Submitted by “In the usual announcement to the Ubuntu developer list Ubuntu founder Mark Suttleworth this morning announced the name of the next Ubuntu release plus one, due out in October 2007: Gutsy Gibbon. Gutsy will follow Feisty Fawn due for release on April 19. But, more interestingly, Shuttleworth also talked of a new ultra-free version of Ubuntu that can be expected alongside Gutsy Gibbon.”
The new “flavour” of Ubuntu will take “an ultra-orthodox view of licensing: no firmware, drivers, imagery, sounds, applications, or other content which do not include full source materials and come with full rights of modification, remixing and redistribution … for those who demand a super-strict interpretation of the ‘free’ in free software,” said Shuttleworth.
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought that regular Ubuntu fit this description, that being why a lot of graphics drivers, media codecs and the like are not included. Exactly how would the “ultra-free” version be different? I’m confused here.
Edited 2007-04-12 18:53
there are things like drivers for wireless cards and what not that are included in the stock Ubuntu for ease of use. However FSF purists balk at that idea.
I figure if the regular Ubuntu has some proprietary drivers, they would include others, specifically the graphics drivers. Why don’t they include them then?
Edited 2007-04-12 19:02
Ubuntu does include proprietary graphics drivers. Just open up synaptic, go to “repositories” and click on the “Proprietary drivers for devices” check box.
Ah, I didn’t know that! Latest version of Ubuntu I tried was Dapper.
They’re available from the repositories (and some on the disc iirc) in Dapper too, but they’re not installed by default in either.
Wireless drivers with binary firmware blobs are included by default though. The difference is that firmware is uploaded to the hardware in the same way as a BIOS update before the hardware is started, so it’s not technically a part of the operating system. The difference between this and a BIOS update is that the BIOS doesn’t get cleared when you shut down the machine.
For some people this difference is enough to justify installing them by default, as it allows a lot of wireless hardware to work that otherwise wouldn’t. For others they are a violation of the spirit of an OSS distribution and the difference between them and a binary blob as part of the OS is semantic (and technical) but not philosophical. The new version of Ubuntu is for this latter group.
It means it will “Ultra Break” more often, and be “Ultra Useless” faster than the standard version.
More than likely the reason for the ‘ultra free’ version is to counteract any negative perception of a future ‘partially free’ version which will include propriatry components in the name of ease of use/user experience.
]{
I say that they split it into ‘ultra-free’ and ‘apolitical, maximum ease of use and utility for people who aren’t bothered’.
I’ll take the second one and the people who are opposed to proprietary and closed source software can have their version.
Right on. There seem to be two polar opposite reactions to proprietary software on Linux distributions. Either you strongly oppose it–you don’t even want to have the possibility of installing it by accident–or you couldn’t care less–you want your hardware fully functional out of the box and proprietary software available on demand if it’s not installed by default. There doesn’t seem to be any significant middle ground.
The regular version of Ubuntu, however, represents such a middle ground. It only installs proprietary software by default if it’s necessary to use the hardware, alienated both the idealists that would rather not use their wireless card if it’s not supported by free software as well as the pragmatists that just want a Linux desktop that “works.”
So I second the parent’s suggestion that there be a 100% free software release of Ubuntu and a version that includes all of the proprietary software that makes sense to install by default. GNUbuntu and Blobuntu, if you will.
This isn’t a philosophical debate. It’s marketing. There is strong demand from both ends of the spectrum and not much in between. Give each camp what they want and make your community even stronger in the process.
>The regular version of Ubuntu, however, represents such a middle ground. It only installs proprietary software by default if it’s necessary to use the hardware
I think that’s to simple.
For example look at wlan with Atheros chip. There are the madwifi drivers with the non-free HAL and with the free HAL (developed by the OpenBSD guys).
Ubuntu decided to install the non-free driver. But if the would install the free driver than they could support the development of it and we would faster get a free driver as good or even better as the non-free driver.
There are some examples were Ubuntu supports non-free software where a free alternative exists and i think this is bad for the users and for the development of the free alternatives.
