Off topic - Re: Canonical plans to make Unity proprietary

EDIT: Just chilled out swimming, gave it a bit of thought, and here's my conclusion.

Firstly, there are several problems with mobile devices that are currently on the market.

MAC - expensive and closed. The only way to put sth into it is through iStore. If you upload your own MP3 into it, iPhone will delete it as soon as it connects to internet, without asking for your permission and even without letting you know about this fact! This is BTW why it will not replace BlackBerry for corporations because - as I spoke to one senior IT manager - they don't want their specific software to be potentially available outside corporate IT system.

Others - use various OS, mainly based on Linux i.e. Android, TomTom, etc., sometimes WindowsMobile. But unlike MAC products, these are mostly not so well integrated with the hardware and that creates problems. These are also not so well integrates with Linux, particularly TomTom plays on my nerves because their stance for few years now is that although their sat-nav devices run Linux, TomTom will not provide Linux client. Regarding compatibility - all Mac products talk to each other with no issues, not to mention extensive usage of hardware - i.e. battery saving and battery lifecycle before you have to replace it.

And how many problems do we have to marriage Nokia+Linux, Android+Linux, etc.? Fact is, unless Linux becomes significant OR (not "XOR", I hate when people make this logical superfluousness writing "and/or") OR Linux will run natively on a device, we will always have problems and little support. Yes, I've seen people running Linux on iPod or a "smart" phone but these will not be as good as the native OS for it. Because without optimisation these are only experiments showing that Linux is generally capable of it.

So from that point of view, I would very much welcome a device natively running Linux because chances are it would be much more compatible with other Linuxes i.e. in your laptop. Canonical, of course, cannot make any part of GNU software proprietary, but giants like Nokia, Siemens, Motorola, HTC won't go for open OS for commercial reasons either. So if Canonical made Unity themselves, hoping that OEMs will buy it from them, than it's OK with me, because:
* you will probably be able to integrate such mobile device not only with Ubuntu but with any Linux without hacking, workarounds, VirtualBoxes, Wines and all that crap, that - lets be honest - not always works anyway! Canonical is not TomTom and I think they will ensure there is official OEM support for such devices under Linux.
* you will still have Ubuntu for free
* you will still be able to run Gnome/KDE/Xfce/Lxde on it
* you will still have Mint with Gnome and others for free
* you will still have rest of the open software for free
* people will notice Linux and whoever uses it will no longer be some outsider and freak. Perhaps I WILL THEN BE in a position of not shutting the f*ck up about how cool my Linux is, and be able to discriminate iWhatever users?!

Oh, by the way, somehow Debian developers were never bothered with making basic things right i.e. hibernation, user friendly GUIs, cloud, etc. so let's Canonical do it. I don't really mind Canonical as long as they are Linux, even if they plan to make some monies to continue developing open stuff.

P.S. No offence, however emotional some parts of my post might sound.

P.S.2. Please don't hesitate to reply to this post, perhaps a separate thread would be more appropriate.

1 members found this post helpful.

I am fan of the hardcore distributions (I currently use Slackware), so it seems I am somehow misplaced in this thread :-) However, I would like to add some thoughts of my own to this debate.

When I discovered Linux, I started with Ubuntu. Ubuntu could seem a good place to start, because of many reasons:

• It has both Long Term Support and Short Term Support versions, so if you don't like upgrading every now and then you can use an LTS and enjoy a 3 year period of stability.
  
• It is advertised as "easy to use", so it should be less traumatic than most other distributions.
  
• Claims to support the freedom of software.
  
• It is supported by a firm which employs lots of software engineers for testing and quality control.

Unfortunately, after using Ubuntu for some time, you start discovering quirks:

• Ubuntu's release schedule is really lame. Many times, a version will be released just to keep the schedule, even when this means to let critical bugs walk into the stable branch.
  
• It is not really easier to use than many other distributions. In fact, facing the occasional bugs can make using Ubuntu a challenging task. I had a libparted defect destroy my /boot filesystem once. Fixing this kind of thing is not easy to do, and is out of the reach of the typical user.
  
