The first screenshots have emerged of the new official Ubuntu meta package ‘ubuntu-restricted-extras‘. This package enables the multiverse/universe repositories (after a warning), after which it installs various non-free packages such as Flash and various codecs. The package is for the upcoming Feisty Fawn release only. More information can be found in the Wiki. Thanks to Digg.com for pointing this out.
…altho’ it really wasn’t so hard (if I remember correctly) to add someone else’s repository to the configuration file and enable it.
It will still be “off” by default, and users will have to turn it on in the package manager’s prefs. Not that that is difficult either, but they won’t SEE the stuff they want right away.
I think the reason this is a good thing is that it gets rid of the concept of a “good” software repository (the free one) and a “bad” software repository (the non-free one).
I’m glad to see this minor improvement taking place. I understand the reason Debian separated the free and non-free packages, but I never really liked it. I’m glad to see Ubuntu making this change.
If I remember right, Debian has altered this as well, but I could be mistaken.
FTA:
Software packages such as Macromedia Flash and Sun Java, while able to be redistributed, are not free software, and so will not be included in a default Ubuntu installation.
A bit confused here…? Isn’t Sun Java under GPL now? Are there still parts of it missing that is part og the setup (JRE) you normally install on a desktop computer…?
Only some parts have been released under the GPL at this point. They don’t plan to have it in its entirety GPLed until the release of 1.7.
Not yet, no. Only the Java Micro Edition has been GPL’d as of the end of 2006. The Java Standard Edition should be released under the GPL sometime during early 2007 (according to Sun’s Java website).
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/Interviews/lynch_qa…
It’s not that this was that difficult before (Automatix takes about 2 commands to get installed) but it’s nice to see that this features are recognized as a must officially. I use as much as free software as I can, but there are some features that just can’t be provided by F/OSS (Yet).
Hopefully, someday, we won’t need those repos 🙂
“Automatix takes about 2 commands to get installed”
One of the aim of this package is in fact to get ride of automatix.
The full spec is here :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommonCustomizations
The last paragraph is particularly important:
“…alien packages are not in Ubuntu for a reason. It should not be made harder to install them, though…”
and this is where a lot of FOSS slips up. Don’t mix your ethics with your process.
“””and this is where a lot of FOSS slips up. Don’t mix your ethics with your process.”””
Indeed. It is sometimes tempting for programmers and distro maintainers to use their superior grasp of the technical as a weapon to coerce users into their way of thinking.
And it is usually a bad idea.
Take care of your customers. If you don’t, someone else will.
I’m glad Ubuntu has decided to do this. In my experiance most end users want these packages. I can understand people wanting GPL only software but for them there is always Gnusense.
I for one welcome the fact that users no longer have to download 3rd party apps to get non free packages.
Actually, this is an example of how to reach both communities.
This makes the default decision “ship open source” (except for firmware, which Debian is okay with too) but make it *easy* for people to *choice* to add non-open source components.
This ensures that the base distribution will be free from the issues associated with proprietary software (and encourages the development of open source alternatives), but allows people to choose to make the short term tradeoffs on a case by case basis.
One of the best news in Linux front long time. Big aplaud for Ubuntu people for listening normal people, hopefully this is another step for real freedom in terms of giving customers freedom to choose software they want.
Please don’t turn this into yet another discussion about what constitutes “real” freedom. Thanks.
This is not the best news.
Ubuntu should stick by its guns and offer a free distro.
With Vista about to be released and US lawyers about to go mental with DRM and IP issues, Ubuntu should have realised that they would be a prime target, after all….
“your software includes parts of my clients IP and as such we will….” etc etc
If users want to use proprietary drivers and codecs, then it is simply a matter of pasting a couple of lines into a terminal. No problem, and Automatix2 is amazing.
But the system itself should have none of it.
Oh, I almost forgot, (hence the edit)….
Who will be supporting this non-free proprietary stuff ? I cannot see Ubuntu or Canonicle as they cannot see the source themselves, what if it hoses my machine ?
Edited 2007-01-08 17:28
The system itself doesn’t have any non-free codecs. It is up to user to decide and install those packages. Instead of doing:
apt-get install gstreamer0.10-pitfdll gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse gxine libxine-main1 libxine-extracodecs ogle ogle-gui
as one had before, user now types ‘only’:
apt-gt install ubuntu-restricted-extras .
After reading TFM one can see the clear warining:
“The use, modification and distribution of restricted extras is restricted by copyright or by legal terms in some countries.”
I fail to see you logic, and the reason why is this “bad news”.
