Search
Re: Why Ubuntu Tops Debian
Matt Hartley wrote an article about why he believes Ubuntu beats Debian. My responce is below.
Firstly, let me apologize if I am addressing the wrong Matt Hartley.
There is no easy way to contact the author on Juniper Media's sites so I had to resort to Google.
Secondly, I'd like to give my response as a long time GNU/Linux user, developer and Free Software advocate.
You begin you article with a phrase, and a basic assumption, here:
"Like Fedora or OpenSuSe, it was developed with all users in mind. Unfortunately, what many of the geekier users to this day fail to wrap their minds around is that this "Windows thinking" they complain about is more or less about ease of use, versus "choice.""
This is incorrect. You make the assumption that the goal of all GNU/Linux distros is to be "the most popular" and this can't be
further from the truth. From Fedora's front page (http://fedoraproject.org) you can find: "Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software. Fedora is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute."
This does not imply it's built "for anyone" or "for everyone" - it's built to showcase Free Software; it is incidentally AVAILABLE to
everyone.
The OpenSUSE project says this "Promoting the use of Linux everywhere, openSUSE.org provides free, easy access to the world's most usable Linux distribution, OpenSUSE. The OpenSUSE project gives Linux developers and enthusiasts everything they need to get started with Linux." (http://en.opensuse.org/Project_Overview)
I will say, however, that (politics aside) SUSE Linux (the non-free version of GNU/Linux packaged and sold by Novell - please note the distinction between that and OpenSUSE) actually manages to hit it's target audience ("average" corporate users) pretty well.
We now come to the Debian project: "The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system." (http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about)
What can't be seen in this plain text message is that the word "free" links to a page (http://www.us.debian.org/intro/free) explaining about Freedom, not price.
As a side note I'd like to mention a non-Linux based operating system here: OpenBSD. As you may or may not know, OpenBSD releases every version coupled with a song used to address issues in the Free Software community, and often with OpenBSD specifically. The 4.2 release song debuted this week and features a verse:
"Slow and steady wins they say
but this is not a race
It's not about who takes a prize
for first or second place
Imaginary rings of brass
Were traded for real goals
The vision and the mission lost
For those with corporate souls"
That line there has actually made me rethink the use of GNU/Linux in favor of OpenBSD. It seems so many people are focused on GNU/Linux adoption that they've forgotten why GNU/Linux was something people should adopt in the first place.
"The idea that the average new user really ought to consider becoming more educated with Linux in order to merely use it is just plain silly."
We (in America) require that all drivers be licensed - they must demonstrate an understanding of traffic laws and safe operation of the vehicle. This isn't to make their cars "more difficult" to use, these are in place because failure to know and follow these things puts others at risk. I'm not in favor of an "internet license" but I sincerely believe that a basic understanding of computers, how they function and how they interact with OTHER COMPUTERS is crucial to the ability to use them. Failure to understand and attempt to prevent
botnets and spam bots is NOT an excuse for allowing your computer to be used by them. Drivers have accidents and even the best sysadmin will see a compromised system in his or her lifetime but when you are horribly lax from a disinterest in learning, you are just as responsible fro the damages you cause others. Education is MY attempt to mitigate that damage.
"I hope that most people remain clueless as it does help make sure that our favorite companies giving away their distributions can still successfully provide tech support as a business for their product. Even for generally basic tasks."
I find it somewhat ironic that Linux and GNU were created (and purposely opened) to prevent such a thing. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe and others stake their fortunes on keeping users restricted. GNU/Linux's sole strength is that it empowers them.
If users had the understanding of "basic tasks" the software economy wouldn't collapse. I'd argue that it may actually make it stronger. You have to know that in my belief of this I was raised by my grandmother who is a technophobe. When cellular phones came out they were "useless" and then "too expensive to be worth it" and then "too confusing" and now it's "impossible to live without". There are a ton of things today that we take for granted, like managing a few gigs worth of music (iPod-like devices), having online video conversations (Both real time via Ekiga and in cut-time with YouTube responses) and filling out a form to have a complete, attractive website generated with no understanding of code (CMS). These things didn't pop up because they're simple, they popped up because people who understood the basics took it a step further. EVERYONE has a point when they say "I don't know" and need to hire someone to meet a need. If we raise the bar a little bit it just means that the support people will be cranking out new innovative products to meet needs.
"If you place most people into the "command line" world while expecting success, you will instead hear the pitter-patter of their feet as they run back to their previous OS."
