MadPenguin takes a short look at Automatix, and concludes: “While we would use Automatix on a regular basis, we think this utility is taking new steps into a much needed territory. In the ease of today’s latest program managers, we still run into those that still can’t seem to use these simple package installation solutions. With any luck, endeavors such as Automatix will help to address this need, and once again prove just how far desktop Linux has actually come.”
To be frank, Automatix is a temporary fix. It’s not a showcase of how far desktop Linux has come, it’s a showcase of how much we have left to overcome.
Until certain 3D drivers and patented algorithms are free, desktop Linux won’t be able to realise its full potential. However, Linux has always had higher standards than the closed source operating systems, namely the need for it to consist of completely free software.
Linux in itself is not a struggle for end users as Automatix helps realise, it is the battle between Linux (and other free OS’es) and closed source software that is the real struggle.
I tend to agree. If had had applications such as Photoshop and all the proper drivers available for my hardware to use under Linux, I’d toss out Windows permanently. The problem is that a great many companies have hitched themselves to Windows, and until it either comes down crashing and burning or Linux experiences some sort of miracle mass adoption, you won’t see too much porting and development due to the cost.
And of course, Linux can’t get the software support needed to increase its user base until it increases its user base…heh, nice situation, eh? Well there may eventually be hope in Europe, if Microsoft ever pisses off the EU Parliament enough for them to try and throw Windows out of the market, but it’s a slim chance at best
Edited 2006-09-14 16:43
One of the unique and amazing things about using a GNU/Linux system is using the free software that is available to replace almost anything you can find in the commercial world.
Automatix is quite nice. But you do have to dig for it in the Ubuntu forums for the script download. And once you have it going, it takes quite a while to download all that stuff and install it.
Personally, I prefer distros, like PCLinuxOS, Freespire, Mepis, Kanotix, Mandriva, etc, that just ship the codecs/drivers/java/flash in the default install, so I have it all immediately. That’s much more convienient, and saves a lot of time.
Some question the legality. But really, what’s the difference between making that stuff available from the repos (to be fetched with a cool script like Automatix), and just packaging it with the distro install? In either case, the distro is providing free access to MP3, Flash, Java, Nvidia drivers, etc. The only difference is method of delivery.
Then you have to think about the owners of that proprietary stuff – are the going to come down on the distro, or it’s users? But why would they want to take legal action against someone who is helping spread their technology, and creating a larger market for them? That would be totally stupid. That would be cutting off their nose in spite of their faces.
Then their is argument from the OSS purists – that there should be no proprietary software mixed with OSS, ever. They consider it immoral, and encouraging the use of proprietary software.
To which I say the best way help the spread of OSS is to make it as palatable as possible to would be newbies – which means being able to play MP3s, have Flash and Java work in their browsers, be able to watch DVDs, and have full 3D acceleration with their Nvidia cards (and other stuff).
In such a scenario, the user is still using 95% OSS, and is being fully exposed to the greatness of OSS, while still being able to do everything they want. It’s unreasonable to expect them to use what would be to them crippleware, for idealistic reasons.
Plus, as far as I’m concerned, proprietary software is okay. I think OSS is great for some things, but proprietary software is good for other things (modern PC games, for instance, which take upwards of 5 years to develop by upwards of 100 paid developers, would never really work in OSS).
Anyway, Automatix is great, and a much needed service for Ubuntu newbies. But for me, something PCLinuxOS, which ships the stuff with the distro install (and works great, and looks great, to boot), is the way to go. It’s also what I recommend to newbies.
Then their is argument from the OSS purists – that there should be no proprietary software mixed with OSS, ever. They consider it immoral, and encouraging the use of proprietary software.
To which I say the best way help the spread of OSS is to make it as palatable as possible to would be newbies – which means being able to play MP3s, have Flash and Java work in their browsers, be able to watch DVDs, and have full 3D acceleration with their Nvidia cards (and other stuff).
The main problem with proprietary software is that the companies that provide it now can easily stop providing it in the future. Then the newbies who came to GNU/Linux because they like the features that proprietary software gives them will go away because they can’t anymore get the features they used to have.
