advocate it on the basis that you do not need to install codecs as if this
is some kind of virtue. Not installing proprietary drivers and codecs in
Ubuntu is a conscious decision of Ubuntu based on principle as I said
before. When you install Ubuntu it is free of EULAs to click through. when
you add the restricted extras you click through some EULAs. If they included
restricted software and skipped the EULAs then it would be unethical. Any
virtue is in the Ubuntu position which Mint users abuse continually. Mint's
attitude re: proprietary drivers and codecs like its users seems to be based
on laziness and in the long run will work against Linux users.
I find it entirely hypocritical that the US under the guise of ACTA is
pushing the rest of the world most of which do NOT accept the idea of
software patents and DRM to adopt harsh penalties and Mint which is a US
distribution and many Mint users are as well seem to ignore the issue of
software licenses. I am concerned about limits to my freedom and see this
license issue as a threat.
I do not like to see Mint users taking advantage of Ubuntu's ethical stand
and am pointing that out. Mint IS Ubuntu late. They take Ubuntu's work and
re-brand it and add some of their own things most of which are useless. I
hate their menu, BTW. I did mention the backup tool and domain manager, but
I don't use either.
Ubuntu is based on Debian as you say, but it is not the same situation.
Ubuntu is based on Sid but Ubuntu maintains its own repositories and
recompiles because as you know Debian does not have six month release
schedules. Most Sid packages will not work directly with Ubuntu. Secondly
Ubuntu works closely with Debian and contributes back to their project.
Finally, Ubuntu produces much innovative and new work such as Ubuntu One,
Software Centre, MeMenu, Launchpad (which many distributions now use to fix
bugs) and PPAs. BTW, what does Mint give back to Ubuntu? If they really want
to be a grown up distribution then they should maintain their own
repositories. Instead they just ride on Ubuntu's coat tails and then say
that they are better.
I repeat that I am not anti-Mint and do recommend it. It is no better than
Ubuntu which is why I call it Ubuntu late. It is often passed off as better
because of the codecs issue which is taking advantage of Ubuntu unfairly. It
is often alleged that Mint is Ubuntu done right by Mint users and that is
pure garbage. It is less than Ubuntu IMO. Yes, they do add some things, but
it is utilitarian things that you can find better tools for in the repos.
Ubuntu is the leader, not only for Mint but for most distributions. They are
taking all of the risks and Mint is capitalising on that by having its users
go around making outrageous assertions that cannot be backed up.
In the past I have taken Mint users to task for saying that Mint does a
better job of detecting hardware. This is not true. What Mint does is
provide proprietary drivers when Ubuntu may provide open sourced ones. Again
it comes down to Ubuntu standing up for the open source community and being
trashed by Mint users for doing so.
I find this tiresome to have to point out the basics of the open source
community to Mint users. Mint has been around long enough now that it needs
to be held accountable. I stand by everything that I wrote.
Here is a clue that you are an outsider to open source: EULAs not being
read. This is Windows behaviour and it is garbage. That is how many Windows
users end up with things on their computer that they do not want. Linux has
few EULAs because when something is covered by the Creative Commons or GNU
it is assumed. When you see a EULA in Linux it should be a red flag. It is
out of place. As something out of place it should get your attention, if it
doesn't then you need to look at why.
Most Linux users are concerned about software licenses. Many developers
labour to bring Linux out under the GNU licence and make it available for
free for our protection and advantage. Proprietary licenses work against us.
Look at any problem in Linux today and it can be traced back to a license
issue. Proprietary drivers, Skype problems, proprietary codecs all are
things affect users but we cannot work on them because of their closed
nature. Linux invariably gets the dirty end of the stick when it comes to
proprietary software because of our stance on open source or free software.
The only thing in our control is open source software. Having more
proprietary is not a good thing. It means that it is closed and if it does
not work then tough luck.
I will admit to using proprietary drivers and codecs. However, I actually do
pay attention to EULAs. When I was a Windows user I did this as well and I
turned down more than one piece of software when I read the small print and
realised that they wanted to install some spyware of something else. Not
only is it good practise, but it is the right thing to do.
I like to be in control of what goes onto my computer. You should hear me
when I get on Ubuntu's case about Mono. At least I am consistent in my
complaining. To understand it you need to know where I am coming from. I
ignore many references to Mint. If Mint users what to avoid my ire then do
not say that it is better than Ubuntu because it isn't and do not hold up
its stance on codecs as a virtue.
