What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
126 Comments
- invar9, on 10/12/2007, -10/+66"A 3D desktop—while great eye candy—will not solve some of the major problems new Ubuntu recruits have"
Are they insane? The 3D desktop is the reason I have converted as many windows users to Linux using Sabayon. Yes it is eye candy but it is also something Microsoft has been promising for a LONG time and the Linux community accomplished it in a matter on months. I think that says the most. - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -14/+69Such a bunch of ***** in that article.
Yes, this will get digged down a lot, but what turned me off from Ubuntu was the fact that it didn't come with native drivers for many things (network, 3d card, and so on).
I think the first and foremost thing an OS should provide is access to the hardware, not philosophy. And this hardware support should come by default, without having to RTFM and spend your time downloading and configuring stuff. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35They're talking about installing non-Free drivers by default, something that needs to be done anyways, simply because they're never going to have Free drivers that do what the non-Free ones can do, as much as we could hope and pray ATi and nVidia get off their high horses and release their register specifications to the community. (Which is not something they're inclined to do, as both camps think this simple release will give the other better insight to how their graphics pipelines work).
It's really a simple issue: add features that hundreds of thousands want, or remain 100% "Free" and please a few thousand. With Vista, Linux will be the only (majorly installed) desktop operating system left that doesn't have a compositing manager running at first boot. While some think this isn't a big deal, the reality of it is that it really will become a big deal, as more and more applications push the boundaries of graphics processing, and real-time visual effects come down to smaller apps (for example Time Machine, or Disco). It may not be "necessary", but it is something people are demanding.
Besides, it's a simple problem to solve too: when installing Ubuntu, just ask: "hey, do you want boring, 2D desktop with the best drivers Free software could come up with (by "best", we mean Mesa running in software), or do you want a 3D desktop with all the eye-candy we can pump into it?" For the crazed pedants who actually have some hope that the big video companies will release to them a workable specification for their software, they can click no, and keep their fingers crossed. For the rest of us, there's the Yes button. - lawmaker, on 10/12/2007, -8/+32Well, did you really _convert_ them or they're just in their "trying Linux" period and may get back to Windows at any time for any reason? I belive this guy is right. Yes, eyecandy can attract users to _try_ Linux, but will it make them _stay_ no matter what other problems they might encounter?
- leszek, on 10/12/2007, -6/+27they are only talking about free as speech not free as beer !
- ISurfTooMuch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20Digg me down if you want, but this is a stupid argument. I am a huge fan of OSS, but look, if a company is writing drivers for their hardware to work in a particular OS, then it's their choice as to how they want to distribute them. Would the fanboys rather nVidia said, "Screw you then. We just won't write drivers at all, so go write your own." Of course not! Linux enthusiasts have been bemoaning the lack of Linux support many devices receive, but when a driver is finally written, they scream bloody murder because it isn't open source.
Well, guys, if you think that's hard to swallow, then just wait for the day when Adobe releases their suite of software for Linux. If you think it'll be open source, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you'll be interested in. Nope, you'll get only binaries and not one line of source, and you'll pay for the privilege of getting it.
Get a grip, people. Linux is free, both as in beer and as in speech, and there are thousands of apps to run on it, not to mention many hardware drivers written by independent coders. Ubuntu is Mark's distro, and if he wants to include non-OSS drivers, that's his business. But before you take his head off, maybe you should ask nicely if he'll allow the user to choose how he wants the install to proceed. Just don't expect him to add huge pop-ups with political statements about why non-OSS drivers are evil. All these will do is make new users wonder if this whole Linux thing is being pushed by a bunch of unyielding ideologues. And if you don't get the result you seek from him, then choose a distro you like and get on with your day. If that leaves a bad taste in your mouth, fine, but don't use it as an excuse to trash Ubuntu in front of a prospective new user. All you'll do is come off as some kind of zealot and turn them off to the Linux movement before they even have a chance to sample it.