If there’s some feature that you think you absolutely need on your GNU/Linux desktop, then it’s urgent to get this feature provided by free software because then they can’t take it away from us. But why would anyone bother to develop free software versions of proprietary products as long as people are happily using the proprietary solutions?
Think parctical and support Free Software!
Agreed. I always seek out and prefer a Free Software equivelant to proprietary software. But when there’s a clearly superior proprietary solution, I’ll use it.
Plus, I do not think proprietary software is evil unto itself. Afterall, I work for a small company that sells it’s own highly specialized (wireless data collection) proprietary software.
What gives proprietary software a bad name is Microsoft, and other big proprietary software behemouths like Oracle and SAP, where the pricing is way to high, they deliberately sell unmanagable complexity (to increase services revenues), the licensing is overly restrictive and unreasonable, and in the case of MS, they leverage their monopoly power to put out crap and force it down customers’ throats.
But there is a whole world of very good proprietary software out there, that features reasonable, not overly restrictive licensing, and the providers are just trying to compete and make money honestly.
There are two fallacies in your line of thought:
1) You assume that the open source/free software community resources are limitless or in any case sufficient to provide free equivalent to proprietary programs/codecs. That is not the case, as anyone struggling with specific and/or less popular tasks under Linux could tell you (where are the equivalents of Nero, Endnote, etc.? can’t you see how many desktops progress slowly, adding a little polish here and there, and a badly needed component from time to time?).
2) It’s not only about software, it’s also about data: if the most common format to share music is mp3 I surely need an mp3 codec, and if that’s encumbered by patents/royalties it means it will be difficult or impossible to replicate under a free OS; see also Gimp and Pantone for another example of why you can’t propose an exact equivalent of a proprietary software if proprietary standards are involved as well.
In conclusion, Linux / FOSS users would surely benefit from a port of many Windows/Mac applications.
rehdon
More resources become available when a large number of people start asking for free software alternatives. Standards are not set in stone, they can change when a large number of people start prefering a different standard.
IE used to be the standard in web browsers and people had to write their web pages to comply with IE specific quirks. But now we have Firefox that is gaining popularity.
The .doc format is the current standard in wordprocessor documents because so many people use MS Word. But you can tell people that you only have OpenOffice Writer and ask them to send you documents in .odf or .pdf format. You can also tell people where they can download their own version of OpenOffice. In time this can make the .doc format an old standard and .odf the new standard.
And there are also Free media codecs available — it’s just that more people need to use them before they can become new standards. I store all my music in .ogg format that is technically just as good as .mp3.
Some people may not yet believe this but I think that GNU/Linux can become the new standard that will replace MS Windows as the default pre-installed desktop operating system in new computers. It can happen sooner than you expect.
But before that can happen, people need to learn to value their freedom and to use the Free Software alternatives whenever one is available. Building GNU/Linux desktops on proprietary software/standards can become the biggest stumbling block on GNU/Linux’s road to success for the very reason that I stated in my earlier post: developers of proprietary software can refuse to co-operate at any time without warning and those proprietary components can be taken away from us. But there is no such risk if the operating system is built entirely of Free Software.
Ubuntu has openly expressed their commitment to free software and I hope that all Ubuntu users become familiar with Ubuntu’s ideals.
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/philosophy
Don’t put words into my mouth: I never said anything about “building GNU/Linux desktops on proprietary software/standards”. And I sure favour open standards/software instead of proprietary and closed stuff, being a Linux user myself since the mid nineties. What I’m saying is that you can’t just ignore proprietary data formats when they’re used by the large majority of the users: sure I’d like mp3 to be replaced by a free software alternative, but that doesn’t seem very likely at the moment, why keep people away with a system that’s completely alien to their needs? Why is it all or nothing for you? Proprietary software has a place in this world, and I believe it can coexist with free software: resources are limited (and you sure didn’t prove the contrary), there’s no way the free software devs are going to cater for all possible needs, there’s no way they can do so when proprietary standards are involved. So if Adobe would port Photoshop to Linux that would be a good thing for Linux IMHO.
rehdon
I’ve never used Automatix, though since I use Ubuntu from time to time I expect I will.