• The free software claims are just marketing stuff. Ubuntu ships lots of binary blobs, they have agreements with firms that are frowned on by true free software advocates. It is not that I hate proprietary software, it is just that I don't like when someone says to be a free-software supporter while making the server side of Ubuntu One closed-source.
  
• Ubuntu's quality control is not very reliable. This means errors. This means the things get harder to the user. This defeats the purpose of an "easy to use" distribution.

I have not experience with Mint, so I would not talk about it, but I would not recommend Ubuntu, never, ever. Heck, I would recommend Debian over it, because at least it is less likely to explode at your face (and it has become a lot easier to use since the release of Debian 6).

Regarding the amount of preinstalled software, I think that it is a matter of opinions. Newbies will surely prefer to have tons of things installed since the start. I prefer the minimalistic approach, since minimalistic distributions tend to be more efficient (they are less dirty and tend to start less services at boot time). This is purely subjective, so let each one decide about it.

Oh, since someone has talked about Debian, I would like to say some other things:

If you where using Debian < 6, your problems surely came because the lack of usb_modeswitch, which depended on a recent version of libusb that was not available in Debian 5. Current Debian Stable supports Huawei Modems without much pain.

There are geekish command-line ways to do this, and also a graphical tool. I can't remember it's name, but I think it is part of the LXDE desktop. This tool is available for Debian 6. Of course, you probably need to have the proper drivers installed.

It is a pity you didn't get on well with Debian at the end, as I think it is a good distribution, but if you are satisfied with your current choice, congratulations!

HIBERNATION: I never had a problem in my computer. I had problems with suspension, that were vanished by installing some proprietary drivers. This kind of issues come from the fact that Debian is very strict with the licenses of the components they include in the main distribution. If your computer needs proprietary kernel blobs in order to hibernate, they won't be given by default. You will have to get them. Debian is hated by many because their license policy, but is loved by many because of the same reason...

FRIENDLY GUIs: I don't think that ease of use is an objective. Debian does not design GUIs specifically for Debian (forgetting the installer), so they rely on what upstream software provides.

CLOUD: I never liked the modern ideal of the Cloud :-) However, I bet you can work out your way in order to have cloud data management in Debian if you do some (likely geek) homework.

Nah, no problem!

Actually, since Linux is GPL, you are not free to make it non-free. The whole point of the GPL is to make sure it stays free forever since nobody can make it non-free.

That's right, more or less. The GPL license demands that the receiver of the software re-distributes it only under the free license.

I am not into the Unity discussion but, if Canonical has full rights over Unity's code, then they (and only they) will be able to distribute closed versions.

Look, when you get Unity's code, you get it LICENSED, and it's license prevents you from distributing closed versions. Canonical didn't get a LICENSED version of Unity: they are the authors, they are not bound to license terms. That means that they can stop distributing Unity under GPL, that they can give it licensed under GPL to you but give it licensed under BSD to another guy, or do any weird thing you can imagine.

The BSD license, on the other hand, allows the licensed distributors to distribute the software under non-free licenses, if they comply with some conditions.

ubuntu GUI is more beautiful

Been away for 4 weeks and come back today and keep seeing people say Ubuntu is Debian and Mint is Ubuntu etc. Simple facts need clarifying and the fact that Ubuntu is based on Debian and Mint being based on Ubuntu (Debian) is getting lame.

While Ubuntu is based on Debian it is no longer compatible with Debian. It is highly modified and this has caused problems for Ubuntu's user base, of which I used to be one of many. Ubuntu = Debian + Easy is misleading and actually quite incorrect. Debian Testing, and dare I say Sid, is much more stable than Ubuntu current. If Ubuntu = Debian + Easy this should not be the case at all. Ubuntu current should be the more stable distro yet it isn't.

Mint (number versions) on the other hand are more stable than the Ubuntu they are derived from BUT they are subject to the exact same bugs, plus more of its own creation, that Ubuntu is. Mint looks cleaner and neater but if the Mint devs had their way you would never update a kernel. Mint Debian versions (LMDE XFCE etc) are Debian with a couple of add ons. If you don't believe me check out the Mint repository page to see what they add to Debian to make Mint Debian editions. 90% of the sources.list for LMDE is Debian Testing with maybe 2 lines added to enable the Mintification of Debian.

