Slashdot Log In
Canonical and Linspire Make a Deal
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Feb 08, 2007 02:28 PM
from the consolidating dept.
from the consolidating dept.
Nate writes "Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu Linux, has teamed up with Linspire to share technologies between the two distros. When Freespire 2.0 arrives in April, it will use Ubuntu as its base, moving off of the current Debian. Ubuntu users will get access to proprietary software (DVD players, media codecs) via Linspire's newly opened Click 'N Run. Check out the press release and the obligatory FAQ."
Related Stories
[+]
Linspire's CNR Goes Multi-Distro 171 comments
S3Indiana writes with news that Linspire is opening its Click 'N Run installation software to other Linux distributions. After 5 years of development on CNR, the new site cnr.com will be a single source repository for Linux users. Distributions to be supported initially during 2007 are (alphabetically): Debian, Fedora, Freespire, Linspire, OpenSUSE, and Ubuntu; other distributions will follow. See the FAQ and the screenshots for more details.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Canonical and Linspire Make a Deal
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 282 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Red Hat, Corel, Linspire (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3675.html)
Re:Red Hat, Corel, Linspire (Score:5, Insightful)
More cooperation between the leading distros will hopefully push for more commonality between the distros, especially if this means a way to include proprietary software.
Hopefully some of the resulting technology may even end up as part of LSB or similar one day.
"Streaming Penguin" (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kadin.sdf-us.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @01:46PM)
Absolutely. Another perennial criticism of Linux as a desktop OS is the lack of proprietary codecs and software, which hamper its usefulness with regards to digital media in its default configuration. An operating system that can't play DVDs without some shady "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, here are the addresses of some mirrors in France," is a non-starter for most people.
Hopefully, the collaboration between Linspire (who are one of the only distros that I know of, who actually license the codecs and thus can have a fully-functional, U.S.-legal distro out of the box) and Ubuntu (which seems to have the largest desktop userbase, and the most mindshare among users), will move Linux a little closer to parity with Windows.
Windows zealots are always going to have something to use as an excuse for the inferiority of Linux; ultimately, their objections (and many PHB's) tend to boil down to "Linux is not Windows," and are really sham arguments used to justify a decision that's already been made. These people are not convertible. Linux isn't Windows, and shouldn't try to be; to attempt to make Windows more attractive to them is probably to damage it. However, there are a significant number of people 'on the fence,' without strong feelings for or against Linux, and who are kept from being more interested because it's perceived as too complicated or limited. Providing U.S.-legal media codecs in mainstream distributions -- even if this means knuckling under and paying royalties in the short term -- is an important step towards bringing those users onto a Free platform.
Re:"Streaming Penguin" (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://owened.net/)
What I don't understand is how Windows-knowledgable people, aka, "computer knowledgable" people are so afraid of Linux. It's an irrational fear; it doesn't make logical sense to be afraid of a computer operating system. What it does make sense to be though, is afraid of change, and afraid of sticking your foot into something you don't know or understand. The funny thing is though, all the Windows experts running around claiming Linux is harder, slower, whatever silly conjecture they care to spurt, none of them (a) regularly use Linux, or (b) knew how to use Windows in the first place.
Believe it or not, Windows users of Slashdot, you didn't actually know how to use Windows when you first started using it. Like anything else, there was a learning curve, and like anything else, you had to put in some time to get to know the system so you could use it to its full potential. It's the same for Linux and Linux distributions; you have to put time in to learn a new and different system.
This link has probably been bandied around Slashdot before, but it's relevant here: Why Windows Causes Stupidity [over-yonder.net]
The title is a little inflammatory, but if you actually read the article (instead of just skimming over it, ignoring it, and returning here to flame me), you'll understand where the author is coming from.
Ubuntu / Debian (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, last time I checked, Ubuntu was itself a Debian based distro which would mean that even if Freespire were to base itself on Ubuntu, it's roots would still be in Debian.