They'd also be a bit freaked out if you placed them in the operating room during surgery... Which is exactly why we keep them out of the operating room. We don't argue that operating rooms are "failures" because they're messy. The same applies for operating systems. the average user has no real reason to USE a command line and can operate a system without access to it. But for the digital "surgeons" who use the command line to keep servers up, to develop the next great application or to backup, sort and compress THEIR music collection faster than the GUI allows seeing the command line is a GREAT thing, not a failure. Ubuntu allows users to have a CLI-less system - Debian, being not designed for the "average user" includes is and expects you to use it. The only thing I see out of place with that whole situation is people who load Debian expecting an all GUI system. As out of place, I think, as those who grab Windows Vista expecting to do some hardcore NT kernel hacking - a hard thing to do with no source access.
"Who is primarily being driven to Ubuntu over Debian? It appears to be a mix between those who need consistency with their desktop; meaning not being asked which desktop they prefer to use, etc, and those who simply wish to have the bleeding edge thrown at them with their Linux installations."
That may be the group going to Ubuntu, I won't refute that. However, Ubuntu doesn't offer a choke hold on that market. Ubuntu rebases on Debian every 6 months and then goes into "freeze" until a new release hits. This means that users of Debian Sid and users of a "just released today" Ubuntu version aren't too far off and users of that same system in five-and-a-half months will actually have a more bleeding-edge system with Debian than with Ubuntu. The users who install the betas and release candidates would then fall out of the "average" realm into the "tester" realm, which I consider to be a critical part of development.
As to the consistency argument I'll agree and disagree. A default install of Debian is a Gnome install, just as Fedora and Ubuntu are. When you start adding non-default applications (Amarok, k3b) your "consistency" begins decreasing. This is a problem with the divide between Gnome and KDE, not with any strength or weakness in Ubuntu or Debian. It should be noted, however, that making the choice between Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu is not something "average" users have enough information to know without at least SOME basic understanding of the differences. A "Desktop Installation" of Debian, however, is Gnome. You have to do some "extra" work to install KDE or XFCE later.
"Until Ubuntu came along, you had to hold up a stick to see Debian development move."
Actually, I'll agree here both as a Debian server admin and as a Debian desktop user. I recall trying the "new" Warty releases of Ubuntu thinking "This is Debian's stuff just... snazzier". It wasn't newer, it was just flashier. Debian saw a decline in user base and took some notes from Ubuntu without compromising it's original objective - a Free Software operating system.
You seem to hold that up as a reason Ubuntu "beats" Debian right after a blurb about how Ubuntu depends on Debian. I feel this best explains why Debian and Ubuntu COMPLIMENT each other rather than explaining why one wins in COMPETITION with another.
"Yes, that was mean -- get over it,"
Interestingly, because I believe that comment was made in all seriousness AND is factually valid, it's the LEAST "mean" comment in the entire article. :)
"Let me simply go on record as saying that Ubuntu, while a fantastic distro, has little interest in seeing Debian become anything more than yet another cog in the greater Ubuntu machine."
Interesting that half-way through both of our views switch: as a Debian user I feel the need to defend Ubuntu here. :)
Mark Shuttleworth IS Ubuntu in most senses that matter. He manages large things like the project management policy but also weighs in (and sometimes rules) on small things like the default desktop wallpaper (Ubuntu Edgy Knot 3 had the sexiest startup and shutdown sounds in ANY OS, ever, but was pulled by Mark for being too flashy. Incidentally, you can download those sounds from my site:
http://www.foreverdean.info/kevin/downloads/Sounds.tar.gz). Mark Shuttleworth was also a Debian developer and was committed to the ideals of the Debian project - namely Free Software. This is evident in the Ubuntu Philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy) and by official and non-official initives by Mark
(http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/130 and http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/131).
Mark started Ubuntu mainly because he felt that as good as Debian was, by not focusing on the desktop SPECIFICALLY Debian wouldn't ever been the premier desktop operating system. He contemplated running (as all Developers can do) for Debian Project Leader but ultimately decided that since being the most popular desktop wasn't Debian's goal, he's create a fork that did aspire to that. Any reluctance on EITHER side seems best explained by a conflict in project aims (untested real-time audio patches aren't very important in a stable server install) rather than a desire to have Debian in it's role as a "cog". Mark more than anyone recognizes that as soon as Ubuntu has cogs and not a community it is already a failure.
"Ask any Mac user and they will tell you a thousand reasons why they enjoy their Mac: it just works, the software, etc."
