonder if the incriminated advice would be shown before the installation of the restricted-extras. Probably yes.

As for the question: "why should we care about this?" my answer is that "this may be a start for some even worse penetration of commercial in our favorite OS. When there is start, you do not know where there is a finish. So it is better not to start it all, even if now you may consider it not annoying at all".

[billgoldberg]

As for the question: "why should we care about this?" my answer is that "this may be a start for some even worse penetration of commercial in our favorite OS. When there is start, you do not know where there is a finish. So it is better not to start it all, even if now you may consider it not annoying at all".

There are no commercials on the OS.

But still, I see what you mean.

I also don't like it.

[LaRoza]

It isn't an ad. Canonical can't recommend using the free codecs, even though almost everyone uses them (including Windows users).

They are just giving a way for them to say they do have support for non free codecs officially.

Fedora does the same thing, as does Windows (although it does it differently, because Windows isn't free to begin with)

[vegetali]

OK. There are no ads in the OS itself; I would have formatted the harddisk otherwise. But still, linking to commercial services may mine the OS neutrality. Canonical helped ubuntu, and in change it received a link to commercial services directly from the OS. Maybe that tomorrow IBM is going to donate something to ubuntu (let's say a bunch of permanent developers) in change for links and other stuff. The fact that canonical was born with ubuntu does not make any change: the OS must be neutral with respect to this kind of commercial services. I like commercial support, linux would be almost worthless without it. But -I tell it once again- the OS should not suggest you what to buy.

There is nothing worst than buying a new laptop, switching it on, and finding norto* antivirus installed on windows telling you that the antivir software is going to expire in 30 days and that it is better to upgrade to full version bla bla bla. There is nothing better to format the window* partion away, and install a new free (as in freedom) system in whichi you decide what to buy, what not to buy and what advices to hear to. linux rocks

[joninkrakow]

There is nothing better to format the window* partion away, and install a new free (as in freedom) system in whichi you decide what to buy, what not to buy and what advices to hear to. linux rocks

It would seem to me that if free (as in freedom) was important to you, then to be consistent, you wouldn't be watching or listening to items that require proprietary software to reproduce. So, if you weren't watching or listening to such things, you wouldn't even be finding these "ads". However, if you wish to reproduce such proprietary codecs, you ought to at least be legal, and purchase the codecs. Think of it as Ubuntu trying to keep you legal at least, as well as a disincentive to go to such web pages... Unless it's a case of free (as in price) trumping freedom.

-Jon

[SunnyRabbiera]

Well the video on the website works for me, though I dont speak a word of Italian (except for gratsi that I know means "great").
I think the issue is more from that website then anything else.

[barbedsaber]

I think it's great that Canonical is giving Ubuntu users a way to obtain patent-protected codecs in a legally-safe way.

Sure, you can get equivalent codecs from Medibuntu repositories, but that's not legal in some countries.

bingo, also, its what you have to do for fedora, even if it is legal in your country, thats why I am here.

[LaRoza]

But still, linking to commercial services may mine the OS neutrality. Canonical helped ubuntu, and in change it received a link to commercial services directly from the OS.


I do not understand the problem here. If you try to run a program that you do not have in the terminal, it will give you the command to install it.

If you try to use media to which you don't have a codec, it will suggest codec packs in synaptic. All of this, all of Ubuntu, is from Canonical. They can't have the codecs distributed the same way as everything else, so they tell you where they are.

[vegetali]

Thanks everybody for the discussion going on here. A few answers

-I care about freedom, but I am not so ortodox to access and use only free content. I think this apply to the whole world. Even Richard Stallman uses cars or buses, and there are not gpl licensed engines. I even use skype and mathematica. So a remark above is quite pointless, the world is not free, and probably it would the hell to live in a completely free world.

-I agree that it is great that Canonical is providing codecs in an easy, safe and everywhere legal way. By the way, I do not like that ubuntu suggests you to get the codec from Canonical. For instance, I would prefer the suggester and the seller to be different. I do not know if the average user knows about the availability of free (as in beer) codecs, and legal issues about them.

[qazwsx]

I don't like it.

http://shop.canonical.com/product_info.php?products_id=244&osCsid=1f290d490addb0a743d6b373002dd282

Not enough information. I would like to see infromation about
1) Multihreading
2) Benchmarks against ffmpeg codecs
3) Some codecs are only 32bit.
4) Only GStreamer support. How about xine and MPlayer?

Fmpeg seems to be much better.

There is no change I am going to buy them.