I say that they split it into ‘ultra-free’ and ‘apolitical, maximum ease of use and utility for people who aren’t bothered’. “
Yes! This is exactly what I’ve been waiting for. Let the users choose which one is best for them. The anti-proprietary purists can have their way too. Everybody happy.
rhyder: I say that they split it into ‘ultra-free’ and ‘apolitical, maximum ease of use and utility for people who aren’t bothered’.
You, and your comrades in arms of the “pragmatic” troupe, of course realize that making a statement such as “I am apolitical” is, in fact, a political statement?
Old news? Of course this is old news, but people seem to forget this all the time.
EDIT: Apparently the quote tags in [] don’t work…
Edited 2007-04-13 10:20
I suppose that when I use the word “apolitical” in this context I am saying that, in this case, the utility issues should overrule the political issues.
Certainly there are limits and judgment calls to be made.
I would personally feel that signing a Novel-style, precedent establishing agreement with MS, in return for some short term benefits, would be overstepping the mark.
In same way, there might be some cases in which supporting the an open driver better serves the long term interests of the community as a whole, without seriously impacting usability of the distribution.
Future versions of ubuntu will include more and more unpure things. Thats why a new ultra-pure version will be established. Standard ubuntu will slip down the slope of un-free. (which is good for users)
(which is good for users)
Well, that’s just it. The theory goes that in the long run it’s bad for users. The FSF stance is that promoting or aiding proprietary software to spread is evil exactly because the general population gives up their freedom to easily. By luring them into using proprietary software you have contributed to robbing them of their freedom.
The short-term fix may be to skip the hard work of reimplementing what functionality is already served proprietary. But in the long run that will leave the user without the power to help himself or his neighbor with their software.
Between some very solid (and popular) releases, excellent community (and consequently some great documentation), and the amount publicity surrounding Ubuntu, the choices made by the Ubuntu development community can have real, noticeable impact on the state of desktop Linux.
The fact of the matter is that with an entirely free distro, the developers can have the blindfold of binary blob black boxes removed and thus will be able to make the system that much more stable. Currently, using non-free drivers means we (as developers and as users) need to rely on companies’ code.
This means, for example, that if nVidia doesn’t devote much time to making their Linux driver work nicely, Linux users are stuck with a buggy driver that the Linux nVidia community can decide not to use only at the cost of 3d acceleration. But imagine if projects like Nouveau had the strength and support of Ubuntu’s community behind it! We could stop using nVidia’s (somewhat) buggy driver, and never look back.
Ultimately, as Ubuntu and other “Linuces” become more popular, their ability to pressure companies like nVidia, ATI, and others to release open-source drivers will continue to grow. With choices like this one, to include only free drivers, we as a community are starting to use that new power. In doing so, we are sending the message that information and software should be free. In my opinion, this can only be a good thing in the long run.
Edited 2007-04-13 02:41
Sometimes you have to take a step backward to take two steps forward. Which would you rather have: a purely open software system, OR a system that is X times more popular, drawing in Y more developers, but it uses proprietary video card drivers.
If you want people to use a product, you have to think of them. They want their software to work, because they don’t care about it. They have more important things to do than wrangle with the OS on their microwave or computer. I think some members of the FSF need a reality check — The world is so much bigger and better than nerds like us. SO much bigger.
“in the long run that will leave the user without the power to help himself or his neighbor with their software”
The world runs on Windows, and people are getting along just fine without needing friends to come tweak and recompile their system.
No one can predict the distant future. Maybe chastising users because Nvidia has a business to run is a good idea for 2017, and maybe it isn’t. But product development exists in the here and now. To the normal human user, the debate is as simple as this: are you prepared to make me the best product possible? If not, I will go somewhere else.
So the truth is found in an agreement to disagree, a sort of compromise where two sects part ways. The small minority of the population keeps their niche alive, while the majority moves things forward.
This is why Ubuntu is going to have two versions. One product for people who care about all this computer jumbo mumbo, and another product for the rest of us.
But you’re focusing on the benefits of being more “popular” and completely ignoring the cost! What benefit is there to short term popularity if it undermines your long term viability?
Open source is what got us in the favorable position we find ourselves today! I’m at a loss as to why so many people fail to appreciate that fact. Once you realize that we have open source to thank for Linux, it’s a much smaller step to value and support it. It just doesn’t make sense to undermine it in the name “pragmatism” or “popularity”.