OFF TOPIC - Re: Unity on TV receivers and other devices

Speaking of the devil, unofficial info about new interface for TV receivers

http://translate.google.com/translat...-pierwsze.html

@ k3lt01- true. Unless I find something that indicates otherwise, I always assume that when people are talking about 'linux mint' they mean the *buntu based version, not mint debian(LMDE, or however you want to put it)

@BlackRider- yep, that is right as far as I know.

Fact: you really should check what you are posting, or else you end up making posts like this....

R.M. Stallman, and L. Torvalds would be the 2 main 'fathers' of linux (GNU in Stallmans case) and neither of them want or wanted people to be able take the free work of others and close the source code.

There is a whole heap of assumptions in this post. I'm just going to reply to the biggest 2.

1- If canonical does make a closed version of unity, it will be running on linux. That is not the case, it could be running on a different kernel.

2- If canonical does sell a closed source version, they will spend any time and effors on making it linux compatible. You've already given an example (tomtom) of something running wth a linux kernel that has no linux support. If whoever approaches canonical doesnt want linux compatiblity, then canonical will not add it. Even if they have the time, and/or skills to add it.

Debian doesnt develop GUIs, most distros dont. They tend to use the KDE/Gnome/Xfce/LXDE/*box and so on desktops. Its arguable about how 'user friendly' unity is, and its all based on GTK (unity) or Qt (Unity '2D') anyway.

Hibernation- if it worked for you with *buntu and not with debian that would be due to the way the system is setup. Debian systems can hibernate as well.

Cloud- AFAIK canoncial has the same silly 'all your data belongs to us' rules as all the other clouds. Cloud OSes are not something I have any intention of moving to, far to many problems.

Making money- that is the stated aim of canonical, from the outset. Its a private company (probably owned by saint shuttleworth) based in a tax haven (the Isle of Man), doing the usual corporate tactics (subsidiaries etc.). Even if it wasnt for the rest of the %&#$% canoncial has done, I will not support companies based in tax havens....

1 members found this post helpful.

How is it that Slackware is only available as a 4GB DVD iso (x86_64), while Mint (not 'hardcore') is available as a 600MB CD iso?
I am interested in using a hardcore most-unix-like distro, should I use SLAX instead if I want to start out with the bare-bones minimum?

Edit: Okay I see you can fully customize the install process...having error installing LILO though so I haven't seen how big my selection turned out to be yet...

Anyone use Linpus?

1 members found this post helpful.

This is VERY offtopic. You'd better head to the Slackware forum with this questions.

However, since I am here, let's say something about this.

The fact that a distro is for tech-heads does not mean it is minimalistic. However, as you have already noticed, the install process is fully customizable. Keep in mind that installing the bare minimum means a lot of time browsing the installer selecting packages, and if you omit to install something important you can face some little troubles.

By the way, Slackware is also distributed in a CD pack. I don't know if it's still available for download, but in the Slackware store they will sell it to you.

TigerLinux, you have just have a thread closed on you after you inserted this exact off-topic question in there.

In that thread, a mod pointed out that your behaviour could be perceived as trolling, plain and straightforward. I am not convinced that trolling is the only description that could be used, but the alternatives don't seem very flattering, either.

My advice is that it would be wise to avoid these strange topic-shifts, as that is always likely to be badly perceived.

More directly on topic, I can't see the point of setting up a Linux Mint vs Ubuntu opposition. You have been a member of this site for some time, and have made a large number of posts (admittedly, largely in your own threads, and many of them these strange off-topic posts, trying to stir up some opposition where none need exist), you should be able to install both and take a look. From that, you should be able to decide which you like best. That will be the one that you like the best, and that is something on which you are in a far better position to determine than we could ever be.

Of course it does not then allow you to then try to set up "Round 2, the Winner vs Linpus", although it is unclear how the lack of that second round is a disadvantage to anyone reading this thread.

1 members found this post helpful.

I've marked this post as helpful, because it's a further indication to everybody that TigerLinux is a nuisance/troll.

no harm asking