Just my $0.02. Bury me if you must. - duhblow7, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30i setup my roomate with a dualboot system a few weeks ago. yesterday we got rid of XP and i now consider him fully converted.
he's a mechanic and has so/so computer skills. the reason he loves linux over windows as he puts it:
"no *****!"
he doesn't know or care about the politics (ie licensing) behind the scenes, he knows what he sees and linux is a no BS OS. That should be the linux slogan:
NO BS OS - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Also can someone please explain this, Free vs Non-Free talk for me."
This too is simple to explain. Free software is a philosophy, the philosophy behind GNU. It means that the software is completely in the clear, to be modified and poked and prodded at by anyone, and that those changes remain Free, so that others can do the same. This "Freedom" comes at a very high cost for some: while it assures that you can make use of what everyone else has put together, it forces you to give up any work that you contribute to it, or license it with a license that is compatible.
The Video card companies ATi and nVidia for the most part aren't sold on this philosophy, but both companies are seeing Linux as important, so they at least develop the drivers for the platform (x86 only most of the time, and only for recent versions of X.org). But, instead of releasing the source code, they only release the binary of the driver. Technically, on the face value of the license that the Linux kernel is built on, adding this kind of driver to the kernel is plainly illegal, and thusly "taints" the Free kernel with non-Free code.
The Free community holds out that if they keep requesting or if they try really, really hard that eventually they'll come up with Free drivers they can use for the hardware. But the companies are very unyielding, and have yet to even extend a hand in friendship (though they are willing to produce other tools to help the graphics developers, they're just not interested in helping Linux, for some unknown reason). So you end up with this battle: do we use the binary drivers and give more people what they want, or do we not use the binary drivers and force people to have to install it themselves if they want support (which can be a difficult task for new Linux users). This flies in the face of other platforms like the Mac or Windows, where on first boot you have graphics support that is at least decent enough to run 3D applications.
Ubuntu has chosen to go ahead with installing the drivers at boot, then educating the users on why these drivers are bad and why we should keep pestering the companies and calling them funny names like DAAMIT and iNtelvida until they give us what we need to build our own Free drivers, which isn't all that unreasonable. Those who don't want the drivers can stop using Ubuntu or simply remove them (as removing them is _MUCH_ easier than installing them). - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@ohgr
The reason many Linux users complain about this is because they want 2 mutually exclusive things:
1. The 'freedom' to modify and redistribute and hack their OS.
2. Support for drivers and software.
The problem is, MOST of the users are not developers. They don't need to hack their OS, split it in other OSes, and so on. Many of them don't even understand GPL or LGPL (hence questions such as: "Can I make money off my GPL application?"). BTW, the answer is yes.
What those people can't seem to understand is that some hardware developers, for some reason or another, are not willing to expose their hardware to people unless if they sign NDAs. For example, some feel that open sourcing their drivers would help their competitors, or promote poor drivers, or whatever.
Which is why some of them provide a binary driver that pretty much works, but is not free for people to look at it's source code and modify it. - dmason, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No.
Also, as far as the next release is concerned, looking good is very important. Ubuntu's goal is clear - to become a replacement (not substitute) for Windows. Look at bug #1 for Ubuntu. To accomplish this it will have to be much more than a Linux distro that's easy to use - it has to provide people with a "Oh, I have to try that!" mindset. Things that are visually appealing do this to people almost immediately.
I'm as excited as ever. - bikini, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16does it really matter why people initially try Linux?
i looked into it in tenth grade because some nerds i had a lot of respect for were always talking about it and i wanted to be like them.
since then, I've ran a couple different distributions and I've settled on ubuntu. i don't really see why attracting people with eye candy is such a negative. just get people to try it and hopefully they'll like it enough to stick with it.
sure, use something flashy and eye catching to draw them in, then keep them interested with something more solid and tangible.
isn't that kinda basic advertising/marketing? - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"The reason many Linux users complain about this is because they want 2 mutually exclusive things:
1. The 'freedom' to modify and redistribute and hack their OS."
You've made the same deadly mistake most Linux proponents keep making: you've confused "Linux user" with "Linux enthusiast".
