Ubuntu Board Votes On Non-Free Software Option

[zeealpal]

Why not add a screen?

If tis suck a big problem adding a check box, then why cant the just add a new slide to the installer?

Like with a yes button and a no button, explaining the difference between open/closed, but making it OBVIOUS to new users that clicking YES will install Flash, Codec and Drivers (or whatever Ubuntu already auto installs)

[Remco]

Hehe, nice one. I guess Linux will become more popular as soon as it becomes more user friendly. As you can see, not everyone wants that. :-)

But as you said, it can never become popular. Both Vorbis and Linux have this invisible barrier that they can't cross. That barrier is caused by incompatibility with industry standards. If Linux has Flash by default, people won't come running. They will stay on Windows, where they have to install Flash themselves, but where they can also install all of their crappy Windows software themselves.

So then you've shit on the ideals of free software, and what do you get? Nothing.

[Temar]

But as you said, it can never become popular. Both Vorbis and Linux have this invisible barrier that they can't cross.

Yes, in a way they have the same problem, but if you look closer they don't. Vorbis just failed to make a good codec though it would have been possible. The problem they both have is manpower. As I said, the opensource community thinks they can provide a full-featured replacement of every software out there, but they can't. They do not have the manpower nescessary without the backing of commercial companies.

Vorbis is a very good example, because as the new Google VP8 codec shows: It IS possible to write a good codec without violating any patents. Vorbis just did not have the necessary manpower to do it.

Linux also suffers from manpower but also from the patent problem. There will never be a full-featured Linux Desktop without the backing of commercial companies. The Linux desktop for the masses will be a mix of FOSS and closed source software. Is this bad? I think not, because while there might be some distros which go the mixed way, there will still be plenty of distros which take the FOSS-only way. But they all will have a lot more manpower available to achieve their goals.

That barrier is caused by incompatibility with industry standards. If Linux has Flash by default, people won't come running. They will stay on Windows, where they have to install Flash themselves, but where they can also install all of their crappy Windows software themselves.

It's not about Flash, but about the user experience overall. If you are behind, you have to be better than your competitors and this includes small things like installing everything a normal user wants automatically. For many people Linux could already be a Windows replacement. However switching to Linux requires the user to "learn" a new OS and that should be as easy as possible. Linux is not perfect so users will always have problems during their transition period from Windows to Linux. But they should not be bothered with the question: "How do I install Flash?". The one BIG advantage Linux has are the software repositories. We can install and update everything automatically and this is very comfortable. Why don't we use it to our advantage?

So then you've shit on the ideals of free software, and what do you get? Nothing.

Why does one shit on the ideals of free software just because you install some commercial products where there is no free replacement yet? Why does it always have to be one or the other. Why not a mix of the best of both worlds?

[Remco]

Yes, in a way they have the same problem, but if you look closer they don't. Vorbis just failed to make a good codec though it would have been possible. The problem they both have is manpower. As I said, the opensource community thinks they can provide a full-featured replacement of every software out there, but they can't. They do not have the manpower nescessary without the backing of commercial companies.

Vorbis is a very good example, because as the new Google VP8 codec shows: It IS possible to write a good codec without violating any patents. Vorbis just did not have the necessary manpower to do it.

You do realize that Vorbis was better than the competition and VP8 is not? And VP8 is backed by a giant while Vorbis was not. Yet the chances are that VP8 is going to win. Because of that same giant.

Linux also suffers from manpower but also from the patent problem. There will never be a full-featured Linux Desktop without the backing of commercial companies. The Linux desktop for the masses will be a mix of FOSS and closed source software. Is this bad? I think not, because while there might be some distros which go the mixed way, there will still be plenty of distros which take the FOSS-only way. But they all will have a lot more manpower available to achieve their goals.



It's not about Flash, but about the user experience overall. If you are behind, you have to be better than your competitors and this includes small things like installing everything a normal user wants automatically. For many people Linux could already be a Windows replacement. However switching to Linux requires the user to "learn" a new OS and that should be as easy as possible. Linux is not perfect so users will always have problems during their transition period from Windows to Linux. But they should not be bothered with the question: "How do I install Flash?". The one BIG advantage Linux has are the software repositories. We can install and update everything automatically and this is very comfortable. Why don't we use it to our advantage?

The only way to win market share on the grounds of user experience is if you are massively better than the other solution. Installing Flash will NOT get us users. Windows is simply not bad enough to compete with on merit. What we need is marketing and vendor buy-in. The only way to get that is from a huge company.

