Ubuntu's not GNU/Linux?

[Graziano]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:31:28 +0200, Kristian Rink <kristian at zimmer428.net>
wrote:
> Am 19.04.2010 13:36, schrieb Chris Woolfrey:
>> Definitely agreed! It seems an odd omission, and i wonder if it has
>> anything to do with their fairly 'commercial' approach to spreading
>> their OS? They do often seem to be 'fighting' Mac and Windows on the
>> other two's terms.
> 
> Yes. But then again, as far as I see things, Ubuntu's the only GNU/Linux

> distribution out there to have somethin akin to the "Ubuntu Code Of 
> Conduct" or the Ubuntu philosophy outlined on the web site. No "open 
> community version" along with an "enterprise version enhanced by 
> proprietary add-ons", and yet not a  "free" platform leaving most of the

> users it is aiming at out in the cold because, after doing the first 
> boot, they figure out all of a sudden that some (or, in worst cases) 
> most of their hardware is not working anymore.
> 
> No, it's _not_ good from a software libre supporters point of view. But 
> the approach of #1 goal being making a "smoothlessly usable, 
> streamlined, well-thought-out" distribution seems sane from a pragmatic 
> point of view. Yes, there's an active crowd out there knowing about the 
> advantages of software libre. They know about the four freedoms, and 
> they know why they would want that. And the rest? As I have to over and 
> over again experience within my environment (being surrounded by a lot 
> of people who "just work" with their computers), people don't know and, 
> at least at their given state of mind, don't _want_ to know/care. They 
> go with MS Windows et al simply because "everyone's using it so it can't

> be all that bad".
> 
> Give these people an idealistically crafted "libre" GNU/Linux 
> distribution which doesn't even allow them to connect to their home WLAN

> because their notebook features some arcane WiFi device and, after that,

> tell them to please buy a piece of hardware which doesn't require 
> "proprietary" (you'll have an interesting effect using this term in such

> a conversation) drivers is the surest ever possible way of making them 
> stay the **** away from software libre and never ever touch it again.
> 
> I mean, after all, shouldn't we face it? While we are fighting whether 
> or not Ubuntu is "software libre", people seem to just rush out to get 
> an iPad which, talking about its software, it neither "libre" nor just 
> "open source". Or they go for that cheap discounter-next-door box coming

> with a bare-bones Windows 7 version because at the very least they know 
> this world somehow. Making people who don't care (yet?) about "software 
> libre" interested or even enthusiastic about this idea surely won't work

> by providing them with something that "feels better" (to us) but 
> actually, eventually works worse (to them). From that point of view, I 
> think software libre community indeed should embrace Ubuntu / Canonical 
> as someone (maybe the first) GNU/Linux based company so far aiming at 
> making a platform with a smooth, straightforward, comfortable and 
> convenient end user experience, to (as I have seen quite sometimes here 
> on LinuxTag events...) attract people who would have never even touched 
> a GNU/Linux system before...
> 
> K.



Same old story.

I keep hearing about people who accept ruinous compromises just to get
some users.

Users acquired in this way are not good users if you don't explain them
the four freedoms and the importance of free software, the importance for
you to have FULL control of your computer.

Using Ubuntu they don't have a full control of their computer because of
the non free parts.

Why should we point at the worst? Why are you comparing with the iBad?

You should avoid compromises and fight for free software.

I know lots of people who use ubuntu..  with skype... picasa..  and so on.

What's the difference between using "some" non free sofware and "all" non
free software in the areas where it is available?

Where do you draw the line?

We must fight non free software, not accept compromises just to get some
"non free" users.

Users taken in the way you propose are not real free users and will return
to windows or mac when the first cool non free app will be available for
those platforms only.

Try instead of using a fully free distribution, contribute to it, make it
better.
More people using a fully free distro means that distro will have a big
weight, a big user base and so hardware vendors could choose it instead of
ubuntu.
And there is chance they could release their drivers as free software to
make them function with the libre distro.

So you see how fighting for free software could produce valuable results.

Please don't give up.


http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html


Graziano.