Currently, the loud proprietary voices are drowning out and obscuring this important message that has the best chance of keeping Linux healthy and viable into the future.
I wish more people using Linux would celebrate open source and stop spending so much time deriding its developers and advocates.
What cost are you talking about? What is the cost of using closed source software with open source software? Does the mere existence of closed source software assault the existence of open source software?
I don’t think so. Open source and closed source software are not mutually exclusive. Just like volunteer work can coexist with for-profit work.
There is room for both, just like there is room for chocolate cake and apple pie.
The cost is a decrease in demand for open source. It’s simple supply and demand. You don’t create demand for open source solutions by promoting and advocating for the use of proprietary software.
Just look at how many of the so called “pragmatic” advocates tell everyone how open source software doesn’t matter. Do you hear any of them educating new users about the benefits of open source? Do you hear any of them telling new users why it’s worth their time to support open source developers? Do you hear any of them calling for video card manufacturers to provide open source drivers? No.
There is a _real_ cost to the current anti open source attitude that seems to be permeating much of the open source user base, and it just can’t have a positive effect.
We need more people stepping up and saying thank you for open source offerings and acknowledging their benefits. We need fewer people telling everyone how open source doesn’t matter and to just enjoy the instant gratification of whatever hybrid cruft works.
Of course there’s room for both that’s not even remotely close to the issue at hand. The point is, you don’t promote apple pie if you’re a chocolate cake vendor.
Edited 2007-04-14 07:44
“We need more people stepping up and saying thank you for open source offerings and acknowledging their benefits. We need fewer people telling everyone how open source doesn’t matter and to just enjoy the instant gratification of whatever hybrid cruft works.”
But 90% of the world’s population doesn’t care about open source. It doesn’t matter how many people try to convince them, they will simply not care, and will never care. What do you do then? In that case, why is it not a good thing to promote pragmatism?
Edited 2007-04-14 19:29
All i’m asking for is a little more balance. The scale has tipped _way_ too far to the anti-open source side and the virtues of open source and its message are getting lost in the vitriol.
In our eagerness for instant gratification we’re giving up the good fight before we really start. Who says that 90% of the world’s population won’t care about open source given enough time. It’s hard to say where things will go and how circumstances will change. All we know for sure is that if we give up on the struggle now, we lose for sure.
Supporting and promoting open source seems like the most pragmatic course of action to ensure a healthy and viable future for Linux.
Edited 2007-04-14 19:43
The world runs on Windows, and people are getting along just fine without needing friends to come tweak and recompile their system.
For some definition of “fine”… but ok, I hear you. It’s not only “tweaking friends” that’s the issue though.
It’s more like free press. Some parts of the world probably are getting along just “fine” without it. But I’m glad to have it.
It’s about the ability to buy service from anyone, not just the original vendor. The ability say hell no I don’t need no force upgrades disabling my perfectly fine graphics card. The ability to stop you software from spying on you or doing other nasty stuff to you. It’s the typical stuff you’d like from a free market.
The better name is Ultra-FSF, with a resemblance sense to Ultra-Nazi. It’s limiting the user choice to use anything whatever the license.
“The better name is Ultra-FSF, with a resemblance sense to Ultra-Nazi. It’s limiting the user choice to use anything whatever the license”.
I’ll refrain from commenting on the first point you made as I’m not sure I understand it. As to the second, I think you may have misenterpreted the intent of this discussed release. Far from limtiting choice, it extends choice. From what I understand one can either choose a ‘regular’ Ubuntu that includes some select propietary components, or they can choose an entirely free-software version. Therefore the “restriction” of which you write is entirely self-imposed. I myself use a few proprietary components (codecs and flash) but nonetheless, I am all for the new release. For anyone who so vehemently opposes a free-only version of Ubuntu to the point that they could no longer face running the distro, there will always be (among gazillions of other distros, debian based or otherwise) Mepis and Freespire, which are both Ubuntu based and make compromises with proprietary software.
So what could possibly be the harm?