I would dump GNU/Linux in a heartbeat if Mac OS X were liberated today. Not because of the consistent interface, easy to use tools or "it just works" but because it's a damn powerful mash-up of hacker-friendly tools and user-friendly applications. Then again, if Apple released the Cocoa interface as Free Software GNU/Linux would gain that as well and also be build on totally Free Software. Hrm... Perhaps Apple, not Microsoft, holds the "missing key" in making GNU/Linux "adoptable".
"In the end, it comes down to whom the distribution is trying to target. Debian is a fantastic purist distro. And Ubuntu is one of a few great options for complete newbies."
I couldn't agree more.
"However, it's when these two worlds cross within the Linux universe that things get a bit sticky."
I am under the assumption that you make a living as a journalist with geeky passions - that said I understand the point of these tantalizing articles is to grab a reader and keep them reading. However, I appeal right now to the geek in you. When those two goals are mistaken as the same goal it creates tension and misunderstanding. As long as journalists, bloggers and end-users see Debian's "failure" riding on the numbers of users then both Ubuntu and Debian (and in fact, all of GNU/Linux) have been attacked. I mean, sure, Ubuntu has more users than Debian, but Windows has more users than all GNU/Linux and BSD and Mac OS X users combined. Obviously, Windows isn't a measure of ideological, ethical or technical merit but by placing the burden of popularity on a specific distro you imply that having more users makes it a success - a comparison every distro will always fail at.
It would be a beautiful day when users of GNU/Linux stop competing with each other to gain users and start competing with Windows and Mac OS X on the values that are important to them. Ubuntu is more usable than Windows (I'd also argue than Mac) and Debian is more Free than Windows (and Mac). Almost every Debian user and developer would rather see someone use Ubuntu over Windows - in this case both projects gain by working together rather than bashing one another.
We all fail when we get caught up chasing imaginary goals rather than attaining the ones we can.
Something OpenBSD recognizes quite a bit.
-Kevin Dean
Firstly, let me apologize if I am addressing the wrong Matt Hartley.
There is no easy way to contact the author on Juniper Media's sites so I had to resort to Google.
Secondly, I'd like to give my response as a long time GNU/Linux user, developer and Free Software advocate.
You begin you article with a phrase, and a basic assumption, here:
"Like Fedora or OpenSuSe, it was developed with all users in mind. Unfortunately, what many of the geekier users to this day fail to wrap their minds around is that this "Windows thinking" they complain about is more or less about ease of use, versus "choice.""
This is incorrect. You make the assumption that the goal of all GNU/Linux distros is to be "the most popular" and this can't be
further from the truth. From Fedora's front page (http://fedoraproject.org) you can find: "Fedora is a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software. Fedora is always free for anyone to use, modify, and distribute."
This does not imply it's built "for anyone" or "for everyone" - it's built to showcase Free Software; it is incidentally AVAILABLE to
everyone.
The OpenSUSE project says this "Promoting the use of Linux everywhere, openSUSE.org provides free, easy access to the world's most usable Linux distribution, OpenSUSE. The OpenSUSE project gives Linux developers and enthusiasts everything they need to get started with Linux." (http://en.opensuse.org/Project_Overview)
I will say, however, that (politics aside) SUSE Linux (the non-free version of GNU/Linux packaged and sold by Novell - please note the distinction between that and OpenSUSE) actually manages to hit it's target audience ("average" corporate users) pretty well.
We now come to the Debian project: "The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system." (http://www.us.debian.org/intro/about)
What can't be seen in this plain text message is that the word "free" links to a page (http://www.us.debian.org/intro/free) explaining about Freedom, not price.
As a side note I'd like to mention a non-Linux based operating system here: OpenBSD. As you may or may not know, OpenBSD releases every version coupled with a song used to address issues in the Free Software community, and often with OpenBSD specifically. The 4.2 release song debuted this week and features a verse:
"Slow and steady wins they say
but this is not a race
It's not about who takes a prize
for first or second place
Imaginary rings of brass
Were traded for real goals
The vision and the mission lost
For those with corporate souls"
That line there has actually made me rethink the use of GNU/Linux in favor of OpenBSD. It seems so many people are focused on GNU/Linux adoption that they've forgotten why GNU/Linux was something people should adopt in the first place.
"The idea that the average new user really ought to consider becoming more educated with Linux in order to merely use it is just plain silly."