Score -1 to this article, however, which entirely fails to say what Automatix is and what it does. Is it a bird, a plane, a downloading script or by chance a package manager? Perhaps none of these things. Perhaps all of them. Who knows.
Score -1 to this article, however, which entirely fails to say what Automatix is and what it does. Is it a bird, a plane, a downloading script or by chance a package manager? Perhaps none of these things. Perhaps all of them. Who knows.
Yes, I agree, the article really doesn’t tell you much. Aside from failing to explain just what Automatix is and why it’s good, it would have been helpful if the writer told us where to download it and how to install it.
I have used Automatix and it’s great. It’s too bad that the legal system (mainly US legal system) forces us to need such a tool as this.
“Automatix is a graphical interface for automating the installation of the most commonly requested applications in Debian based linux operating systems.”
– http://www.getautomatix.com/
I haven’t tried automatix since july, but back then it was buggy and well capable of breaking your entire ubuntu installation. Hopefully this has changed by now, but I still wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. If you must use an easy tool, go for easy ubuntu.
http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/
Edited 2006-09-14 17:18
I’m not a big fan of automatix or any of the other 15 do-it-for-me-because-I’m-lazy scripts written for Ubuntu. Personally I don’t think programs like this are really doing these new users much of a favor. I’d much rather show a new user how to setup their box properly than hand them a crutch that will only help them in the short term.
I’ve always been a big believer in the, “teach a user to fish…”, school of thought. I saw the latest fiasco where ubuntu shutdown the users gui in a patch or upgrade leaving n00bs helpless drove the point home rather well. Fancy wrappers are great until they fall off. Still say gentoo does it right.
Personally I don’t think programs like this are really doing these new users much of a favor
I agree for anyone who wants to learn linux, but that may not be the target in every scenario; say pitching the linux desktop to someone who just wants a usable versatile, virus/adware free desktop solution.
Ideally, everyone should learn their operating system, but sometimes people choose an operating system to use it, not to learn it. I can set up a computer for someone fast without tediously downloading and installing from multiple sources.
Plus, I don’t think using a script to install software is going to somehow prevent someone from learning how to use linux. If anything, it lowers the bar of entry into linux – they’ll have all the software they need to be functional. This in turn, lowers the frustration level you get from learning the OS because the system’s functional for the new user from the start.
Think of it this way:
Someone tells you they want to try the linux desktop. Do you just give them the cd(s) and have them spend a couple days browsing forums trying to figure out how to get their music/3D accel/etc working? Would the average person be willing to spend the days required learning just to achieve a desktop deemed by the user suitable for daily use?
You will probably learn slower by having a script doing it for you, but you’ll have a functional desktop while you learn – so you’re not sacrificing the functionality of your computer to do so.
Edited 2006-09-15 03:42
How do you situate Apple users in this view of computer users world? I bet their average level of computer knowledge is much lover that of typical XP owner, still nobody blaims them for being clueless.
People have every right to know as little about coumputers as necessary to get their work done. When computer breaks, one should blame bad, unintuitive design and unnecessary complexity. Requiring *ANYBODY* to enter a path of becoming a sysadmin is ridiculous. It’s like requiring people to become doctors when all they really need is some vitamins.
And yes, I used automatix to set up my gf’s ubuntu, and while it could be even better (e.g. setup firefox to properly handle mms:) is saved me hours of tweaking. I gues that major value in it are it’s repositories that get tested by hudreds of users. Usually in case of proprietary sw on linux you can really get to know what does it mean unsupported.
Edited 2006-09-16 00:26
Fedora has Gnome & KDE which KDE is better than the other crummy option of Gnome.
Plus, Fedora is Redhat which is the standard by which all linux distro’s are judged.
…SP…
… until recently.
… Fedora install successful
########### problem solved!
On the desktop market, Fedora is the leading linux
desktop OS right now.
rm Ubuntu
./Fedora all problems solved…..
I second that easyubuntu has always worked better than automatix. In the next release of easyubuntu it will be in .deb format making installation and or removal a snap.
You can see whats don not done for version 3.1 here http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/todo.html