Working together with gNewsense is a smart move. Less work for Ubuntu devs, and gNewsense gets to be part of the official Ubuntu family.
Gutsy Gibbon…*snicker*
Okay, obviously I’m amused way too easily…
Direct link to Shuttleworth’s announcement: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2007-April/0…
IT guy: Hey boss – I’ve thought of a great way we can save money on our OS installations!
Boss: Oh yes? What is it?
IT guy: Well, we move our systems over from Windows to a great new OS called Gutsy Gibbon..
Boss: I want your desk cleared in one hour. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Seriously, are they trying to market Ubuntu as a professional-quality operating system? ‘Cos if so, why do they come up with such juvenile names for it?
The names are only used during the development stage. If you go to ubuntu.com, everything is referred to with version numbers.
Adam
Vienna, Blackcomb, Longhorn…these code names are much less…kidsy than “feisty fawn,” “dapper drake,” or “gutsy gibbon.”
It’s all in marketing, and no matter how many engineers think it doesn’t matter, it does. Public image and perception are more important than many people like to think.
I disagree. I don’t think “Feisty Fawn”, “Dapper Drake” or “Gutsy Gibbon” sound “kidsy” at all. A bit whimsical, maybe, but to claim that this would somehow impact its adoption is ridiculous, IMO. And, no, I’m not an engineer…
If there’s one think Ubuntu has nailed right, it’s branding. It’s not #1 on distrowatch for nothing.
Naaah… I don’t know about Longhorn. That one is a funny as Gutsy Gibbon :p
I call BS – nobody is marketting the code names to those that take themselves too seriously for their own good. sorry.
Actually, the last part of the name is dropped (theoretically) after development. Hence Dapper [Drake], Edgy [Eft], Feisty [Fawn], and Gutsy [Gibbon].
The first part of the name can still be found in /etc/apt/sources.list, and other places.
hrm, yeah cause saying you want to put a NCAA operating system on your companies DE is also isn’t a hard push.
“Seriously, are they trying to market Ubuntu as a professional-quality operating system? ‘Cos if so, why do they come up with such juvenile names for it?”
You realize these are code names for the development versions, right?
You know, like Longhorn and Whistler.
That’s going to be a waste of time, effort and energy on placating the FSF zealots… and frankly seems to run entirely contrary to everything that has gotten Ubuntu to where it is today.
I think I’m with Rhyder on this one… If they are going to release a dirty hippy edition, how about changing the normal release to have the universe and multiverse turned on by default for those of us who see through the BS sociological agenda and just want the bloody thing to work out of box.
Edited 2007-04-12 19:59
universe and multiverse are enabled by default on feisty. (or at least they were for me on the beta)
Since Fedora is straying from its roots of being the ultra-free distribution of choice (codec buddy et al) it is nice to see that Ubuntu will be providing an alternative for people who care about the future of Linux.
For those who have a less far sighted view of things or don’t understand the importance of open source to the future health of Linux, they will continue to have lots of other choices.
“””
Since Fedora is straying from its roots of being the ultra-free distribution of choice (codec buddy et al)…
“””
Please. Don’t take this wrong. But sometimes I think that some of the FSF faithful won’t be happy until we’re all sleeping naked under a rock, rejoicing in how free we are.
I’ve had a far sighted view regarding Linux since 1995. And I wish that Vorbis and Theora were household words. I fervently do.
But they’re not, Blanche!
Just for the record, like many notable GPL users, I don’t subscribe to much put forth by RMS and the FSF. However, I am an advocate of the GPL and think it’s the best open source license. It seems to me to have the best chance of creating open source software that continues to work long term that isn’t subverted or abused by those with a different agenda.
As a developer, I like knowing that people who extend and distribute my GPL offerings will make the code available so that I may benefit from their work as they did from mine; fair trade. It’s that simple, no big desire for naked hippy love under a rock.
So, it will ship with fewer drivers, and I suppose nonfree won’t be in the sources.list by default. If someone added them, would there be a difference? I guess the people at whom this is aimed wouldn’t do such a thing
Re: names – I was way bored, so I decided to track down negative comments about the codename for each release of Ubuntu thus far. It got harder as I went back further. I guess as Ubuntu grows it attracts more attention? The older comments were also pretty generic “weird name” types, while comments about PHBs firing people for introducing Linux with the code name of a particular distro seem to be a relatively new phenomenon
warty
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=8290&offset=15&rows=30&th…
Really stupid name.
hoary
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9098
What a TERRIBLE name.
breezy:
?