[LaRoza]

-I agree that it is great that Canonical is providing codecs in an easy, safe and everywhere legal way.
Yes.



By the way, I do not like that ubuntu suggests you to get the codec from Canonical. For instance, I would prefer the suggester and the seller to be different. I do not know if the average user knows about the availability of free (as in beer) codecs, and legal issues about them.

Where should they suggest? A place they can't control? Should they advertise for others now? Wouldn't that be worse?

They made these available for Ubuntu. Why would anyone else do that? Look up Fluendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluendo). Not everyone can get this.

[Martje_001]

3) Some codecs are only 32bit.

Currently available on 32bit only - 64bit version coming soon

If you want to play a video and the codecs are not available a dialog should popup asking you if you want to download free codecs or buy (better ones) from Canonical, IMO..

[LaRoza]

If you want to play a video and the codecs are not available a dialog should popup asking you if you want to download free codecs or buy (better ones) from Canonical, IMO..

That was explained already. Those free codecs are legally gray, and Canonical cannot do that.

[TBOL3]

In my opinion, the best, and only, place to suggest it, is in the box that says that you need codacs to view 'video x'. They could offer you a link to the free ones, and a link to the legal ones.

[LaRoza]

That was explained already. Those free codecs are legally gray, and Canonical cannot do that.


In my opinion, the best, and only, place to suggest it, is in the box that says that you need codacs to view 'video x'. They could offer you a link to the free ones, and a link to the legal ones.

As was explained already, those free codecs are legally gray and Canonical cannot do that. Note, you said "A link to the legal ones", without considering the consequences of linking to possibly illegal ones. There is a reason why some people aren't in the business...

[TBOL3]

But ubuntu already links to the legally gray codacs. What changed?

[LaRoza]

But ubuntu already links to the legally gray codacs. What changed?

No it doesn't.

[TBOL3]

It did it for me. Maybe we're talking about to different places. Are you talking about the dialog box that popes up when you begin to watch a file in a restricted codac?

[Martje_001]

No it doesn't.
http://www.seopher.com/images/ubuntu/feisty/installing-codecs.jpg?

[LaRoza]

Are you talking about the dialog box that popes up when you begin to watch a file in a restricted codac?

Yesl. Never once did Ubuntu recommend that or enable it by default. Ubuntu resources on the web do, but not Ubuntu or Canonical.

(It is "codec")

[LaRoza]

http://www.seopher.com/images/ubuntu/feisty/installing-codecs.jpg?

That is Synaptic. It will display any enabled repository.

[Frak]

Oh, that's cool.

I already have Fluendo codecs, but thanks Canonical. That's actually a good price BTW.

EDIT
Going with my question syndrome, +1 to anyone who knows what two words contracted form codec :).

[TBOL3]

Yes, the dialog box that pops up tells you that you where to download it, and even gives you a link to it. But it does give you a legal disclaimer.

[LaRoza]

EDIT
Going with my question syndrome, +1 to anyone who knows what two words contracted form codec :).

compressor-decompressor or coder-decoder



Yes, the dialog box that pops up tells you that you where to download it, and even gives you a link to it. But it does give you a legal disclaimer.

Proof? I have never seen that. In the case of a codec not legally clear, I have never seen Ubuntu recommend it or tell you about it.

[Frak]

compressor-decompressor or coder-decoder

That's cool coffee beans.


Proof? I have never seen that. In the case of a codec not legally clear, I have never seen Ubuntu recommend it or tell you about it.

I don't have a shot, but I remember several installs in fiesty through Totem it asking me that.

[Vadi]

Ubuntu is about humanity, and about sharing too.

You got a great OS that you're on, for free. What did you do in return?

[Canis familiaris]

That was explained already. Those free codecs are legally gray, and Canonical cannot do that.

Can't they code by location? Or maybe ask a question whether the person lives in a particular list of countries where it's illegal.

[LaRoza]

You got a great OS that you're on, for free. What did you do in return?

Complain.

[Canis familiaris]

Complain.

Not to forget Tr0ll.

[Frak]

Complain.
I got my OS free, my software for it should be free too... (as in beer)

[Joeb454]

Can't they code by location? Or maybe ask a question whether the person lives in a particular list of countries where it's illegal.

I think it's easier to do it the way it works currently.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with them suggesting you buy it - it's a legal (and safe) way of obtaining the codecs in countries where it may be illegal.

And if I remember the description correctly - it's only a 1 off purchase.

