Conversation
Notices
-
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 00:54:29 UTC Mike Gerwitz https://social.mikegerwitz.com/url/37790
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/bb20.jpg
This is very disappointing to see. The screenshot shows "You're ready to go!", followed by "You can use 'Software' to install apps like these:". The apps they list, in left-right top-down order, are: VLC (free), Skype (non-free), Spotify (non-free), Slack (non-free), Discord (non-free), Corebird (free), Mailspring (free), GIMP (free), Minecraft (non-free), Android Studio (non-free), Ora (non-free), Notepad-Plus-Plus (free), Tusk (free), Brave (free), and IDEA Community (free).
That is 8 free and _7 non-free_. Also in the screenshot on the left is an Amazon icon.
We've known #Ubuntu to do these things for a while now, but I grow increasingly disappointed with each release. Ubuntu also encourages the use of proprietary software through "snaps", and advertises non-free software by default through their package repositories unless you explicitly check a box (at least in previous version) during installation to use only free repositories.- @mcscx2@quitter.no and Hallå Kitteh like this.
- Hallå Kitteh, Mister M. T. Sack, அருண் ஐசக் (Arun Isaac) and tuttle_(defunct) repeated this.
-
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 02:09:39 UTC Mike Gerwitz @valerauko
> proprietary software exists and there's a lot of it
Well, that's the more fundamental problem, and is why I'm a free software activist. ;)
But this is disappointing because of Ubuntu's roots. It became popular back in the day because it was a fairly well-polished Debian GNU/Linux derivative. It was accessible.
But now it's a distribution that is _harmful_ to the free software community. Recommending Ubuntu to a user is blatantly recommending proprietary software. And with each release, it gets worse. (Though there are fully free derivatives, like Trisquel.)
Debian itself hasn't been endorsed by the FSF because it has a non-free package repository (https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html). Ubuntu has taken that a step further with their snap container repository, which appears to have no license restrictions.அருண் ஐசக் (Arun Isaac) repeated this. -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 06:22:41 UTC Mike Gerwitz @valerauko A "choice" means that the user is given an option between two or more things. But that is not what is presented. What is presented is a list of indistinguishable programs unless users choose to look at the license field, which means nothing to most of them to begin with. A choice would mean that Ubuntu would make a clear effort to mark non-free software as such (or vice versa), along with an explanation to educate users as to what that means.
Looking at that screenshot, and looking at snapcraft.io, I see none of that. (The screenshot seems to reflect the recommendations on Snapcraft.) In fact, such little effort is made that the license fields aren't even links.
We disagree on what "harmful" means as well. -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 06:28:01 UTC Mike Gerwitz @zaitcev You seem to be implying that the distro has already hit rock-bottom and that it's not possible for things to get worse. I disagree---it _is_ getting worse, and the Snapcraft recommendations presented in that screenshot are an example of that. My state of disappointment isn't binary. -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 06:30:24 UTC Mike Gerwitz @zaitcev Well, I don't know if your opinion is negative of Ubuntu or not; "rock-bottom" is my choice of term there, not yours, of course. -
Bob Mottram 🔧 ☕ ✅ (bob@soc.freedombone.net)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 06:55:22 UTC Bob Mottram 🔧 ☕ ✅ @mikegerwitz It's almost as if the purpose of snaps was to bypass the Debian development process and make installing proprietary software easy on Ubuntu Mister M. T. Sack repeated this. -
M. Verdone (sixohsix@icosahedron.website)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 13:40:58 UTC M. Verdone @mikegerwitz Ubuntu was designed as a user-friendly, polished OS, because no free distro was even remotely close to that. And they did it for profit.
They succeeded by focusing on what users want. Which includes things that free software has failed to provide. Like Minecraft and Spotify.
Ubuntu developers have given back to the free software world in code and design. Ubuntu has brought Linux to an increasing number of users. And it puts its users first instead of politics.
Mister M. T. Sack likes this.Mister M. T. Sack repeated this. -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 17:12:23 UTC Mike Gerwitz @bob I suspect that was a motivation, but I haven't followed its development at iall, so I couldn't say whether or not that is actually the case.
(Btw I seem to not be receiving your messages anymore...I must be following an old account...!) -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 17:19:17 UTC Mike Gerwitz @quad @z428 @robots I am strongly in favor of not restricting users' ability to install proprietary software---doing so would be restricting their freedom to do their computing as they please, and would be unethical from the perspective of software freedom.
But that's different from advertising proprietary software directly. So if a user wants to use their favorite proprietary programs on Ubuntu, and the author/company creating that proprietary program offer a Debian package or Snap or something and host it themselves, I have no problem with that (other than the fact that it's proprietary).
But when Ubuntu hosts and advertises those programs, they're telling users to use it.
I understand what Ubuntu is doing any why Canonical is doing it. It makes sense for them to do what they are doing based on their project goals. But I'm speaking as a free software activist---engaging in activism against their behavior. I recognize that it is behavior that others do desire, even if they are aware of free software. But I also believe that Canonical can do a much better job exposing users to free software and its philosophy while still doing what they are doing today. Not ideal, but it would be something. -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 17:26:52 UTC Mike Gerwitz @sixhohsix
> Ubuntu developers have given back to the free software world in code and design. Ubuntu has brought Linux to an increasing number of users. And it puts its users first instead of politics.
If we generalize this argument, it's a common one: Open source expanded the reach of free software, thereby providing freedom more broadly to users, so is that a good thing?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
It is good that more are using free software, but it's a shallow "win": what good is freedom if it isn't realized? What are the benefits of free software to users who don't even realize that those freedoms exist? It degrades itself to a technical benefit---a development model; which is precisely what open source is.
It's good that Canonical has given back much to the free software community, but it's important to consider the issues separately: their contributions to free software, and their efforts to undermine it. One is good and should be praised. The other is bad and should be strongly condemned.
> Which includes things that free software has failed to provide. Like Minecraft [...]
I just want to mention Minetest (and derivatives)---I've made a number of posts about how I use it with my children, and how much fun they have with it. Also see:
http://www.ocsmag.com/2016/04/04/mining-for-education/ -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 17:28:17 UTC Mike Gerwitz @bob @minitrope Yes it's a container system that I think works across many GNU/Linux distributions. I haven't researched it at all, but as long as it is free software, I have no problem with its existence; they're just using it for bad things. :) -
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Saturday, 12-May-2018 03:08:58 UTC Mike Gerwitz @phil https://developer.android.com/studio/terms -
PasswordBot (silkevicious@layer8.space)'s status on Saturday, 12-May-2018 09:55:41 UTC PasswordBot @mikegerwitz that's why i don't use ubuntu! :-)
-
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Sunday, 13-May-2018 02:29:27 UTC Mike Gerwitz @tealturtle
> Android Studio is considered non-free?
Yes, see:
https://developer.android.com/studio/terms