? See comment for dapper. Guess it has to count for both
dapper
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11865
Breezy Badger? Dapper Drake? Sounds like something you hear in a kindergarten class.
edgy
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=14376
It seems that Shuttelworth, Vaugh and the rest of the Ubuntu troop really get “high” before choosing the codenames of the Ubuntu releases !
feisty
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16234
Fiesty Fawn.
I mean, really. If they have a marketing department, they must be weeping, and I feel their pain.
gutsy
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=17682
IT guy: Well, we move our systems over from Windows to a great new OS called Gutsy Gibbon..
Boss: I want your desk cleared in one hour. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Yeah the names are weird. Looking forward to hearing it again when Gutsy Gibbon +1 is announced! (Etch user myself)
Edited 2007-04-12 20:40
We can all guess:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames?highlight=%28names~…
Personally, I am looking forward to running Ubuntu Humpin’ Hyena.
But we could also invent some more, like the Heroin-addicted Heifer or maybe the Humongous Hog.
But we could also invent some more, like the Heroin-addicted Heifer or maybe the Humongous Hog.
I actually think Humongous Hog is the name most people give to Windows Vista
“gNewSense” has to be the most unintentionally hilarious project name yet — referring to the sponsor, not the product.
I have to deplore the use of resources that could be making Ubuntu better on this. Prospective users could do a better job on their own anyway – it’s not like they’ll ever agree on the specifics or negotiate them rationally. I hope Shuttleworth gets some decent PR out of it, at least (though I doubt it.)
It tells you, though, how loud the MIT crowd can be: there’s a lot more of us who just want to use our computers (many of whom have heard the 4 freedoms gospel and could care less) and we don’t have our own version. Maybe we’re just politer.
The new “flavour” of Ubuntu will take “an ultra-orthodox view of licensing: no firmware, drivers, imagery, sounds, applications, or other content which do not include full source materials and come with full rights of modification, remixing and redistribution … for those who demand a super-strict interpretation of the ‘free’ in free software,” said Shuttleworth.
Free means I can do what ever I want with it, right? That’s the strict interpretation. So why can’t I?
Because the “free” GPL doesn’t allow me to. Yes, that’s why.
Edited 2007-04-12 21:32
What a stupid rhetorical question. Does a free society mean you can go into a store a steal anything you want? By your strict interpretation of “freedom” that would be just fine and dandy as well.
But in fact, the GPL does grant you freedom to _use_ the software any way you want. You are only prohibited from distributing the software in a manner that _reduces_ other peoples freedom to use it as _they_ wish.
and it’s a great deal, if you’re a user. If you’re a developer, though, you get to incorporate others’ work in your own, as long as you let THEM dictate what YOU can do with it — i.e., give up all YOUR rights.
I accept that people, even those who don’t have tenure or tax free foundations, make that choice (they don’t need my permission or respect, after all) but I don’t accept them calling me “unethical”: my position is based on principle just as much as theirs.
The funny thing is, I agree with the idea of open source and sharing of ideas, but the overriding goal must be to advance computing, not a political/moral agenda. One thing I’ll give RMS is that he is completely honest about his purpose; it’s that purpose and his means of advancing it that I have no time for. As a well known writer once said, I don’t want to be the meal and be obligated to do the cooking as well.
This is just plain wrong. You don’t give up your rights to _your_ software. You retain the full copyright of all your original work and can sell it, or relicense it any way you wish, even under a proprietary license. It’s your code, and continues to be your code even if you license it under the GPL. Of course, those rights don’t extend to __other peoples__ code, doing so would take away _their_ freedom.
As a developer it seems like more than a fair deal. You get to build on top of all that software given free by the original authors, as long as you offer that same deal to those that come after you. If you’re not prepared to enter into that agreement, nobody is forcing you.
However, there are many software authors that feel good about the GPL and know that it helps ensure the software they release stays free and isn’t encumbered by people who don’t share a desire to keep it free.
