everyday multimedia not supported in Ubuntu (Re: 3 days from the release, 3 machines, a few issues.

[Ed Sutherland]

My concept of a Linux or Ubuntu wizard would not necessarily concentrate 
on automating an illegal process or a procedure violating a 
distribution's rules of practice. Rather, the wizards would automate 
commonly-asked procedures: setting up multimedia support, having your 
browser display a certain filetype or adding your Windows partition to 
the desktop (instead of instructions to apt this file or add that 
repository or search for this library.) If a process bumped up against a 
legality or internal ethics question, the user would be notified and she 
would then make the choice.

I know this level of automation goes counter the long-standing Linux 
tradition of seeking, searching and gaining technical expertise, but 
Linux needs to evolve along with the rest of the computing world. As 
computers pass the point where they are only operated by the technical 
elite and 'commoners' are the majority, such flexibility (as is seen 
with much of Ubuntu) needs to be adopted by every Linux distribution 
which desires to go beyond the realm of hobbyist niche.

Ed


Matthew S-H wrote:

> I don't in any way intend to put on you any pressure, but I would be 
> interested to know how feasible the "wizard" idea is.
> Obviously, it shouldn't be too hard from a /technical/ point of view, 
> but would it be possible considering legalities?
> It would definitely have to include a long and straightforward list of 
> things you can't do with it (ie: actually /use/ it if you're in most 
> modern countries), but would including a wizard that automatically ran 
> during the install process and had the /ability/ to install such 
> things really be considered as an endorsement?
> Realistically, if companies like LimeWire can be considered not to be 
> endorsing trading of copyrighted material, then surely such a wizard 
> is completely innocent. Then again, LimeWire wouldn't/doesn't have the 
> behemoth of Microsoft on its back trying to put out al competition 
> (not that the RIAA and MPAA are so small either).
>
> Anyway, I was just wondering how feasible it would be. And I hope I 
> didn't state /too/ much of the obvious...
>
>
> ~Matt
>
>
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:35:38PM +0200, Philippe Landau wrote:
>
>         Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
>             The components of Ubuntu are quite clearly explained on
>             the website,
>             including their support status. If there is some way that
>             you feel this
>             could be made more clear, let us know.
>
>         the problems with multimedia should be mentioned on the front
>         page until
>         there is an easy way for everybody to resolve them, like a
>         post install
>         script provided by plf-ubuntu.
>
>
>     I think that's a bit extreme, don't you? Most every other Linux
>     distribution on the planet is in an identical situation, and this
>     is not
>     cause for placing a disclaimer on the front page of the website.
>     That just
>     doesn't seem reasonable.
>
>             There is also extensive information about the complex
>             issues which bear on
>             multimedia support; I see no need to elaborate here.
>
>         even professional offers for help were never taken up here.
>         ubuntu power brokers tend to drop the ball when it becomes hot.
>
>
>     If you would like to dispense with the antagonism and vague
>     accusations, and
>     clearly explain the situation as you perceive it, I am willing to
>     listen.
>     Otherwise, there are much more pressing issues facing Ubuntu at
>     the moment,
>     which need attention.
>
>     -- 
>     - mdz
>
>     -- 
>     ubuntu-users mailing list
>     ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
>     http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>
>