Re:Ubuntu / Debian (Score:5, Informative)
(http://stylus-toolbox.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 15, @11:50AM)
Uhm. Okay... (Score:1, Insightful)
(http://www.evilnet.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday August 30 2006, @12:30PM)
Yeah, I guess the automated installation is nice for those living in the Land of Ludd. But I have little use for it.
That could just be me though.
Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:5, Funny)
(Sorry, I had to. Yeah, I'm a jackass.)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
Yeah, some people like you. There have been a number of commercial packages for Linux already and they have all fallen by the wayside. They existed as a temporary band-aid and they are now gone. What about Accelerated X? That was THE only worthwhile X server for linux that wasn't a horrible PITA to set up. Many people purchased and used it. How many people are using it now?
The existence of the ATI fglrx driver isn't chasing people away from working on the ati driver, nor is the existence of nvidia-glx chasing people away from working on nv.
The existence of ndiswrapper on Linux hasn't stopped people from porting network drivers from OpenBSD into Linux.
The existence of wine doesn't stop people from using OO.o instead of MS Office on windows. Nor has it stopped people from using the GIMP, when Photoshop exists, Even though Photoshop is better in almost every way (since it's the only application Adobe hasn't totally fucked up in the last few years.)
In short, there are numerous opportunities to use commercial software on Linux, but frankly it hasn't stopped or even seemed to slow down the growth of Open Source and Free Software.
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:5, Insightful)
That's great, but unfortunately attempting to overthrow Microsoft in the market, if that's the goal for an OS maker or distro company (like it is for Ubuntu) involves actually getting some work done. People aren't going to settle for not being able to play DVDs and MP3s on their newly purchased computer with Linux, they expect things to work. If Linux has any chance of overtaking MS ever (which some could argue that it doesn't) the best strategy is to get these things working now, and perhaps transition people into open formats in years to come. Having people on a proprietary OS does nothing to help the cause of open source software, and demanding what you will never receive when you have no market share is not an effective strategy. If we want to change the game, we have to at least get on the court and compromise to some of their rules for the time being. After we've been playing maybe then we can demand changes.
Think about it, a minor player with .5% of the market comes in and tells you "you have to give me this that and that" all of which will potentially cost you a lot of money. As a businessman do you:
I'm betting you'd choose B if you are a good businessman. And that's the problem. You can't tell everyone you'll take your ball and go home if they don't play how you like when you don't own the ball. End users don't care about OSS or proprietary, they care that they can't watch their DVD of season 1 of oww my balls on their new computer, while Billy with the Windows PC next door can. Defeat those problems and maybe you have a chance with pre-installs.
Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
If we are to compete with the evil M$, we need cooperation between distros, not bickering.
United, we stand.
Sure, I have my favorite distro(s), but as long as it's not Microsoft, I'm happy.
More proprietary stuff. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kennke.org/blog/)
So we get more ways to easier install proprietary stuff on that OS that was originally proposing to 'support free software'. Sigh. Can anybody enlighten me how Canonical is actively supporting and advertising free software? By pulling in more and more options for proprietary software?
I know they argue that the lack of certain applications and / or drivers is hindering adoption of free software and there is certainly some thruth to it. Well, I don't know. I think as long as I have the choice to exclude the proprietary repositories I'll be fine with it. But I probably wouldn't encourage people to install Ubuntu first, like I did in the past, but instead point them to Fedora.
This is really big news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Give it time... it will catch on. RPMs are great but if you need XXX dependancies first to install something, people get confused (as I did). This is the best thing for Linux since sliced bread
Click'n'Run as a shop? (Score:3)
What bother me more is prioritary codecs. If they are Fluendo ones, I am fine, but if they are some thirty party hacks, sorry, I don't think Ubuntu should get involved in this.
Anyway, interesting move. If it means that Canonical things more about commercial offerings, more power to them, because I would like to recommend some enterprise crowd to use Ubuntu instead of RHES/SLES, because I don't think very good about them.