We (in America) require that all drivers be licensed - they must demonstrate an understanding of traffic laws and safe operation of the vehicle. This isn't to make their cars "more difficult" to use, these are in place because failure to know and follow these things puts others at risk. I'm not in favor of an "internet license" but I sincerely believe that a basic understanding of computers, how they function and how they interact with OTHER COMPUTERS is crucial to the ability to use them. Failure to understand and attempt to prevent
botnets and spam bots is NOT an excuse for allowing your computer to be used by them. Drivers have accidents and even the best sysadmin will see a compromised system in his or her lifetime but when you are horribly lax from a disinterest in learning, you are just as responsible fro the damages you cause others. Education is MY attempt to mitigate that damage.
"I hope that most people remain clueless as it does help make sure that our favorite companies giving away their distributions can still successfully provide tech support as a business for their product. Even for generally basic tasks."
I find it somewhat ironic that Linux and GNU were created (and purposely opened) to prevent such a thing. Microsoft, Apple, Adobe and others stake their fortunes on keeping users restricted. GNU/Linux's sole strength is that it empowers them.
If users had the understanding of "basic tasks" the software economy wouldn't collapse. I'd argue that it may actually make it stronger. You have to know that in my belief of this I was raised by my grandmother who is a technophobe. When cellular phones came out they were "useless" and then "too expensive to be worth it" and then "too confusing" and now it's "impossible to live without". There are a ton of things today that we take for granted, like managing a few gigs worth of music (iPod-like devices), having online video conversations (Both real time via Ekiga and in cut-time with YouTube responses) and filling out a form to have a complete, attractive website generated with no understanding of code (CMS). These things didn't pop up because they're simple, they popped up because people who understood the basics took it a step further. EVERYONE has a point when they say "I don't know" and need to hire someone to meet a need. If we raise the bar a little bit it just means that the support people will be cranking out new innovative products to meet needs.
"If you place most people into the "command line" world while expecting success, you will instead hear the pitter-patter of their feet as they run back to their previous OS."
They'd also be a bit freaked out if you placed them in the operating room during surgery... Which is exactly why we keep them out of the operating room. We don't argue that operating rooms are "failures" because they're messy. The same applies for operating systems. the average user has no real reason to USE a command line and can operate a system without access to it. But for the digital "surgeons" who use the command line to keep servers up, to develop the next great application or to backup, sort and compress THEIR music collection faster than the GUI allows seeing the command line is a GREAT thing, not a failure. Ubuntu allows users to have a CLI-less system - Debian, being not designed for the "average user" includes is and expects you to use it. The only thing I see out of place with that whole situation is people who load Debian expecting an all GUI system. As out of place, I think, as those who grab Windows Vista expecting to do some hardcore NT kernel hacking - a hard thing to do with no source access.
"Who is primarily being driven to Ubuntu over Debian? It appears to be a mix between those who need consistency with their desktop; meaning not being asked which desktop they prefer to use, etc, and those who simply wish to have the bleeding edge thrown at them with their Linux installations."
That may be the group going to Ubuntu, I won't refute that. However, Ubuntu doesn't offer a choke hold on that market. Ubuntu rebases on Debian every 6 months and then goes into "freeze" until a new release hits. This means that users of Debian Sid and users of a "just released today" Ubuntu version aren't too far off and users of that same system in five-and-a-half months will actually have a more bleeding-edge system with Debian than with Ubuntu. The users who install the betas and release candidates would then fall out of the "average" realm into the "tester" realm, which I consider to be a critical part of development.
As to the consistency argument I'll agree and disagree. A default install of Debian is a Gnome install, just as Fedora and Ubuntu are. When you start adding non-default applications (Amarok, k3b) your "consistency" begins decreasing. This is a problem with the divide between Gnome and KDE, not with any strength or weakness in Ubuntu or Debian. It should be noted, however, that making the choice between Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu is not something "average" users have enough information to know without at least SOME basic understanding of the differences. A "Desktop Installation" of Debian, however, is Gnome. You have to do some "extra" work to install KDE or XFCE later.
"Until Ubuntu came along, you had to hold up a stick to see Debian development move."
Actually, I'll agree here both as a Debian server admin and as a Debian desktop user. I recall trying the "new" Warty releases of Ubuntu thinking "This is Debian's stuff just... snazzier". It wasn't newer, it was just flashier. Debian saw a decline in user base and took some notes from Ubuntu without compromising it's original objective - a Free Software operating system.