Why does one shit on the ideals of free software just because you install some commercial products where there is no free replacement yet? Why does it always have to be one or the other. Why not a mix of the best of both worlds?

Because there is always something. If you install proprietary software any time there is a need, you're never going to get rid of it. What is the exit plan of Flash? When can we remove Skype? At what point can we downgrade the NVIDIA driver to a crappy nouveau? When can we replace Wine-based Picasa with Shotwell? When do we get the free desktop again that we had 10 years ago before we accepted proprietary software?

[Temar]

You do realize that Vorbis was better than the competition and VP8 is not?

Vorbis can neither compete with h264 nor VP8. That's the reason noone uses it.

And VP8 is backed by a giant while Vorbis was not.

That's what I was talking about. You need the money and the manpower of big companies. We now have a competitive codec, which is even open source. What would we have without Google? So the money and manpower of a company strengthened FOSS.

The only way to win market share on the grounds of user experience is if you are massively better than the other solution. Installing Flash will NOT get us users.

You always try to reduce the problem to Flash/Noflash. We are talking about a policy change, not about Flash! Flash is only one small piece of the puzzle to get a more user-friendly Linux desktop.

What is the exit plan of Flash? When can we remove Skype? At what point can we downgrade the NVIDIA driver to a crappy nouveau? When can we replace Wine-based Picasa with Shotwell? When do we get the free desktop again that we had 10 years ago before we accepted proprietary software?

Why an exit plan? Is Skype/Flash/... so bad? Everybody who wants to take the idealistic way can still use Debian. Just because one distribution is user friendly does not mean that all distributions have to change. Why do you want to get rid of every proprietary piece of software? We NEED the support of companies to get money and manpower, so we have to give them a chance to actually make money.

[mirv]

Why an exit plan? Is Skype/Flash/... so bad? Everybody who wants to take the idealistic way can still use Debian. Just because one distribution is user friendly does not mean that all distributions have to change. Why do you want to get rid of every proprietary piece of software? We NEED the support of companies to get money and manpower, so we have to give them a chance to actually make money.

I'm just going to point out here...AMD have given direct support to the linux kernel for their CPUs, and have been making money off it for some time.
GNU/Linux is built on an open ecosystem, and we should all be wanting it remain open in all facets. Skype probably wouldn't be so bad if there was the option of people being able to use an open source alternative, but nobody else can interoperate with it due to its proprietary nature.

[yogi_berra]

So then you've shit on the ideals of free software, and what do you get?

Working multimedia.

[Remco]

Vorbis can neither compete with h264 nor VP8. That's the reason noone uses it.

You're talking about Theora. I was talking about the community-developed audio codec Vorbis, which is way better than MP3 and still didn't conquer the market. Theora and VP8 are crappy video codecs developed by On2. They both can't compete with H.264 on quality. The only reason VP8 is winning is because a huge company is pushing it.

That's what I was talking about. You need the money and the manpower of big companies. We now have a competitive codec, which is even open source. What would we have without Google? So the money and manpower of a company strengthened FOSS.

Yes, Google helped us a great deal here. It replaced Flash and H.264 in one move. Note also how we didn't include any of Google's proprietary crap to get there.

You always try to reduce the problem to Flash/Noflash. We are talking about a policy change, not about Flash! Flash is only one small piece of the puzzle to get a more user-friendly Linux desktop.

That's not true. You cut out the part of my comment that really mattered. Making our distributions even easier than they are now will not get us any more users. They really couldn't care less about Linux. What we need is a huge company that can push our drug onto unwilling victims. Like all consumer products. People only buy stuff they don't need if there is a marketing campaign behind it.

Why an exit plan? Is Skype/Flash/... so bad? Everybody who wants to take the idealistic way can still use Debian. Just because one distribution is user friendly does not mean that all distributions have to change. Why do you want to get rid of every proprietary piece of software? We NEED the support of companies to get money and manpower, so we have to give them a chance to actually make money.

Yes, proprietary software is bad. You mistakenly think that Ubuntu is not an idealistic distribution. We want support from companies, but we don't need their crap. What scenario do you see where Adobe or Skype Inc gives us money and manpower?

[Temar]

You're talking about Theora. I was talking about the community-developed audio codec Vorbis, which is way better than MP3 and still didn't conquer the market.

Oh, sorry I mixed them up. I do not really listen that much to music, so I'm not into audio codecs.

Theora and VP8 are crappy video codecs developed by On2. They both can't compete with H.264 on quality.

But vp8 is good enough in terms of size/quality to be considered a replacement of h.264. Without it, we would not have anything which comes close to h264.