Well you are right that calling the use or sale of proprietary software “unethical” is ridiculous. But that’s really beside the point. Getting hung up on the word “free” the way you did doesn’t extend the conversation or do justice to the issues involved.
Defining “free” and “rights” the FSF way obviously doesn’t relate to my understanding of the words. Without repeating everything I’ve said before (probably wouldn’t be read this time either) can I reiterate that it’s not about the bits? It’s about being expected to declare and evangelize my “freedom” while being dictated to by someone whose beliefs and agenda I don’t share.
If I GPL something that I wrote 100% of, I actually do retain rights to it in a meaningful way (as in the ability to change the license if I want to) but I’ve now become another aggressor forcing my “rights” on everyone else.
It does make sense to use the GPL to protect a dual licensed free version (Qt, for example.) It still feels iffy morally, though, and I’ve not firmly decided if I can justify doing it without at least in part accepting the system RMS is trying to create. For now I stick with BSD (to give away), closed source (to sell), and GPL to use or study privately.
Well, you give up “YOUR” rights regarding their code which protects their right over their own code, which shouldn’t bother you. The same thing protects your code from others’ eventual misbehavior. And protects all of us by keeping everybody’s code available to all of us under the same freedoms or restrictions, as you see fit to interpret this.
Well, that doesn’t mean much, serial killers also have their principles too.
This whole thing started as a moral agenda, if it wouldn’t have, it wouldn’t be where it is today. I absolutely don’t agree that the ideas driving FOSS should be contained in computing. Most of today’s people who use FOSS software don’t care and/or don’t have a clue about anything regarding the open source world and its backing ideas. Which is bad not just from the open source point of view but from everyday life’s point of view too.
“and it’s a great deal, if you’re a user. If you’re a developer, though, you get to incorporate others’ work in your own, as long as you let THEM dictate what YOU can do with it — i.e., give up all YOUR rights.”
What a load of nonsense. You are not giving up any of your rights. You have never had the right to go against the rules of the author in the first place. That code was theirs in the first place. They can do whatever they want with their code. If you don’t like their rules, then don’t use their code.
You’re just a leecher, nothing more. You want to use other peoples’ code without giving anything in return (be it money, contributions or just the author’s wish that you follow the license) and you think that somehow people owe you that right.
I think I’ve been out-trolled!
As you say, the whole point is the attitude that a developer has no right to their own work. The FIRST person (who doesn’t have to contribute much more than an idea) gets to dictate their terms to all who follow, no matter what they add. The only option is to reinvent from scratch every time, exactly what OSS is intended to prevent, given acceptable terms. I won’t touch MS’s SSL either, but at least they’re honest about its aims.
And I don’t use anyone else’s code, for that reason. If I don’t ever plan to release, however, I feel free to use the rights that were explicitly given me by the first (true believer) author and subsequent (victim) authors.
If I gave anything “back” it would be a BSD-licensed clone (perhaps readline or malloc, since both have specifically been used to abuse the rights of authors of much larger projects in moneyless but otherwise patent-trollish ways.)
“As you say, the whole point is the attitude that a developer has no right to their own work. The FIRST person (who doesn’t have to contribute much more than an idea) gets to dictate their terms to all who follow, no matter what they add.”
And how exactly is that a bad thing? You create it -> you make the rules. Why shouldn’t the author make the rules for his own creation? Seems fair to me. I don’t hear anybody complaining about not being able to copy source code from Microsoft.
“The only option is to reinvent from scratch every time, exactly what OSS is intended to prevent, given acceptable terms.”
OSS isn’t intended to prevent reinvention, it’s intended to have an open development model. But that doesn’t mean, nor does it have to mean, that there are absolutely no strings attached. You said it yourself, “given acceptable terms”. Just because you don’t think the GPL terms are acceptable doesn’t mean they’re unacceptable to everybody. I find GPL’s terms to be very acceptable.
“I won’t touch MS’s SSL either, but at least they’re honest about its aims.”