What I don't want to see either is Add/Remove and Synaptic gone. It would be very foolish.
Starting to really like this guy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is it. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://thegoldenear.org/)
Ubuntu...the new super-distro? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 29 2005, @12:03PM)
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
(http://all.your.ba.se/)
Plus, "Ubire" sounds like "Uber"...
Interesting (Score:2, Informative)
The paper was Here [catb.org]
The portion about Linspire was towards the bottom.
To the authors: Congratulations and thank you for tackling one of the large hurdles preventing mainstream adoption.
Don't forget (Score:1, Troll)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 29 2006, @06:44PM)
Way to go (Score:1)
Incorporating proprietary software is not as scary as it sounds - noone forces users to buy the stuff and as we know, every Linux app has 5 alternatives.
I think this would be some motivation for proprietary software writers to port to Linux. This makes the "but my app does not run on Linux" excuse go away (I've heard that a lot).
If it works... (Score:1, Redundant)
Proprietary is NOT Required (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to support free software, just don't install proprietary packages. If you just want things to work as best they can, then having these extra options is a good thing.
And honestly, if one is such a zealot for free software, why would that person be using Ubuntu anyway? Last I checked, it included the "controversial" Firefox browser, as opposed to something truly free, like Iceweasel.
The point is that Ubuntu hasn't entirely been strictly free software for quite some time now. But their default setup is, (else why would people be using scripts like Automatix to install all the non-free stuff quickly) and they only offer the choice of using non-free packages. They don't force people to use it.
meh.... (Score:1)
cnr and deb (Score:2)
Time to try Linux again (Score:1)
Next week's news: MS buys Linspire (Score:1)
Feb 15th, 2007: Microsoft announces that it has purchased Linspire, closed down the cnr.com website and changed the licensing of Click 'N Run to conform with MS's EULA standards. Ballmer is quoted as saying: "The thought of one-click installation of free software without at charge whatsoever to the End User is against everything that Microsoft stands for and endangers Freedom and the American Dream.
With our announcements today, Microsoft has taken extensive steps to thwart this threat because, were it not for this, the future of the free world is at stake. What kind of a world would it be if people could simply upgrade or install software free of any charge whatsoever?"
On the mechanics of it all (Score:1)
As long as the standard apt-get and dpkg tools work in Linspire I really
don't have a problem with it. But if you will look at this:
http://media.linspire.com/cnr/images/CNR-system2.
What I want is that CNR plugin that crosses from CNR directly to you desktop
to use dpkg to install it. That means I want
but it since CNR is also shooting for Fedora and OpenSuse that this might not be the case......
That's what I want (at least it's not a pony). But does any one know what the
underlieing package management looks like with CNR?
Can we get a new headline editor? (Score:1)
????
At first, I thought this had been piped into my reader from The Onion's rss feed.
I guess we can look forward to "Area Man Reaches for Pretzel Bag While Updating Lilo"
ahem Debian core folks (Score:1)
(http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/Weblog)
A potentialy fatal mistake.... (Score:1)
It kinda makes sense now why *spire is going to be bassed on Ubuntu so that there won't be any repository problems.
But in the end it sounds like you can do CNR their way or you better not do CNR at all....
Re:Too little open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
And honestly, the only "proprietary" or "closed" things that EVER get included with ANY distro are things like *decent* drivers for 3D video cards, and codecs.
The video card driver situation kind of sucks, but it's just a driver. It would be nice if there were open-source drivers that worked well, but the fact is that Nvidia and ATI are better at writing drivers for their own hardware than anyone else could ever hope to be.
The codec thing ALSO sucks, but there is nothing to do about it. If you want to keep you system "pure", then you aren't going to be watching any Quicktime or Windows Media files or DVDs.
