Canonical and Linspire Make a Deal 282
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."
Red Hat, Corel, Linspire (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Making No (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised how much hardware auto-detects well on Linux, though, both new and old. Only real hitch comes in the binary vide
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ubuntu / Debian (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ubuntu / Debian and Linspire (Score:2)
Debian's goal is general-purpose distro that consists entirely of Free software, while Ubuntu's goal is to have desktop and server distros that are highly-polished and ready for the non-technical end user. Hence, the default menus and such differ signficantly between Ubuntu and Debian. So it's a bit disingenious to say that Linspire continue to be based on Debian.
Linspire is pretty much a desktop that's polished and ready for use by nontechnical people now. It looks like Windows with "My Computer" and "
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding, which may be hazy in spite of the fact that I've actually done this, is that you have to install the linux-restricted-modules package to install the nvidia-glx package. Don't know about fglrx, because I avoid ATI like the plague it is. I sold my last machine with ATI graphics and I don't intend to look back.
Anyway I don't know the terminology but linux-re
Re: (Score:2)
Um, last time I checked, nobody claimed that Freespire's roots would not be in Debian. Everybody knows that Ubuntu is based on Debian; the quote above does not dispute that. What exactly are you trying to say?
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ubuntu developers have put a lot of effort into making it clear what is non-Free software so you can avoid installing it. The only exception is drivers that are required to make your hardware work, and it even will start popping up warnings about that... but you don't have any hardware like that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath waiting for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as long as your using i386 Arch of Ubuntu, the windows Codecs are just as easy to download and install (look for Download's on Mplayer's site.), which works with Mplayer, Xine,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want access to proprietary software and codecs. I run Linux to use free software. I want open codecs, and GPL'd DVD player software et. al
That's your choice. Others just want a computer that works for them. They want to be able to legally play a movie, or like me use Photoshop to edit my photos. Though I have a desktop Linux PC I plan to get a Macbook Pro, then if I need to I can use Photoshop. Before I get PS I'll tryout different FOOS graphics apps but if they won't do what I want then when
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Access to proprietary software and codecs (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, it wouldn't be as powerful if it wasn't free.
If you think OS X is powerful enough, then you probably disagree with me anyway. Otherwise, let me use that as an example: Most of the features I miss from Linux are not possible (or not easy) on OS X because it is proprietary.
I actually do run the binary nvidia drivers, and I do use Flash, but if something free and usable came out,
Re: (Score:2)
And I do not care who our leaders are and what are their policies, and if they do not like "degenerate art", neither do I.
I just want the trains to run on time ! and Work for everybody !
The result is of course that:
Trains do not run on time, but you go to jail if you mention it.
And work for everybody that does survive, of course being paid is optional.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... Distributions have been based on other distros for as long as I can remember and distros have used software developed by other distros forever. So what actually is different now -- why is this the first time you heard about it? I'm betting that Canonical and Linspire just have better marketing departments to push
More proprietary stuff. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you didn't say RHEL instead of Fedora. I wonder why. Oh that's right, you have to *pay* for it. Does that mean Red Hat doesn't support FOSS either? I'm just so confused.
P.S., I'm making a point, not baiting flames.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Why wouldn't you encourage people to use software, whether an app, a driver, or an OS, that just works and allows
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kevin Carmony has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for short term results, and reckless disregard for copyright law. That said, I find some justice the world -- he's now in charge of a company to fix the problem he helped cause with mp3.com. Perhaps we should enlist him to convince President Bush to be the US Ambassador to Iraq come 2008.
I'm fine with disregarding copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
For the record, those of us who hate copyright will not despise someone for disregarding copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
This is it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the computing market has become more diffuse and less desktop-centric. Game consoles, smartphones, web-centered apps... I think that
Re: (Score:2)
You have it, but it was a PITA. Too much so for most people.
Ubuntu...the new super-distro? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but by default Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu et al do not ship with anything but Free software [ubuntu.com]. If you want things like Flash, media codecs, etc. you have to figure out how to set them up yourself, or use a helper script like EasyUbuntu [freecontrib.org].
This is, IMHO, the biggest weakness in the Ubuntu/Canonical strategy -- they have two desires ("a distro for Linux newbies" and "a 100% Free-as-in-Freedom distro") that in many ways are diametrically opposed. (And I say this as a happy Kubuntu user.)
Well... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That is so FUD it's unbelievable. You can do anything you want with Firefox source, you just can't call it Firefox. The very fact that Iceweasel even exists is definite proof that Firefox is Free Software.
Maybe you realize this, and it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but maybe not.
cnr and deb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use the open source radeon drivers instead of the binary drivers. I chose Firefox over Opera. I use kvpnc and vpnc instead of Cisco's VPN client. However I also use Adobe Flash, Google Earth, and on very rare occasions I'll load up VMWare Player to use Windows. I want to get the most out of my computer, and there are projects I've given ti
Re:Too little open source? (Score:4, Informative)
You forgot something... (Score:2)
*coughs* VLC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They've been writing 3D drivers for almost a decade at this point. They have entire teams of guys writing the drivers. How can anyone compete with that? And why would they try?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1- peer review
2- in the long run the free drivers would be better. They would be maintained long after the official ones would get unsupported
3- I am pretty sure the people behind the various Linux system/drivers are pretty bright and I would trust them to better
4- Linux is pretty different from other operating systems in terms of development practises. e.g. APIs are not stable. I trust kernel developers to do a better job at in
Re: (Score:2)
3. Ha ha. Good devs aren't common or expendable. nvidia has some VERY good devs working at these drivers. A 3D graphics driver is not trivial to develop. And unlike many free-as-in-freedom evangelists think, it IS much more difficult than a NIC driver.
4. Unfortunately, this is one reason why IHVs tend not to support Linux (read "support" as in writing drivers by themselves and providing call-center support).
Nouveaux is the close
Re:Too little open source? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
First and foremost, free and open drivers would be integrated into the operating system far more easily. All linux and bsd distributions would be able to provide out-of-the-box 3d acceleration to better than 95% of the pc userbase. That means a lot when it comes to eye candy. Things like glitz could be brought up to universal compatibility, and XGL and AIGLX would be able to move forward much faster with the large
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the end, no closed source software has
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:Too little open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That's true, which is why we have vlc.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the legal status of VLC any different from that of any other Free Software media player?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
VLC (as well as MPlayer, Xine, ffmpeg, etc.) have not paid license fees for the patented audio and video codecs they use. So it's illegal anywhere that software patents are enforceable.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing illegal about playing Windows Media files. It's just a question of licensing the appropriate patents. Freespire just happens to have the right to use Microsoft's tech without paying, thanks to their antitrust lawsuit.
So, it's really just a question of money... and a very small amount of money at that.
Re: (Score:2)
So how would getting those patent licenses work for Canonical then? It's not like they're selling copies of Ubuntu.
This deal with Linspire provides an answer to that question, and the answer is actually pretty good.
Re: (Score:3)
Ubuntu was never created to be a Free distro the way Debian was.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not true. Even on today's Ubuntu front page:
The Ubuntu community is built on the ideas enshrined in the Ubuntu Philosophy: that software should be available free of charge, that software tools should be usable by people in their local language and despite any disabilities, and that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit.
These freedoms make Ubuntu fundamentally different
Proprietary apps help open source OS. Here's why: (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both are Debian based.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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 enab
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are asked for your user password.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (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: (Score:2)
But wouldn't "Linonical" have been more comical?