What part of the GPL isn’t honest about the aims? ALL of this is documented either in the license itself, or the GPL FAQ. There are no hidden agendas.
yes it does – the GPL doesn’t prevent you from doing whatever the hell you want with your install.
don’t be silly, all products have development codenames. Did you all forget the Win Vista was Longhorn? Ubuntu’s naming for official releases is year and month.
Feisty Fawn official name will be Ubunt 7.04 (2007-April)
Gutsy Gibbon will be released in October 2007 therefore the Official name will be Ubuntu 7.10
Sounds like debian to me
If you divide something too much it will be easy to conquer in the end.
There are already too many flavors of Ubuntu–Ubuntu this, Kubuntu that, Xubuntu–it will become increasingly difficult to tell them all apart. I believe that Shuttlesworth is doing the community a disservice here.
If you want a pure Ubuntu then why not recommend pure Debian instead of breaking off into another separate distro version.
When will it end??
Well, because it’s bad marketing to send people away from your table if they want something you can provide them too.
No, I don’t think so. Look at all the OSAlert Linux comments from the past 3 years. You’ll notice that, basically, there are two camps of people:
1. People who claim “Linux will never succeed on the desktop until [INSERT HARDWARE HERE FOR WHICH ONLY PROPRIETARY DRIVER IS AVAILABLE] is supported.” or “Linux will never succeed on the desktop as long as it’s dominated by proprietary-hating hippies.”
and
2. People who claim “To hell with [INSERT PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE HERE], I want my Linux to stay completely free and I don’t care whether not many people will use Linux.”
Ubuntu is making two versions for these two camps of people, who will never be compatible. What’s wrong with giving everybody what they want?
“Ubuntu is making two versions for these two camps of people, who will never be compatible. What’s wrong with giving everybody what they want?”
It’s waste of energy and resources, don’t think Linux community has them too much. I personally don’t see anything good with this nazi like attidute against propietary software/drivers and fully pushing it away. Instead they should concider making distro where by clear markings user can make this choice. But who would want to listen a Windows guy anyway.
“It’s waste of energy and resources, don’t think Linux community has them too much. I personally don’t see anything good with this nazi like attidute against propietary software/drivers and fully pushing it away. Instead they should concider making distro where by clear markings user can make this choice“.
(Karitku)
I have to go off topic a little here because this is the second reference to the nazis in this single thread, and I’m slightly confused by it. There is no night of the long knives over at cannonical, no legions of sandal wearing militias throwing people into concentration camps, no putsches planned against microsoft. There is just a group of people who are committed to having a free-software operating system, that is all. Maybe they are vocal to the point of stridency sometimes. Stallman can be brusque and downright abrasive… whatever. All this is far removed from the actions and ideology of the national socialist movement and I think that the debate is muddied and trivialised by the comparison.
To go back on topic:
There would be a dillution of resources if the “Linux community” were a single beast with one goal and plan in mind, but of course it isen’t. What is happening here is that one particular community -which has resources in spades as far as I can tell – is widening its scope to its more committed free-software community members. If that goes wrong – and I don’t see how or why it would – then really, maybe Fedora will pick up a few users or whatever. The “Linux community” won’t have had its resources wasted. That’s how i see it. But you know, we all see things differently and all that.
Edited 2007-04-13 13:07
“I personally don’t see anything good with this nazi like attidute against propietary software/drivers and fully pushing it away. Instead they should concider making distro where by clear markings user can make this choice.”
Don’t you see you’re being just as bad as the people you are condemning? They are entitled to their own opinion, and you are entitled to yours. You should not force your opinion down to their throat, and neither should they force their opinion down to your throat. By having two different versions, each individual can choose for themselves. I still don’t see why that’s wrong.
too slow.
You have a good point about splitting up Ubuntu, but I do believe that Ubuntu’s Ultra-Free version would be a much easier install/setup than Debian. Not that it really matters, because all hardcore oss people wouldn’t really have a problem with installing Debian anyway.
True…very true…
Linux is hopeless. These distributions all are divided on how things should be installed and work,like no use of binaries.
I don’t see it changing. I have had too many problems with linux.
Haiku is interesting.
It’s free from funcionality, more than usual. Hence the Ultrafree.
I am glad they started relicensing Ubuntu as BSDL operating system…. oh, wait!