Your general Linux *user* isn't going to give a ***** about the idealogical freedom to modify, redistribute, and hack the OS itself. They just want to be able to easily and painlessly add that cool new feature or program they just read or heard about. Unfortunately, if it isn't in the repositories (like, for example, GnuCash 2), they're just ***** out of luck.
Unless, of course, they want to try 5 to 10 different HOWTOs for doing the same thing on the same hardware... - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"I would not mind paying them 10 or 20 to fund things that may make them truly a competitor."
GREAT! Write the check! The Ubuntu team has no qualms with taking donations, and the more money they raise, the more full-time developers they can hire to write software and documentation for them. Every little bit helps. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I swear the hard-line open-source crowd is worse than the Christian right about this kind of *****. James Dobson and Sander Marechal are cut from the same cloth.
- urbanight23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I would venture that a lot of ubuntu users run automatix immediately after install to add all of the "non free" drivers anyway.
Honestly, I want a good stable os with eye candy at a free or low cost. I could care less about the politics behind it. If ubuntu became "non free" and shipped with the proprietary drivers, it would actually benefit me, because I wouldnt have to go get them. - Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Erm, technically this isn't paying anybody, just adding free of charge, but restricted (proprietary) drivers....
- sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7So this author is upset that Ubuntu will by default offer you the proper (but closed-source) drivers for your video card, but openly advocates having Ubuntu break the law by default (by including DVD and WMV/WMA playback)? Nice to have one's priorities straight.
In all seriousness, this level of "software should be free" zealotry is what turns a lot of people off of open source. I got into using Ubuntu because of XGL/Compiz, which I couldn't do without the proper nVidia drivers. And when I tried searching the internet for help on getting things configured, I ran across endless forum posts from people slamming Linux users for using the closed-source nVidia drivers. Shouldn't they be happy that people are at least testing the open-source waters? The video driver is the only closed-source software on my Linux system. Isn't that a victory for open source? - ISurfTooMuch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Personally, I don't see a problem with it, and the developers can certainly go where they want to, but I think a few things need to be considered before people go off half-cocked. First, no hardware manufacturer has any obligation whatsoever to release open source drivers. I don't think that's in dispute. However, this attitude that anything that isn't completely open source is somehow inferior/tainted/evil (pick your word) is poisonous because it's saying to the hardware makers that Linux enthusiasts want the hardware makers to come to the party, but they'd damn well better do things on the enthusiasts' terms, or they can just go to hell. From the hardware makers' point of view, they can do just fine without Linux. They're testing the waters because Linux looks promising, but, right now, that's all it is--promising. Do you think they want to deal with a bunch of inflexible zealots? I doubt it, especially when they're doing quite well to write drivers for Windows and the Mac. They can write off Linux, and it will not hurt them very much, since Linux needs good hardware support more than the hardware makers need Linux. Otherwise, it will fall behind Windows and OS X.
This scenario also doesn't inspire confidence in any organizations that might consider adopting Linux. Many businesses are a little wary of the GPL because they don't understand it. They might, for example, think that any software they write to run under Linux is automatically subject to the GPL and can't be closed source. Well, we know that isn't true, but if you've got people who want to crucify anyone that writes closed source code that runs under Linux, then what difference do all the assurances about how the GPL works make? Even if a company doesn't have to open the code to a program, it doesn't matter because there will still be people who want to tar and feather them on principle alone. And don't think MS won't be closely watching all of this and generating as much FUD as they can about how Linux is too dangerous to be deployed in an enterprise.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Linux is coming to a crossroads. Up until now, the people who were interested in it were committed to a pure OSS model. If it wasn't OSS, it wasn't going to get onto their machines. Well, now that's changing. Many people see Linux as a low-cost and robust alternative to Windows, but they don't care that it's OSS. They just want it to work, and if that means throwing some closed source software into the mix, so be it. If Linux can't be made to work the way these users want it to, they'll find something else, and Linux's adoption curve might start to flatten out. So, the question is: Are you willing to curtail Linux's growth if it means you'll see desktops with both open and closed source software on them, even if that's what a good number of people might want? Think carefully because this is an important question. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5At first I was angered upon reading the title. But then I realized that Ubuntu is not closing off any new source code, or making vital parts of the system non-free, merely using non-free binaries by default that most people have started installing right off the bat anyhow. Ubuntu seems to target the new-user and non-technical linux crown (no disrespect!) who probably are not aware/don't care about the deeper political issues anyhow. Ubuntu is still better than an OS with a closed source kernel (windows), at least from a political standpoint.
