Ubuntu and Automatix

[Andreas Lloyd]

Venkat Raghavan wrote:

>>Why don't you just work with the DocTeam to make the docs IN ubuntu better,
>>so EasyUbuntu isn't necessary?
>>    
>>
>All the stuff installed by Automatix/EasyUbuntu/your favourite script is 
>either documented on the wiki or easily installable from Universe or 
>Multiverse. 
>That said, documentation is pretty much useless if people are not prepared to 
>read them. The documentation in dapper is much better than in breezy. Somehow  
>i get the feeling that these scripts are going away anytime soon., though I 
>wish they would and people would read documentation.
>  
>

As I see it, most people find it a lot easier to use a script to install 
a lot of these non-free elements, simply because they expected the 
system to contain these elements in the first place and they want to add 
it as quickly as possible.

If one of these scripts - EasyUbuntu? - is safe and solid, then why not 
refer to it in the documentation and make it available in the 
repositories? The EasyUbuntu script itself is GPL, so it wouldn't that 
be a problem (though I actually had to download the sourcecode to 
confirm that).

I mean, if we have long documentation of how to install non-free codecs 
and applications on Ubuntu, then why can't we add a script that does the 
same thing and then explain to people how to use it?

I'm sure that would seem a lot easier to the average user than having to 
install them manually using the command line. I know EasyUbuntu or 
Automatix or any of these aren't the finished article, but ideally, 
wouldn't it be better to have script that is somehow associated 
officially with Ubuntu to avoid the current situation where many new 
users' experience of Ubuntu is shaped by a third-party script?

Andreas