The article is blocked by my proxy, but hey :
“The use, modification and distribution of restricted extras is restricted by copyright or by legal terms in some countries.”
Is that all you’ve got ? Nothing about freedom, free software ?
Ubuntu is definitly not for me…
Do you think 99% of the users give a damn about that?
That’s fine that it’s not for you but it’s that attitude that has been keeping Linux from wider acceptance. There are many people who are very interested in an alternative to Microsoft but who don’t care that they are running 100% free software.
Distributions are going to have to start compromising on things like this and proprietary video drivers if Linux is ever going to be more than a niche product.
Choice is rarely a bad thing.
It is clearly shown that none of this is installed by default, therefore your vanilla system does not include these items. Some people will want this and some will not. Those who do must make a conscious effort to add it.
As for “what if it hoses my machine ?” well two things: first software cannot easily “hose” a machine, only other software and data (including, in extreme cases, an OS). Second, as with any software you may install, you are always doing so at your own risk, read most EULAs they will explicitly exclude reponsibility for any “damage” caused.
Choice must be excercised wisely. This applies in all of life.
Edited 2007-01-09 08:04
I don’t see the logic of those who think this is bad.
By the posts it appears that in order for Ubuntu to “stick to its guns” it must prevent the use of non-free codecs and packages. Even Debian with its politically-charged atmosphere does not prevent users from installing non-free codecs.
As long as the user decides what to do it is their choice alone. For Ubuntu to make the codecs available is simply allowing the end user who *wants* these codecs an easy way to get them.
Seems reasonable to me. Mark Shuttlesworth’s comments about the codecs on his blog is very balanced. He is also working towards the day when these restrictions will not be needed as there will be free alternatives that do the same job or the original codecs will be freely available for redistribution.
After all, Linux on the desktop is inevitable.
Finally! Users have been asking for this since 4.10.
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
I’m not sure it’s a good Idea making these available, as it effectivly hands MS a stick to beat us with. Also, I’m very happy with the Deja-Vu and Bitstream fonts, and I wouldn’t like to see these projects loose users as a result.
IMO, Ubuntu shouldn’t include any sotware that clearly has patent problems associated with it. Granted, you could argue that most sotftware has patent problems, but this is more due to the inadequacy of existing patent laws which allow a form of ‘patent trolling’. I think a distinction must be made in this case as MS created and patented this software for it’s own use, and so has an undeniable and absolute right to do whatever it wants with it.
–Robin
From what I understand, the MS Fonts are freely available for download from non-MS sites, however they may only be distributed if you have a license from MS. Basically, although it’s inconvenient to enable, MS can’t use this as a club in the future.
//From what I understand, the MS Fonts are freely available for download from non-MS sites, however they may only be distributed if you have a license from MS.//
I don’t believe even that is required. AFAIK, MS originally distributed these TTF fonts in .cab or .exe format at a time when only Windows systems could deal with .cab or .exe, and only Windows systems could use TTF fonts anyway. AFAIK, MS stipulated no restrictions on the fonts other than that they had to be re-distributed in their original form only.
MS gave them in this form to sourceforge, after all.
At one point (quite early on), MS actually were interested in web interoperability. They have changed their tune since.
I think the opposite is true. Including stuff that people want is imperative. If at some stage Patent issues or Copyright comes into play then with a greater audience that is using Ubuntu there will be a greater understanding of how FUBAR the whole software industry is in those respects.
It might lead to then seeing people who have become accustomed to Ubuntu as an OS stick with it but tell the Law and MS to f-off. At the end of the day it is the sum of all the little people who pull the weight not a corporation. If enough little people band together then there is one hell of a voice to contend with.
Worked in many a revolution so why not here?
Edited 2007-01-08 22:51
//I think a distinction must be made in this case as MS created and patented this software for it’s own use, and so has an undeniable and absolute right to do whatever it wants with it.//
While you could debate this one way or another, I don’t believe this is actually the case for TrueType and the MS core web fonts.
MS published the TrueType specification, and MS released the core web fonts for public redistribution.
AFAIK, the only caveat placed on the redistribution was that the fonts had to remain in their original form. No “derivatives” allowed. You may not edit the fonts and derive look-alikes.
To those who are complaining about the direction that they perceive the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distro is headed: The first and most important freedom which exists with any software program, package, OS, etc., is the freedom to not use it if it doesn’t suit your philosophy, politics, taste, or pocketbook. There are any number of GNU/Linux distros and other operating systems out there. If Ubuntu doesn’t do it for you, there’s an OS that will.
so does this development render Linux Mint unnecessary?
http://lt.k1011.nutime.de/
How do the two solutions compare?