I'm just glad that "the user-friendly distro" is a Debian based one. Once users become aware of the political issues, switching to Debian or simply removing the offending packages should be relatively painless. Debian's social contract ensures the freedom of the base packages for both distros, and I think that's the important part. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"and most packages are already rpm's its hard to find alot of packages already as debs (not sure why?) and sometimes alien doesnt work right with all rpms (or maybe its just me?)"
Debian has around 18000 packages, many of which are available in Ubuntu too. That's a *lot* more than Fedora has.
Using alien to install RPMs is a last resort for things that aren't packaged as debs, since (as you've noticed) automatic conversion often doesn't work very well. I've been running Debian for six years and never needed to use it. - diginux, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18Ubuntu is already non-"free".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@ geminitojanus :
Thanks for explaining the politics for those who don't understand.
@ duhblow7 :
Way to go! win more converts!
@ bikini , Cl1mh4224rd :
I totally agree. I think that much of Ubuntu's target demographic either doesn't know about the political issues and wants things to Just Work, or is already aware of the issues and still wants things to Just Work.
I see Ubuntu as sort of the marketing powerhouse of Linux, with the biggest potential to win users straight away from windows or macintosh. This just seems like a good marketing move for that initial draw; once users are more aware of the issues, or ready to sacrifice some usability for politics, then they can remove the offending packages without much hassle (the proposal *does* advocate a dialog box and a choice as to whether or not to install the non-free packages). - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7That's "rediculous" (FTA). I only paid $20 for my copy of Gentoo and it was only slightly compiled.
- jshabad00, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13"...and the Linux community accomplished it in a matter on months."
What the hell are you smoking? There is no finished product available. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Nothing is free in this world and good programmers should be paid so this is great news!"
What the hell has the price got to do with anything? RTFA. - sowdog, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@jimmygoon
I agree
I think what needs to be questioned here is the article's definition of free vs non-free. Free as in free speech or free as in free beer? Ubuntu appears to be going along the lines of 'free as in free beer' approach and I'm all for it. - ArthurSucks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Only till 2010, right?
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This article is the greatest example of how few people take the care to actually read stories, or for that matter fo have some sort of basic knowledge of the issues surrounding a situation before commenting on said story...
Who wants to figure out the percentage of users saying something along the lines of "Will it cost more than 29.99?!!!"? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4what came first chicken or egg ?
that's what came to my mind.
Nvidia WONT open source their drivers cuz of patents can be a BIG issue,
and Linux dont have that big market share to make them do it.
So make use of open drivers and make Linux un-attractive compared to vista or mac OSX even when we have AIGLX/XGL , compiz/beryl. BAD IDEA
what ubuntu is doing is good for Linux that would make ppl notice Linux is ahead of rest of the operating system.
Once we will have big enough market share then get AMD and Nvidia on the table to make them open source their drivers and also get in touch with Taiwanese.
We need the market share to make them open the drivers and the only thing that is stopping us having bigger market share is the FREAKKING DRIVER ISSUE. - inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4same old same old, when a Linux distributor put binary drivers they loose te hardcore OSS advocates. The philosophy of ubuntu is still present. But Ubuntu also have another philosophy.. make things simple for the end user and I think that this is just the right solution
- DrunkenPirate34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't give a ***** what they include as long as its still free as in beer.
- requiem18th, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ohgr: Ugh. and here lies the reason why Linux is NOT Number One. Because there are a bunch of developers banging on tables about Free and Non-Free Drivers and such.