You seem to hold that up as a reason Ubuntu "beats" Debian right after a blurb about how Ubuntu depends on Debian. I feel this best explains why Debian and Ubuntu COMPLIMENT each other rather than explaining why one wins in COMPETITION with another.
"Yes, that was mean -- get over it,"
Interestingly, because I believe that comment was made in all seriousness AND is factually valid, it's the LEAST "mean" comment in the entire article. :)
"Let me simply go on record as saying that Ubuntu, while a fantastic distro, has little interest in seeing Debian become anything more than yet another cog in the greater Ubuntu machine."
Interesting that half-way through both of our views switch: as a Debian user I feel the need to defend Ubuntu here. :)
Mark Shuttleworth IS Ubuntu in most senses that matter. He manages large things like the project management policy but also weighs in (and sometimes rules) on small things like the default desktop wallpaper (Ubuntu Edgy Knot 3 had the sexiest startup and shutdown sounds in ANY OS, ever, but was pulled by Mark for being too flashy. Incidentally, you can download those sounds from my site:
http://www.foreverdean.info/kevin/downloads/Sounds.tar.gz). Mark Shuttleworth was also a Debian developer and was committed to the ideals of the Debian project - namely Free Software. This is evident in the Ubuntu Philosophy (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy) and by official and non-official initives by Mark
(http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/130 and http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/131).
Mark started Ubuntu mainly because he felt that as good as Debian was, by not focusing on the desktop SPECIFICALLY Debian wouldn't ever been the premier desktop operating system. He contemplated running (as all Developers can do) for Debian Project Leader but ultimately decided that since being the most popular desktop wasn't Debian's goal, he's create a fork that did aspire to that. Any reluctance on EITHER side seems best explained by a conflict in project aims (untested real-time audio patches aren't very important in a stable server install) rather than a desire to have Debian in it's role as a "cog". Mark more than anyone recognizes that as soon as Ubuntu has cogs and not a community it is already a failure.
"Ask any Mac user and they will tell you a thousand reasons why they enjoy their Mac: it just works, the software, etc."
I would dump GNU/Linux in a heartbeat if Mac OS X were liberated today. Not because of the consistent interface, easy to use tools or "it just works" but because it's a damn powerful mash-up of hacker-friendly tools and user-friendly applications. Then again, if Apple released the Cocoa interface as Free Software GNU/Linux would gain that as well and also be build on totally Free Software. Hrm... Perhaps Apple, not Microsoft, holds the "missing key" in making GNU/Linux "adoptable".
"In the end, it comes down to whom the distribution is trying to target. Debian is a fantastic purist distro. And Ubuntu is one of a few great options for complete newbies."
I couldn't agree more.
"However, it's when these two worlds cross within the Linux universe that things get a bit sticky."
I am under the assumption that you make a living as a journalist with geeky passions - that said I understand the point of these tantalizing articles is to grab a reader and keep them reading. However, I appeal right now to the geek in you. When those two goals are mistaken as the same goal it creates tension and misunderstanding. As long as journalists, bloggers and end-users see Debian's "failure" riding on the numbers of users then both Ubuntu and Debian (and in fact, all of GNU/Linux) have been attacked. I mean, sure, Ubuntu has more users than Debian, but Windows has more users than all GNU/Linux and BSD and Mac OS X users combined. Obviously, Windows isn't a measure of ideological, ethical or technical merit but by placing the burden of popularity on a specific distro you imply that having more users makes it a success - a comparison every distro will always fail at.
It would be a beautiful day when users of GNU/Linux stop competing with each other to gain users and start competing with Windows and Mac OS X on the values that are important to them. Ubuntu is more usable than Windows (I'd also argue than Mac) and Debian is more Free than Windows (and Mac). Almost every Debian user and developer would rather see someone use Ubuntu over Windows - in this case both projects gain by working together rather than bashing one another.
We all fail when we get caught up chasing imaginary goals rather than attaining the ones we can.
Something OpenBSD recognizes quite a bit.
-Kevin Dean
#2 Re: Re: Why Ubuntu Tops Debian
Kevin Dean, <E-Mail> / 8 January, 12:53pm
“If Free Software advocates have a problem with Ubuntu and its inclusion of non-free bits, why not create a distribution with exactly the same aims as Ubuntu with one modification; for it to be 100% Free Software.”
Because the definition of Free Software isn’t yet defined in a way that pleases all Free Software advocates. Or, more specifically, the base values of people, why freedom is attractive, conflict. For instance, myself, I view the restriction of information as unethical. That is why I support Free Software but it’s ALSO why I consider the GFDL (with invariant sections) to be unethical - I made no distinction between the types of information. Gobuntu allows GFDL, Debian does not and gNewSense seems to have approved that license.