That said, as long as they're only suggesting it and not saying "BUY THIS NOW!!!1!!" then I can't see it being a problem

[LaRoza]

I got my OS free, my software for it should be free too... (as in beer)

Next, they will demand hardware for free.

[Canis familiaris]

Next, they will demand hardware for free.

Actually I don't think so.
You cannot "see" Software except the media and as such is appears that is should be Free. On the other hand you can "see" Hardware...so you know you have to pay for it.

P.S.: I know you were joking. :)

[pp.]

@OP

You were using beta software when it happened. If the behaviour of the beta software differs with that respect from the released software version, what you observe might amount to just a bug.

Have you considered reporting it? That's the idea of beta versions.

BTW, I never could get the thing about free beer. Where I live, beer is not free at all. It costs a bit less than the same amount of mineral water.

[TBOL3]

Here you go.

[LaRoza]

Here you go.

It doesn't link to anything less than legal.

[LaRoza]

Actually I don't think so.
You cannot "see" Software except the media and as such is appears that is should be Free. On the other hand you can "see" Hardware...so you know you have to pay for it.

P.S.: I know you were joking. :)

Ah, I keep forgetting humans can't see magnetic fields.

[Canis familiaris]

Ah, I keep forgetting humans can't see magnetic fields.

I'm not human...I'm a Wolf who disguises himself as a dog.

[LaRoza]

I'm not human...I'm a Wolf who disguises himself as a dog.

I still think you are a Panda.

[Canis familiaris]

I still think you are a Panda.

Wolves can have Panda as their name. No?

[LaRoza]

Wolves can have Panda as their name. No?

Beats me. My name is "Wolf" so I'm all set.

आतमहतया दर्दरहित है

[Canis familiaris]

Beats me. My name is "Wolf" so I'm all set.
ै
If you look at my picture you would be satisfied.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/800/grey-wolf-snow.jpg



आतमहतया दर्दरहित है
Nice One. I see You made a minor change in your caption.

[jrusso2]

It doesn't link to anything less than legal.

It says some is not supported which are the patented ones.

[LaRoza]

Nice One. I see You made a minor change in your caption.

Yeah, that is what is was supposed to say, but Lord DarkPat gave me a less than suitable word.

[Frak]

Next, they will demand hardware for free.
I've gone through AT&T (at the time South Western Bell) dumpster before for CAT5 cable, not to mention other hardware. Hardware is free ;)

[GSZX1337]

I had not the right plugin installed (why? it worked) and... SUGGESTED TO BUY SOME PLUGIN STUFF FROM THE CANONICAL WEBSITE.

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/19/166230

[Vadi]

Hm... this was always the case as far as I know. It gives you a proper warning and your options.

[TBOL3]

I got that box to download the illegal dvd codecs.

[fatality_uk]

I must have missed the press release when Canonical became a charity and not a business working with Linux as a core product!

[davidryder]

Wow... so demanding!

[david_lynch]

There are no commercials on the OS.

But still, I see what you mean.

I also don't like it.
Can't please everybody I guess. For years people were asking "why doesn't linux have any legal codecs?" and now that ubuntu has stepped up and offered that choice, people are complaining.

[TBOL3]

I'm not. I like the idea. Besides, take a look at google chrome. It's now being re-branded to iron, without all of google's crap. Ubuntu is, and will continue to be re-branded. I just feel like it offers more choice.

[Frak]

Canonical isn't paying royalties just so you can play your mp3's and Movie's. This would turn into a major debt. You can in MS Windows because MS does make a profit, so they can pay the royalties for each copy. Apple can pay royalties, because they do turn a profit. Canonical does turn a profit, but not from OS sells. The least they did for you is package, maintain, distribute, and support an OS. They take care of all of your updates and bandwidth needs.

Trust me when I say they are providing a great price for these codecs. I doubt they will take your ability to use the gray-legal ones away, but I don't see any need in condemning Canonical for attempting to protect the end user.

[vegetali]

hey, you all. I did not say that is bad that canonical offers codecs. Still, it is weird to be redirected from ubuntu to a commercial offer in just one click. I would prefer to see the codecs advertised on the website rather than on the OS itself. I know there are several issues about codecs, well, the problem is that there so many closed codecs. But in the future it could be anything else. I mean, today it is codec, tomorrow maybe support, and if malware for linux goes widespread (if linux will go widespread, malware will), maybe antivirus. When I found myself on the canonical page, I had a flash nightmare: I am ten years older, and I open xterm on my desktop (maybe KDE 7.1, GNOME 4.12 or fluxbox) and suddensly a window pops up. there is the face of this guy
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
telling me loudly "call me for technical support, it's just dollar 0.99" :shock:

[cardinals_fan]

hey, you all. I did not say that is bad that canonical offers codecs. Still, it is weird to be redirected from ubuntu to a commercial offer in just one click. I would prefer to see the codecs advertised on the website rather than on the OS itself. I know there are several issues about codecs, well, the problem is that there so many closed codecs. But in the future it could be anything else. I mean, today it is codec, tomorrow maybe support, and if malware for linux goes widespread (if linux will go widespread, malware will), maybe antivirus. When I found myself on the canonical page, I had a flash nightmare: I am ten years older, and I open xterm on my desktop (maybe KDE 7.1, GNOME 4.12 or fluxbox) and suddensly a window pops up. there is the face of this guy
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
telling me loudly "call me for technical support, it's just dollar 0.99" :shock:
What would you prefer they do? Not say anything?

[Frak]

hey, you all. I did not say that is bad that canonical offers codecs. Still, it is weird to be redirected from ubuntu to a commercial offer in just one click. I would prefer to see the codecs advertised on the website rather than on the OS itself. I know there are several issues about codecs, well, the problem is that there so many closed codecs. But in the future it could be anything else. I mean, today it is codec, tomorrow maybe support, and if malware for linux goes widespread (if linux will go widespread, malware will), maybe antivirus. When I found myself on the canonical page, I had a flash nightmare: I am ten years older, and I open xterm on my desktop (maybe KDE 7.1, GNOME 4.12 or fluxbox) and suddensly a window pops up. there is the face of this guy
http://www.ubuntu.com/support
telling me loudly "call me for technical support, it's just dollar 0.99" :shock:
Codecs are a mainstay of desktop systems anymore. It is illegal in many countries to distribute some codecs. Canonical is just trying to give you a legal way to get a hold of these said codecs, not justify their wallet. Fedora has been doing this for their last few releases.

[cariboo]

How many times have clicked on a flash link and been sent to Adobe, I know the flash plugin is free, but they are hoping you will purchase one of their products.

Jim

[Vadi]

Conspiracy theorists ftw!

[Frak]

Conspiracy theorists ftw!
+1

I heard Canonical is making a nuke.

[phrostbyte]

I wonder how much Canonical is making from this, I hope they get a good cut. I mean I rather money be going to Canonical then Fluendo. I mean the more money Canonical makes, the more funding Ubuntu inevitably gets, and the better Ubuntu gets because of it. Money going to Fluendo, goes to Microsoft.

And before someone accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist. These are licensed Windows Media codecs. So it's not much of a stretch to say Microsoft is going to making revenue from this scheme. It would be a stretch to say they aren't.

To be completely frank Canonical is indirectly asking it's users to funnel money over to their biggest competitor. Well done! :)

[earthpigg]

i am not concerned. if it ever gets that bad (i dont think it will), folks will simply grab the ubuntu source code and release a distro called "FreeBuntu" or something like that.

im pretty sure thats where we get openSUSE from.

[cardinals_fan]

im pretty sure thats where we get openSUSE from.
Eh? We get openSUSE from Novell sponsorship and a community of SUSE users.

[earthpigg]

Eh? We get openSUSE from Novell sponsorship and a community of SUSE users.

oh.... what i happened to remember from casual wikipedia-ing told me that it was not officially supported by the folks that make SUSE, but i now see that you are correct :)

[Frak]

oh.... what i happened to remember from casual wikipedia-ing told me that it was not officially supported by the folks that make SUSE, but i now see that you are correct :)
It was really made as a giant bug-test distribution for stable versions of SUSE Enterprise Server/Workstation

[cardinals_fan]

oh.... what i happened to remember from casual wikipedia-ing told me that it was not officially supported by the folks that make SUSE, but i now see that you are correct :)
It doesn't get more official than this (http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/) :)

[TBOL3]

Wow, and everyone's cranky about canonical letting a parter sell it for $20 (or even $12).

[earthpigg]

It doesn't get more official than this (http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/) :)

yeah... but my point remains:

if ubuntu takes it to far (which i do not think will happen) then everyone will simply migrate over to Mint or perhaps another distro closer to Debian that still benefits from all the stuff Ubuntu has sent upstream.

[Canis familiaris]

Don't you guys think you are being too paranoid?

[earthpigg]

Don't you guys think you are being too paranoid?

is there such a thing?!