You make the common inane mistake that we want *Linux* to be "Number One". The idea is to get people off proprietary software or at least *enable a life without non-free software*, if the difference between free and non free wasn't important Ubuntu would not be here in the first place, get it.
Now, for the time being, i think it is a good idea to have the non free drivers in. It will promote Ubuntu among the masses until we have a heavier user base, then we have to play divide and conquer, offering ATI and NVidia to drop support form the competition if they release their *specs* (who cares about the drivers, we are after the specs!) using our user base as bail.
Worst case scenario, Ubuntu gets littered with non free stuff but that still a lot better than we have it now. It was going to happen anyway, people like to install random ***** all time just remember the freeware tides of the 90's. But if the base system (OS and apps) are free people will have a much better starting point and will also be already sold to the idea of open source as reliable - tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We aren't upset about that though. We are just debating whether or not to stick with the Ubuntu ideals and use an open source driver and download a second, closed source one. Or we could screw the Ubuntu way to make it easier. That is the debate.
- LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So what if non-GPL drivers are used? FOSS is great but purism won't help. Until they can work with companies that don't want to have their software under the GPL or pirated (lol), Linux will never get DVD play-back, wifi for most cards, etc.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"To accomplish this it will have to be much more than a Linux distro that's easy to use - it has to provide people with a "Oh, I have to try that!" mindset. Things that are visually appealing do this to people almost immediately."
Yep. It's an amazingly simple concept: people are attracted to attractive things. When you're at the bar cruising for women, the first thing you notice about a particular woman isn't how intelligent she is. I mean, how could you? You haven't even spoken to her. She could be Stephen Hawking in female form, but unless she's attractive [to you], you have no reason to pay her any more attention.
If I'm going to be looking at something for 8+ hours a day, I, for one, would like to be pleasing to the eye. - InetRoadkill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3X is a pain to setup manually. It's nice when the distro sets it up for you, but when things go wrong, X will have you pulling your hair out.
I really hate the nvidia drivers. They are truly a nuisance to deal with. - hoomanb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There's no "until". It's simply never gonna happen. If we hope to stick to GPL Linux is always going to suck. (No I don't hate Linux - in fact it's been my main os on desktop at home and work for 5 years - but it still sucks and trying to stick to GPL - specially for drivers - is gonna make sure that doesn't change).
- AhronZombi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ath_hal inst gpl. their for ubuntu hasnt been free for a while
- mickstephenson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4the article is correctly titled, non-free is common terminology for anything that isn't opensource
- AlexGrundner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. The writer missed the boat here. Obviously he wasn't aware of the "linux-restricted-modules" that are pre-installed to get things like WiFi working. It makes sense that Ubuntu will now opt for installing proprietary graphic drivers for a better out-of-the-box experience.
- dicerandom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@bjweeks,Tiak:
That's why I also included the word "viable". We all know that the OSS drivers are crap for 3D, this applies to both nv and radeon. It's gotten to the point that 3D cards are so ubiquitous and modern OSes (OS X, Vista) integrate the 3D card into the GUI to such a large extent that to provide a product which does *not* support advanced 3D features and UI integration is becoming more and more laughable.
I do think that there should be an option to disable the inclusion of non-Free software (along with a big fat warning as to what exactly this entails), but I also think that the default should be to include it. - Apreche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Good. Ubuntu should be non-free. For Linux to compete, they have to have the GPU drivers and they have to have the eye candy. I don't care for eye-candy, but I do care for GPU drivers. If there were a FOS GPU driver, I would use it. I previously used a binary driver for my network card, but then forcedeth came into existence. In the absence of an open source driver, you have to include the binary one to be competetive. The only people who don't want the binary drivers are a vocal minority of crazed zealots. I'd say just about every Ubuntu user goes through the effort of manually installing these drivers. It's just silly. Make a legal deal with Ati and Nvidia to get this ***** in there by default. Zealots can continue to use Debian and keep the giant sticks in their collective posteriors.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is