‘What if a Free Software group would create a purist distro that aims for greater market share like Ubuntu and finds that this simply isn’t possible, at this point in time, without compromises’
I beleive that distro would need to evaluate it’s goals again. What is more important to be Free or to be popular?
Personally, I’m in the “anti-adoption” crowd which you know pretty well. I see no reason why adoption of GNU/Linux should be pushed for unless it’s the spread of fully Free Software. The main reason driving the “adoption” argument is that the “world take GNU/Linux seriously” which means to support it. If you say “GNU/Linux” there, that desire is met by releasing an nVidia-style binary blob. If you use “Free Software” there, that need is met ONLY by reelasing source code or (at the least) specifications and THAT benefits GNU/Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris and even Windows. Taking that a step beyond: by keeping DIVERSITY in the Freedom we make it harder for vendors to support anything but freedom. The ONLY way to cater to Windows/Mac/Linux/HURD/BSD/Solaris/Plan9/ReactOS/SkyOS is to release source.
‘That would leave us with the question of whether to appreciate the fact that Ubuntu made it, despite the compromises it used or not.”
Ubuntu’s goals are to make a fully Free operating system that is acessible to everyone. In the respect that they’re including MORE non-free bits and not less I’d argue that Ubuntu has failed, not thrived. Forget living up to the standards of the world if you can’t even meet your own.
[ Reply (0) ]
#3 Re: Re: Why Ubuntu Tops Debian
libervisco, <> / 8 January, 12:54pm
> “Because the definition of Free Software isn’t yet defined in a way that pleases all Free Software advocates. Or, more specifically, the base values of people, why freedom is attractive, conflict.”
We wont accomplish anything if we get stuck on that because there will always be variations between people. Consensus building is essential or otherwise we’ll all, no matter which variation of values we stand for be losing rather than winning ground for our cause.
You once said I am for consolidation and that’s quite right. If you don’t consolidate at all you’re risking being pretty much left alone and powerless to do anything about the cause. While you can try it is unlikely that without a larger number of people to work with towards your cause you would accomplish much. Therefore you have to recognize the common values and work on that basis, even if some of your values differ in some way. This way, overall both you and them may be closer to the ultimate goals of both.
> “Personally, I’m in the “anti-adoption” crowd which you know pretty well. I see no reason why adoption of GNU/Linux should be pushed for unless it’s the spread of fully Free Software.”
Well that was my point, the adoption of Free Software. However we have to have “tools” to spread it with, something to push for. GNU/Linux is our best tool so far. Free Software on Windows or Mac OS X is certainly a good thing, but its weight, it’s influential potential, is not as big as with a whole operating system that is Free Software. They still use a proprietary foundation. It’s hard to argue that this is better than using a Free Software foundation, even if with few temporary non-free bits.
Yes, even by these few bits the whole system is on some level tainted, but clearly there is a difference still. Both Windows with some Free Software programs and GNU/Linux with some proprietary bits, are tainted. But the latter is less tainted and allows user the quickier and easier “purification” if you will.
Take this example. You start explaining a Windows user about freedom in software and urge him to consider running Free Software as much as possible. He has a much longer road to go to a fully free system from Windows than if he were using Ubuntu, not to mention that he would probably be by association less susceptible to the positive influence of the Free Software community. He is a Windows user so he probably wont be going to Free Software forums for help.
It’s simply a whole different setting.
So my point is that the degree matters. Both may be tainted, but I think this is not a reason to dismiss the difference in degrees because they ARE quite meaningful. In other words, Ubuntu is doing a LOT more for the Free Software cause than someone who roots against it as a whole and for “Free Software anywhere” overall therefore depriving himself of this “tool” of spreading Free Software. The only tool he really has is his shouting voice.
Yet.. I try that exactly. My shouting voice and the voice of Nuxified.org which is adopting the term “Freedomware” rather than “GNU/Linux” as a way to spread Free Software without specifically recommending one distribution… but I am at the same time consolidating and cannot deny the fact that Ubuntu has done and is doing for the spread of Freedom quite a lot and I would argue a lot more than gNewSense and many others pure distros combined.
Just how many users are getting in touch with the mere mention of Free Software ideas simply because they found Ubuntu? I’d bet it’s a significant number. And Ubuntu, despite its compromises, doesn’t exactly shy away from mentioning such principles. Even its restricted manager *warns* users that they are about to install something that is unsupported and potentially dangerous.