Re:Too little open source? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Too little open source? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.hyperlogos.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 18, @08:19PM)
Well, I will reserve my opinion as it comes to nVidia, but how could anyone do a worse job of writing drivers than ATI? And frankly, the nVidia drivers aren't the most stable thing ever. But the most telling fact is that the free ati driver is dramatically more stable than the commercial fglrx driver for the few cards that support both. Or so my ATI-using pals tell me, but then, they bought ATI cards, so their judgement is suspect.
Re:Debian based? (Score:2)
Re:Too little open source? (Score:2)
Re:Debian based? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.justgiving.com/underwatercycling)
Debian Stable is usually about a year or more "behind the times", though it does what it says on the tin (I use Debian for servers that really need to be stable, but I'm not too fussed about having the latest shiny release number).
Ubuntu makes for a far shiner desktop. Although some of the tech affictionados around here may drop the distro and head for pastures new (perhaps back to Debian, Gentoo or some other distro, maybe even Free BSD!), there are a lot of plain ordinary people out there who just want things to work, and be able to play DVD and have the codecs available to play the media they get sent in attachments via email, or on the web.
Ubuntu merging with Linspire, and getting access to all this could be a rather big step forward in getting the ordinary, everyday person who knows little to nothing about computers to have a closer look (especially when you can hand them a live CD, and say "Go play with it and see how it works for you").
Debian is a great base, and Ubuntu is all the easier for the hard work put in by the Debian team. It just wants to be less political and 'proper', and just get on with the job of making the framework work better for the average uninitiated person in the street.
Re:Debian based? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because linux is free, doesn't mean people don't want to run non-free software on it. I want too. I'm sure a lot of businesses are holding out because their favorite application doesn't support it. This almost feels like a bunch of people's favorite band garage band has an opportunity to become famous and they're pooping on it because then they won't be memebers of an exclusive club anymore! Linux needs to get popular to gain some traction with hardware makers and people that make a lot the desktop software the world uses. That'll create a chain reaction.
Re:Too little open source? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://etherplex.org/)
In the end, no closed source software has been added to the distro by default, the entire CNR add-on is optional (at least in it's use), and we may even stand to gain some ground in the OS wars. I'll count it as a win.
I think the plan is to make CNR part of many "big" distros: openSuse, Fedora, Freespire (duh), Linspire (duh), Ubuntu to name those listed at the top of CNR.com. At least when people try to switch, they will see some familiar applications available.
on balance it's a good thing for FOSS, IMHO (Score:2)
That means if you want to, you can buy proprietary codecs and stuff. But it's not part of Ubuntu's distro, and nobody will twist your arm.
This might help make it possible to finally switch grandmas and girlfriends from Windows.
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:1)
Re:Too little open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ferrus.net/)
The Ubuntu developers strongly support the ideals of the Free Software movement. They also want to make an operating system that's useful to their users.
One of the primary usage patterns that the Ubuntu developers expect for their software is for it to be installed on computers that are outdated or even second-hand. They feel that it's better for these machines to have a binary driver or two then for them to not work. With Fiesty Fawn, they will warn the user about binary drivers, but it's important to make the hardware work anyway - $30 for a new ethernet card just isn't a good deal on a second-hand computer donated to a school in Africa.
This deal with Linspire is a little bit different - it's a legality issue about software patents. Sure, it has the secondary effect that Linspire will get to sell proprietary software to Ubuntu users, but the important thing is that it provides a legal way to play Windows Media files on Ubuntu in the USA. Not having to tell all your users to break the law to watch a video is a good thing.
Re:Too little open source? (Score:3)
Ubuntu was never created to be a Free distro the way Debian was.
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:1)
Re:Too little open source? (Score:1)
I'll keep using Netscape as an example. Using a closed source app was a stopgap measure until an open replacement was available. Are we such purists that we'll disregard anything that contains any non-free software? Or are we going to be willing to allow linux to prove itself a valuable part of the computing ecosystem? Then leveraging that to push open standards and codecs and formats.