The only reason VP8 is winning is because a huge company is pushing it.

Another example, why we need big companies. But we have to give them a chance to actually earn money.

Yes, Google helped us a great deal here. It replaced Flash and H.264 in one move. Note also how we didn't include any of Google's proprietary crap to get there.

Just because this works with a few companies does not mean it would work with most of the other companies as well.

Making our distributions even easier than they are now will not get us any more users.

Of course it will. Only if Linux is as easy as possible to use, companies will consider pushing it. They do not want to spend month or years first to make it user friendly. They want a working solution which can actually be used by ordinary people.

They really couldn't care less about Linux. What we need is a huge company that can push our drug onto unwilling victims. Like all consumer products. People only buy stuff they don't need if there is a marketing campaign behind it.

With your attitude of taking as much as possible but making no compromises at all, it will be hard to find such a company.

Yes, proprietary software is bad. We want support from companies, but we don't need their crap. What scenario do you see where Adobe or Skype Inc gives us money and manpower?

Yes, we need big companies and proprietary software will always exist. There is just too much software which can not be developed as an open source product if you actually want to make money from it. Adobe Photoshop is a good example.

The scenario I see for companies like Adobe? They are important because they produce software which is an industry standard. You may not like it but this software is required if you want to see Linux on a majority of the desktops. While these companies might not contribute to open source directly, they'll help to make Linux a real alternative.

You mistakenly think that Ubuntu is not an idealistic distribution.

That's the funny thing about Ubuntu. A majority of their users install proprietary software like Flash anyway and Ubuntu even offers this software in their official repositories. They could as well remove the software from their repositories and tell people just to use PPAs, but they know that their users want the proprietary stuff. Knowing that and advertising the distribution as "Linux for the masses", it just does not make sense not to install the software automatically. Sounds like an identity crisis to me.

[blackiwid]

1. Don?t mix possible patent issues with lisence issues. We have a very good free software Codec x264, maybe one of the best codecs, and for streaming with lower bit rates maybe vp8 is good or even better, but thats also free software.

So having on top of that a totaly independend developed video codec is surely a bit better but have nothing to do with free software vs non free software. Such patents (logic math and other bogus patents are in most countries forbidden).

Then its surely a good decition to include proprietary software in a distribution, because it would violate gpl, so GNU or fsf would have to sue Canonical for such lisence break. Maybe their lawers think that they can maybe win there, but a law suit would break have very hard consequences for ubuntu, most developers use linux and other free software because they belive in it, they would not make any ubuntu packages or would stop using ubuntu, it would split up the ubuntu-users and 30-50% of the users would search a new distribution, it would hurt ubuntu.

And thats only the practical points, its unethical, and the most importent points to use linux would be nullified, because you have no adware because you have a free desktop.

If you dont mind for that, and the same people say that often proprietary software thats included in the distributions are not as good as proprietary software, why do you not use than osx or windows 7?

Again it would violate gpl, even the very industrie friendly (no gpl3, pro tivoisation) linux guys dont want non-free drivers. Its even a question if a driver like Nvidia that directly is derivided work of the linux kernel to be non-free is allowed. But delivering both with one installer as one product together by a company is absolutly out of discussion (legaly)

And what are you talking about flash? thats obsolete anyway, wait just a while and youtube dont needs that crap anymore, this software slows down pcs and makes them hang up. Nvidia driver, 1 click to install it, I dont agree with that buy cards/chips that are well supported by opensource drivers like Intel or Amd, but if you don?t do that, its ok to make one click to have a minimal inferior experince, because the company will have to learn in long run that they sabotage social communitys, and that they have not the right to control your computer. So you may see that other then me, but my freedom is not less importent than your freedom to give away your freedom.

Is adobe flash included in windows 7? or the latest nvidia driver, so why linux is here not worse than windows, it allowes even much more easy to install such driver. So why would that be a barrier to get from 1 to 2% desktop share?
Does a OS be better and cheaper 500x instead of 100x just to get from 1% to 2%?


Linux is coming its only the question how fast, and how free, we see in android what linux can be if we dont stick to the free software concept or our freedom. Its just a guy that is here a bit better here a bit worse than the competitors but is closed like the others. You have no control other what you wanna install or not. only the control the company where you bought your phone gives you, if they dont allow you to upgrade it to a newer android version you cant. They have the power other you and can enforce whatever and unpower you however they want. Its like you would in a democracy make a referendum to forbit referendums. Who would be that dumb to vote yes here.

freedom is more importent than to save some unethical people 2 mouse clicks and 10 second install time.