So yes, I’m for Free Software all the way, not just an alternative OS, but I also recognize that it is all a process not a done deal. Even Richard Stallman had to use proprietary software to create an operating system useful for hackers. Now maybe we have to put up with some bits to create an OS useful for ordinary home desktop users.
As long as we don’t make such compromises a desirable habit rather than a temporary “let’s resolve this ASAP” necessary annoyance.
[ Reply (0) ]
#4 Re: Above Comments
Kevin Dean, <E-Mail> / 8 January, 12:56pm
The above comments were migrated from my old blog. They were posted on the dates and times below:
Libervisco posted October 12th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I responded October 12th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Libervisco replied at October 12th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
[ Reply (0) ]
#5 Cheap Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended for MAC
Meenceintiree, <E-Mail> / 27 April, 8:22pm
All Popular Softwares For PC and MAC
All European Languages
The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software!
oem software what is
Windows XP Professional With SP2 Full Version $59.95
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection $329.95
Office Enterprise 2007 $79.95
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit $79.95
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended $119.95
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection for MAC $329.95
Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended $99.95
Office 2003 Professional (including Publisher 2003) $59.95
AutoCAD 2009 32 and 64 bit $169.95
Microsoft Office 2008 Standart Edition for Mac $99.95
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium $259.95
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended for MAC $119.95
The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software!
city software store
No torrents - no claim. Read our Testimonials.
[ Reply (0) ]
#6 Get a Discount for Office 2003 Professional (including Publisher 2003)
Uritubbaitasy, <E-Mail> / 28 April, 8:12am
All Popular Softwares For PC and MAC
All European Languages
The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software!
student discount software uk
Windows XP Professional With SP2 Full Version $59.95
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection $329.95
Office Enterprise 2007 $79.95
Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit $79.95
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended $119.95
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection for MAC $329.95
Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended $99.95
Office 2003 Professional (including Publisher 2003) $59.95
AutoCAD 2009 32 and 64 bit $169.95
Microsoft Office 2008 Standart Edition for Mac $99.95
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium $259.95
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended for MAC $119.95
The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software!
buy software on line
No torrents - no claim. Read our Testimonials.
[ Reply (0) ]
#7 Get a Discount for Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended
Jedoideorse, <E-Mail> / 28 April, 6:04pm
[b][url=http://fortosoft.com/]All Popular Softwares For PC and MAC[/url]
All European Languages
[u]The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software![/u]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=12]Windows XP Professional With SP2 Full Version[/url] $59.95
[url=http://fortosoft.com/catalog.php?id=396]Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection[/url] $329.95
[url=http://dorgosoft.com/catalog.php?id=343]Office Enterprise 2007[/url] $79.95
[url=http://dorgosoft.com/catalog.php?id=350]Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit[/url] $79.95
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=390]Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended[/url] $119.95
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=411]Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection for MAC[/url] $329.95
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=399]Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended[/url] $99.95
[url=http://agronsofe.com/catalog.php?id=63]Office 2003 Professional (including Publisher 2003)[/url] $59.95
[url=http://sertosoft.com/catalog.php?id=362]AutoCAD 2009 32 and 64 bit[/url] $169.95
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=388]Microsoft Office 2008 Standart Edition for Mac[/url] $99.95
[url=http://fortosoft.com/catalog.php?id=395]Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium[/url] $259.95
[url=http://drestosoft.com/catalog.php?id=406]Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended for MAC[/url] $119.95
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[u]The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software![/u]
No torrents - no claim. Read our [url=http://kordosoft.com/testimonials]Testimonials[/url].[/b]
[ Reply (0) ]
#8 Cheap Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended
Brebraannon, <E-Mail> / 29 April, 6:32am
[b][url=http://drestosoft.com/]All Popular Softwares For PC and MAC[/url]
All European Languages
[u]The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software![/u]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url=http://geromysoft.com/catalog.php?id=12]Windows XP Professional With SP2 Full Version[/url] $59.95
[url=http://fortosoft.com/catalog.php?id=396]Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection[/url] $329.95
[url=http://fortosoft.com/catalog.php?id=343]Office Enterprise 2007[/url] $79.95
[url=http://drestosoft.com/catalog.php?id=350]Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit[/url] $79.95
[url=http://fortosoft.com/catalog.php?id=390]Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended[/url] $119.95
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=411]Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection for MAC[/url] $329.95
[url=http://fortosoft.com/catalog.php?id=399]Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended[/url] $99.95
[url=http://sertosoft.com/catalog.php?id=63]Office 2003 Professional (including Publisher 2003)[/url] $59.95
[url=http://kordosoft.com/catalog.php?id=362]AutoCAD 2009 32 and 64 bit[/url] $169.95
[url=http://drestosoft.com/catalog.php?id=388]Microsoft Office 2008 Standart Edition for Mac[/url] $99.95
[url=http://drestosoft.com/catalog.php?id=395]Adobe Creative Suite 4 Design Premium[/url] $259.95
[url=http://geromysoft.com/catalog.php?id=406]Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended for MAC[/url] $119.95
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[u]The financial crisis? SAVE YOUR MONEY!