[SteveNorman]

I think its a valid concern. It is possible after a series of steps in a more commercial way, that poorer codecs will be released with the good stuff held back for commercial reasons versus legal ones. I for one dont think its good for the open source community for a distro like ubuntu to start leaning toward non-free options.

whatch out its a lion >:3

[mikewhatever]

I think its a valid concern. It is possible after a series of steps in a more commercial way, that poorer codecs will be released with the good stuff held back for commercial reasons versus legal ones. I for one dont think its good for the open source community for a distro like ubuntu to start leaning toward non-free options.

whatch out its a lion >:3

It's been explained many times, in this thread and elsewhere, there is no other way these codecs can be legally provided. If everyone could magically switch to using oggs, the patented codecs wouldn't be needed, but, people's been asking for legal mp3 and DVD support, and the choice it to provide or ignore it.

[SteveNorman]

well like I said its a valid concern,,nothing more. More options are always good imho

[Technoviking]

i think it's great that canonical is giving ubuntu users a way to obtain patent-protected codecs in a legally-safe way.

Sure, you can get equivalent codecs from medibuntu repositories, but that's not legal in some countries.

+1

[Sephoroth]

+1

I heard Canonical is making a nuke.

Was it them that many didn't want to do research in nuclear programs? :wink:

[Frak]

Was it them that many didn't want to do research in nuclear programs? :wink:
They flipped off the U.N.

More @ 10P.M.

[phrostbyte]

Well I wouldn't call the free codecs illegal. If anything they are might be protected by patents, and software patents are only applicable in the United States. And even there it is a gray area IMO. No one has been sued for using open source codecs or even DVD support in Linux in the United States..

Really, the truly paranoid people are the ones paying money for proprietary codecs.

[LaRoza]

Well I wouldn't call the free codecs illegal. If anything they are might be protected by patents, and software patents are only applicable in the United States.

Not only that, there are DMCA issues and most countries in the EU (including the EU itself if I remember) have such "laws".



And even there it is a gray area IMO. No one has been sued for using open source codecs or even DVD support in Linux in the United States..

No, but one was arrested for breaking the DMCA.



Really, the truly paranoid people are the ones paying money for proprietary codecs.
Well, not really. The use of the free ones is by people who don't have legal departments so to speak. People use them and give them out. Corporations, on the other hand, have to be more careful. In that light, Microsoft, Apple, Fedora and now Ubuntu offer paid codecs.

[phrostbyte]

Not only that, there are DMCA issues and most countries in the EU (including the EU itself if I remember) have such "laws".


No, but one was arrested for breaking the DMCA.


Well, not really. The use of the free ones is by people who don't have legal departments so to speak. People use them and give them out. Corporations, on the other hand, have to be more careful. In that light, Microsoft, Apple, Fedora and now Ubuntu offer paid codecs.

Yeah I would agree the corporations have more to lose and are a bigger target for possible lawsuits. But for personal people this buying this is pretty paranoid. Just my opinion.

Please not I am 100% not against Canonical making money. I really hope they figure out many ways to get money out of Ubuntu users. No joke.

Just think if $1.00 was paid by every Ubuntu user every release - and all that money went directly to Ubuntu development. If that were to happen, I believe Canonical could afford to hire over 200+ full time developers and pay them a highly competitive salary. From $1.00! Think about it. Ubuntu development speed would surely accelerate by a huge amount.

But I think this a bad way to do it. Not only that Microsoft get "license fees" from Ubuntu users, there is no indication that Canonical is even making money from this deal, it's not a good way to fund Ubuntu development.

Sure, offer them in the store, but start spamming it to ordinary people using Ubuntu, I think is a bad idea.

[TBOL3]

I'm sure canonical is making money from ubuntu. They are just smart about it.

1. They make money from support.
2. They make money from 3rd party vendors (but maybe not).
3. They make money from *cough* interest. Although with the stock market going down ~1000-2000 points in the last month, maybe not.
4. They make money on ubuntu merchendise.
5. They make money off of charitable donations from users like you (thank you).

Mark is not a fool. If ubuntu was going to eventually drain canonical dry, then he wouldn't continue to fund the project.

Edit: Also, not all of the restricted codecs are illegal in the USA. For example, the MP3 codec is legal to use for personal non-comercial use. The reasons why it's not included, is because Canonical currently doesn't have permision to include it, businesses can't use it, and it's incompatible with the GPL.

[Frak]

Again, while I don't doubt Canonical is in it for the money, I doubt that they are trying to turn every aspect of Ubuntu into a marketing tactic.

