Comments on: Should Ubuntu include proprietary software?

By: Manish Sinha

Manish Sinha — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:59:58 +0000

Ubuntu isn’t taking this poll to include these programs. They are meant just for gauging the mind of the community like what they want or what their preferences would be.

Using the poll, probably Canonical can put pressure on these application vendors to bring out a Linux version too.

They arn’t going to include these in default install. Maximum these apps would go in the ‘partner’ repo which IIRC is not enabled by default.

By: JohnB

JohnB — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:38:18 +0000

It is worrying that commercial companies should get involved in an open-source software project. They will require an amount of control. And while I understand the desire to run Windows apps; WINE is the best solution. The beauty of Linux is isolating the user from the O/s, and many commercial apps will not want that isolation; possibly opening up Linux to a commercial slippery slope. Therefore: for some users there must be a robust method of declining any commercial application(s). An entirely separate repository that can be declined is a must and suitable warning for users thereof. That said, for some users requiring specific software that has only been developed for the Windows platform, this route will lead to increased popularity, certainly an interesting concept.

By: dfb

dfb — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:24:51 +0000

It needs to include anything regular users would expect to find, such as Flash, and anything for which there is no good open source option available. This latter category is obviously broad. It needs to be. For example, there are no good open source PDF editing programs. There are free, proprietary tools out there. For that matter, the open source readers (evince in particular) are fat, bloated, and not very good. You want people to adopt Linux/Ubuntu, they need software they will use, proprietary or not.

By: Andreas

Andreas — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:11:50 +0000

Like some have pointed out Spotify is probably the most used streaming service in all the countries that it is available. Here in Sweden its probably one of the most talked about applications period, and its a shame that you have to run it through Wine.

By: Peter Horlings

Peter Horlings — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:47:38 +0000

I think it’s different. When a commercial party like Canonical adds a proprietary repository they need some kind of arrangement with the owners of the software. I take it that no such arrangement exists with medibuntu.
The owners of the software will want to benefit from such an arrangement.
(from https://help.ubuntu.con/community/Medibuntu: Medibuntu is a repository of packages that cannot be included into the Ubuntu distribution for legal reasons (copyright, license, patent, etc)).

By: SumDood

SumDood — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:35:05 +0000

How is this different from medibuntu? Isn’t it the same idea, though limited in scope?

By: Peter Horlings

Peter Horlings — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:19:41 +0000

Questions to my own response:
It will be difficult to determine the responsibilities for the different rolls in maintaining this repository.
- Who will be the owner?
- Who’s responsible for maintain the packages?
- Who’s responsible for testing the packages against the other repositories?

In other words how much power will we give away to commercial parties?

By: cory

cory — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:17:19 +0000

NNNOOOOOOO!!!

By: Kevin Pease

Kevin Pease — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:36:51 +0000

Spotify is not obscure in the UK, where it’s probably the most popular music streaming service.

In terms of including the option of proprietary apps in Ubuntu, I think it’s fine. They should be clearly marked as “Non-Free” so people can make their own decision, but I’d use some of them. I already use the non-free version of Virtualbox to get the USB functionality that’s missing from the OSE version.

By: elvis

elvis — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:21:32 +0000

+1 for Peter’s idea.
But it’s definitely a need to have such possibility to grow… and groww… and grow.

By: Vole

Vole — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:19:16 +0000

Spotify obscure? Depends where you live.

Pandora is obscure outside the US.

By: Andrew Ampers Taylor

Andrew Ampers Taylor — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:29:19 +0000

Yes, we are both after the same solution. i.e. identifying the non-free programs.

By: Peter Horlings

Peter Horlings — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:10:28 +0000

I think a special repository is a better solution and a question during the installation of Ubuntu whether to use this repository or not.

Peter

By: Andrew Ampers Taylor

Andrew Ampers Taylor — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:46:57 +0000

If we are going down that road, and it is no big deal if the drivers are already there, could we have some sort of code in the program naming that we could discount when we search for a program, but it will always be there to remind us.

Something like “qz” placed at the end of each program name? These are two letters that are never used together. But would remind purists not to download that program? Placing the letters at the end of the name shouldn’t affect searching, or the alphabetical placing in a list.

Ampers