You will get a DISCOUNT of up to 90% for our all software![/u]
No torrents - no claim. Read our [url=http://agronsofe.com/testimonials]Testimonials[/url].[/b]
[ Reply (0) ]
#9 physics academic software
Dunkevesque, <E-Mail> / 10 May, 9:45am
[url=http://dourgetor.com/][img]http://dourgetor.com/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]sell my software, [url=http://dourgetor.com/]did adobe buy macromedia[/url]
[url=http://dourgetor.com/]can i buy cheap software[/url] strengths and weaknesses of windows xp buying softwares
buy used dreamweaver [url=http://dourgetor.com/]List Software Downloadable Software[/url] educational software reading
[url=http://dourgetor.com/]linux educational software[/url] academic software and
[url=http://dourgetor.com/]office software systems[/url] selling software as
cheap academic software [url=http://dourgetor.com/]nero 9 patent authorization[/b]
[ Reply (0) ]
#10 kaspersky 7
Dunkevesque, <E-Mail> / 13 May, 4:55pm
[url=http://dourgetor.com/][img]http://dourgetor.com/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]discount educational software net, [url=http://dourgetor.com/]software super store[/url]
[url=http://dourgetor.com/]windows xp software to buy[/url] how to design filemaker pro plugin office 2003 compatibility
buy used software [url=http://dourgetor.com/]customer order software[/url] macromedia software flash fl4about
[url=http://dourgetor.com/]kids educational software[/url] buy final draft software
[url=http://dourgetor.com/]microsoft office at discount[/url] personal finance software canada
good software to buy [url=http://dourgetor.com/]software price comparisons
[URL=http://plentyaac.00freehost.com/slc500-software/body-software.html]body software[/URL]
[URL=http://plentyaac.00freehost.com/quickverse-software/creation-software.html]creation software[/URL]
[URL=http://plentyaac.00freehost.com/softwaredvd-players/imesh-software.html]imesh software[/URL]
[URL=http://plentyaac.00freehost.com/dating-file-flat-software/meeting-planning-software.html]meeting planning software[/URL]
[URL=http://plentyaac.00freehost.com/survey-audit-software/professional-cd-labeling-software.html]professional cd labeling software[/URL]
[/b]
[ Reply (0) ]
Leave a Comment
Comment XML feeds: RSS | Atom
#1 Re: Re: Why Ubuntu Tops Debian
Very good response I’d say.
It’s interesting how many people who use a certain distribution and love it usually want this distribution to take over the world, yet this isn’t a part of the distribution’s goal. This may be what fueled some of the initial appetites for expansion and increased adoption, but it wasn’t until people actually started projects with that goal exactly that this could really happen.
Which brings me to another point. If Free Software advocates have a problem with Ubuntu and its inclusion of non-free bits, why not create a distribution with exactly the same aims as Ubuntu with one modification; for it to be 100% Free Software. I think gNewSense doesn’t have this goal and if it does I think it fails at it.
Perhaps the answer is Gobuntu, but I’m not sure that this is really its goal (popularity, increased market share) and if yes I have my doubts about its success at achieving this.
That brings me to an interesting notion. What if a Free Software group would create a purist distro that aims for greater market share like Ubuntu and finds that this simply isn’t possible, at this point in time, without compromises that Ubuntu already made?
That would leave us with the question of whether to appreciate the fact that Ubuntu made it, despite the compromises it used or not.
Of course, to even care for such a thing one would have to care for the expansion of the state of freedom to as many people as possible rather than conservation of this freedom to oneself. It seems that the two, however, in certain narrow frames of mind, contradict each other. If expanding freedom requires you to make a temporary compromise in details, what should you do?