They haven't tried to silence anybody using gray codecs, let alone care. They are just providing codecs for those that need it. Whether that be the person who wants a truly legal OS, or a corporation rolling out Ubuntu on it's workstations.

[TBOL3]

If you were responding to my post:

I wasn't saying that they are trying to make money off of users. I was only saying that they aren't loosing money by making ubuntu. Also, if they were trying to make money, why don't they poll a red hat, or suse type of deal, where the 'real' version costs $50?

If you weren't responding to me:

I'm sorry for taking the defence.

Once again, I reiterate, Not all of these codecs are illegal.

[SteveNorman]

want there recently a law passed in Finland making aspects of free codecs illegal for dvd playback? This may be the motivator for them.


A link:
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.11/finish-css-overturned

looks like it was overturned but you can see where there would be fallout

[mikewhatever]

But I think this a bad way to do it. Not only that Microsoft get "license fees" from Ubuntu users, there is no indication that Canonical is even making money from this deal, it's not a good way to fund Ubuntu development.

What's the way to do it then? Should they price the codecs at 2000$ or something? Don't you understand that Canonical has done that not to make money, but to provide legal multimedia codecs for those who need them.


Sure, offer them in the store, but start spamming it to ordinary people using Ubuntu, I think is a bad idea.

You definition of spamming is rather odd, but one way to avoid it would be to never try playing a proprietary format. Another way would be to use Gobuntu.http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/gobuntu

[cardinals_fan]

But I think this a bad way to do it. Not only that Microsoft get "license fees" from Ubuntu users, there is no indication that Canonical is even making money from this deal, it's not a good way to fund Ubuntu development.

Sure, offer them in the store, but start spamming it to ordinary people using Ubuntu, I think is a bad idea.
What would you prefer? That they said nothing at all and simply refused to play restricted media.

[LaRoza]

What would you prefer? That they said nothing at all and simply refused to play restricted media.

Freedom: Whether you like it or not.

:-)

[cardinals_fan]

Freedom: Whether you like it or not.

:-)
Indeed =)

[mikewhatever]

Since the OP wasn't able to reproduce the so called 'codecs advertisement', I've tried doing it from the 8.10beta live cd just to check how bad it was. Going to apple.com and trying to play a clip produced the window offering to 'search for suitable codec' (pic1). Clicking on search produced another window (pic2) offering to install the codecs found with a button (bottom left) to 'By Licensed Plug-ins...'. If you click that button, you are redirected to Canonical Store at https://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=25. Yes, it was just one click, but there was also a choice of buy or install. Absolutely nothing prevents you from installing the plugins without clicking the 'buy' button.
I think the OP as well, as some others here, must be utterly paranoid to complain about such a thing, let along call it advertisement or spam.
What's wrong people, that they get out of their ways to make false claims and look ridiculous?

[LaRoza]

What would you prefer? That they said nothing at all and simply refused to play restricted media.



What's wrong people, that they get out of their ways to make false claims and look ridiculous?

I didn't think it looked like that from the description in the OP. I got the feeling it only gave you the option to buy with big letters and links. That is a very good design I see in the screenshot. Don't know why it was even brought up now.

[TBOL3]

Yup, I think that 100% fine.

Also, this is another source of evidence that ubuntu let's you download legally gray codecs. Just to silitify my other argument.

[mikewhatever]

I didn't think it looked like that from the description in the OP. I got the feeling it only gave you the option to buy with big letters and links. That is a very good design I see in the screenshot. Don't know why it was even brought up now.

I didn't think so too and so decided to check. Since the OP could not reproduce the so-called add, and none but him claimed seeing it, as far as I am concerned, he's been spreading FUD and trolling.

[saulgoode]

... trying to play a clip produced the window offering to 'search for suitable codec' (pic1). Clicking on search produced another window (pic2) offering to install the codecs found with a button (bottom left) to 'By Licensed Plug-ins...'. If you click that button, you are redirected to Canonical Store at https://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=25. Yes, it was just one click, but there was also a choice of buy or install. Absolutely nothing prevents you from installing the plugins without clicking the 'buy' button.
I think the OP as well, as some others here, must be utterly paranoid to complain about such a thing, let along call it advertisement or spam.
What's wrong people, that they get out of their ways to make false claims and look ridiculous?
The OP's complaint was not as you described. The complaint was that prompting occurred even though the user's system was already capable of playing the media. If the OP's recollection of his experience is accurate, it would indeed be disconcerting behavior (even if ethics are discounted). Why should Ubuntu be prompting for installation of codecs, Free or proprietary, if there is already software installed which can handle the media?