It's a fscking codec, it's not like MS is pushing office down our throats. And these same codecs are already being used (possibly)illegally(in the US, perhaps the EU) in many systems today.
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:3)
(http://www.concept10.wordpress.com/)
This stupid comment bothers me as it only represents FUD. How does Ubuntu (or any other distro) prevent you from tweaking your system, or being a so-called power user. Give me a break.
Last time I checked, the Ubuntu repo's had over 21,000 packages. What more do you want, and what does the repository have to do with it in the first place? What did you think would happen when you enabled more repos? The distro is supposed to automagically turn into Gentoo or "Enterprise Ready(TM)" ?
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.maegworks.com/)
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:2, Informative)
(http://jcaif.sourceforge.net/)
I think you're confused about something. At one point, Linspire was configured such that the user always ran as root. Ubuntu does not, and to my knowledge never has. Perhaps you are thinking sudo/gksudo? Ubuntu is not the only system that has this ability. Every day I run Ubuntu as a non-root user. When I need to perform administrative tasks, I am prompted for the root password, which elevates the process to run as root. I don't understand how you can think this is insecure.
Re:Debian based? (Score:1)
(http://nugget.usethis.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 04 2006, @07:24PM)
Re:Why is .deb dpkg so broken? Why not .src.rpm? (Score:2)
(http://go.org.nz/~corrin)
"the name and contents of the original file should be untouched."
something_1.0.orig.tar.gz is the upstream source code, complete with matching MD5SUM. Every single debian specific thing from patches to upstream to debian control files are left out of it. That gives lots of advantages:
1) It makes it really easy to see what changes Debian makes. Either a change is in the official upstream package or it is in a relatively short diff.
2) People can easily replace the orig with a later version and with very little editing create a package with the debian patches for a different upstream.
3) People can easily tweak the diff and create a debian package that has things like different compilation options but is still using the official upstream package.
" any build rules/scripts should be externally defined, and not be required to be put in the original source."
They're not. They're carefully put into the "something...diff" you mention. Use the origional source from the
"- all the diffs needed should not be required to be combined unnaturally into one. The should be separate diffs, logically."
Oh? And how do you propose to show the differences between the debian package's source and the upstream package EXCEPT with a diff?
"The diffs, build rules and extra build scripts should be archived together. Optionally, the original source two. But two files is manageable."
They are, it's called "something...diff" And it really is a diff, so why shouldn't it be called
It seems then you have two arguments against the deb file format:
1) the orig. file does not have the upstream filename but instead a standardised and consistent name across all packages. I wonder how many upstream packages are called src.tgz? Would you want them in debian with that name? I personally prefer consistant names across packages to consistant name with upstream.
2) the set of diffs should be provided as a
Incidentially, the source based distributions like Gentoo all do it Debian's way rather than RedHat's way. Does that tell you something?
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:1)
Proprietary apps help open source OS. Here's why: (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday July 29, @12:15PM)
I understand your concern about possibly undermining the F/LOSS movement, but I don't think you need to worry. Here's why.
First, Linux itself is Free and Open Source; that's a given, thanks to the solid foundation formed by the GPL.[1]
Atop this operating system (OS), we need to run applications, like email clients or word processors. These can be F/LOSS or proprietary. You are concerned that too much proprietary software might dilute the pool of Open apps, but here's why it won't happen: for Linux there are far more Open apps than proprietary ones, and the Linux community is used to getting Open software. Whereas Windows users would readily pay for black-box apps with names like "Norton Incorporeal Being" that do the same as a 'dd' bash command, Linux users demand apps that are Free. Most happen to be zero-cost, but above all it must not be black-box, because Linux users tend to want the ability to tinker around with the software. They don't necessarily plan to do it, and there are more and more people using Linux just to get the job done rather than tinker, but they need to know that they are not being locked in to some proprietary system that gets frozen the moment the software maker company goes belly-up. They need to know that someone can get into the project and fork it.
So, in the Linux environment, the demand for F/LOSS is there, and for the right reasons. (Contrast this with the Windows environment where people download freeware because it's zero cost, whether proprietary or not.)
Now we are letting makers of proprietary software into the community, giving them a foothold, a marketplace from which to sell their wares. Unlike in the Windows world, this is what will happen:
1. Free/Open Source was here first. The standard to which they will be held is higher. In particular, the company will need to justify why their stuff is proprietary; they will be asked: "So, why should we buy your stuff rather than Open Source?" This is a good thing. The competition from FLOSS will force proprietary software to bring added value, and respond to market forces, in order to generate income.
2. Thus the proprietary company will need to identify where they can be better than F/LOSS. This, too, is good. One of my peeves in F/LOSS: useability in software, which is lacking in many Open Source applications. If Adobe PhotoShop For Linux starts selling like hotcakes, it would send a message that there might be a market need unfulfilled by the GIMP software. Competition, whether amongst Open Source software (e.g. KDE vs GNOME) or between FLOSS and proprietary (Firefox vs IE), brings out excellence.
3. On particular disadvantage at which the proprietary companies will find themselves is that they can't use Open Source software for stepping stones. If the Filelight program has this brilliant idea, the Konqueror team can just take that and put it into their own software.[2] The proprietary software team, however, has to reimplement it on their own. So it's not like the proprietary software will gobble up the Open Source one.
4. Once the proprietary company is a bit more accustomed to the Linux and Open Source market, I hope they'll start being able to differentiate between "commercial" and "proprietary". Really, what they want is "commercial" (and the "proprietary" part is really just a means to that end), and they'd be more comfortable exploring commercial Open Source. They'd become an example of one of the Open Source business models, showing that it works, or perhaps they'd dream up a new brilliant way to profit from Open Source.
In summary, competition is a good thing, and will only benefit all participants. The FLOSS community is robust enough not to be overwhelmed by th
Re:Debian? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Debian? (Score:3, Informative)
I believe when that hits zero, Testing becomes Stable. It's currently at 105.
If you want to help debian:
http://www.debian.org/intro/help [debian.org]
Re:Canonical+Linspire =Conspire? (Score:2)
(http://singularity-ahead.blogspot.com/)
But wouldn't "Linonical" have been more comical?
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:1)
Having read TFA, my take on it is that the only real news is that Linspire is changing from Debian base to Ubuntu base. Ubuntu is, as you say, basic and that's the appeal. I installed it and everything just worked, easier than any version of windows. If I want to build my own binaries, tweak things, etc, I can. My wife, btw, gets a glazed look if I show her a terminal, but here is a system with which we are both happy.
At first I was also a bit concerned about the sudo only approach, until I figured it out. I restrict access to sudo for all the normal users, myself included, and create a hidden account for super user tasks. This prevents us from inadvertantly screwing things up in day to day operation. It also means that if someone broke in, they'd have a harder time figuring out how to get root access than if they could su or could log in as "root". Apart from that, security isn't much better than other distros.
CNR is an free tool that makes it easy for people to find and install non-free blobs and Linspire have already announced that they would make it avalaible to other distros. Ubuntu already allows easy installation of free software, so Ubuntu saying they will include CNR is barely news. The only news is that Linspire is changing it's base, oh and perhaps that the companies are announcing cooperation.
Perhaps you're just trolling, or perhaps you are a religious zealot. If the latter, please RTFA again and realise that, at least as far as Ubuntu goes, not much has really changed. In any case, as you're obviously not interested in Linspire, or Ubuntu for that matter, please STFU.
Re:Ideology or Pragmatism? (Score:2)
In the opposite direction. You do not defeat oppression by oppressing other people.
Re:Shades of MicroSuse. (Score:2)
There is considerably more noise about Windows Vista. Why don't you go there, if media noise (read hype) is all that you care about?