When I look at Mint I find it lacking. I admit to not using it recently, but
then again I abandoned MEPIS when it switched to Ubuntu core. Why run
something dependent of something else when you can have the real thing?
Loyal, this is not a personal criticism of you, but a general peeve. Every
once in a while I save all of the little gibes from Mint users up and let it
fly. Mint users need to know that part of being in a community is to respect
the principles of other distributions and not to try to raid their base by
alleging that it is better than distro X. If Mint is to be successful then
they need to continue to build on what they do differently. Talk about its
tools. Talk about its menu. Talk about its look and feel. Do not say that it
has the biggest repositories simply because it has what Ubuntu has plus
their own few things. That only irritates Ubuntu users. Do not talk about
codecs and proprietary drivers because in the open source world this rubs
many people the wrong way. Perhaps you never thought of it that way, but it
does. I take issue with their laissez faire attitude regarding licenses and
aside from that I recommend Mint. I will continue to keep Mint users from
abusing Ubuntu as long as I am a user of Ubuntu.
Roy
On 27 June 2010 22:48, loyal_barber <loyal_barber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wow Roy. I usually respect your posts, but this one is so far
> off base I cannot let it go. Hopefully, you were just having a
> bad day.
>
>
> --- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com <LINUX_Newbies%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Roy <linuxcanuck@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mint is Ubuntu late because it comes out one month after Ubuntu.
>
> Uh, isn't the fact that Mint is built on Ubuntu pretty much going
> to force Mint to come after Ubuntu? I run both Ubuntu and Mint
> and to describe Mint as a follower just because it is based on
> Ubuntu and therefore comes out a month later is just wrong.
>
>
> > It is just
> > one step to install the codecs and not an impediment to a new user. Even
> > Windows does not provide all of the codecs that you need.
> >
> > Ubuntu is a leader. Mint is a follower. You can choose what you want to
> run,
> > but should know what is what.
>
> So Ubuntu is a follower also since it is built on Debian? The
> logic does not hold in either case. Ubuntu is just based on Debian.
> It is not a follower because of it. Same with Mint.
>
> By the way, I have heard people state that Ubuntu moved the
> windows buttons to emulate a Mac. I personally do not believe that
> but if there is any truth to that, Ubuntu would be a follower.
>
>
> > Mint sees what Ubuntu is not doing and reacts
> > to that. Ubuntu looks forward and tries to innovate. When Ubuntu switched
> > window buttons to the left it was no surprise that Mint stayed on the
> right.
> > No surprise there.
>
> And this is the comment that made me write. Mint's desktop has
> nothing whatever to do with what Ubuntu is doing. The Mint desktop
> is the same regardless of what Ubuntu is doing. The Mint desktop
> is developed totally independently and is added to the Ubuntu
> base after Ubuntu comes out and the Ubuntu desktop is ripped out.
> If you look at Mint 6-9 you will note that the menu and desktop
> have not changed dramatically but LOOK NOTHING LIKE the versions
> of Ubuntu that were the basis.
>
> >
> > I do not wish to malign Mint
>
> Sure you do and it is obvious. You just need to say so.
>
>
> > but it is not all that it is cracked up to be.
>
> In your opinion. I have no idea why Mint ticks you off, but it does
> and it is obvious.
>
>
> > Most people are lazy and Mint exploits that.
>
> OK, I guess I am lazy then. Or maybe I prefer a desktop that works
> beautifully. I will let you decide.
>
>
> > Ubuntu's stance on non-free
> > codecs and drivers is based on principle.
>
> No offense but it is totally disingenuous to on one hand say that
> the codes are one click away and to say that not having them is
> principal. Principal would be that you don't allow it to be
> installed.
>
> > They could provide them but they
> > make the user accept responsibility for them based on their personal
> > principles and their country's laws. Mint does not appear to have any
> > principles to stand on except to capitalise on the laziness of users and
> > users who extol this are missing the point. You may be flaunting the law
> by
> > using non-free codecs depending if your country such as the US recognises
> > software patents. This is why Ubuntu walks the fence. I have nothing
> against
> > Mint but Ubuntu should not be penalised for taking a principled stand and
> > Mint should not be given a free ride.
>
> Again, see my comment on disingenuous. Do you mean that every
> person who installs the codecs on Ubuntu fully understands the
> legal and ethical choice they are making? Bullsh*t. The user
> decides they want their stuff to work, find out how, and install
> it.
>
>
> > I look forward to Mint being
> > innovative and doing something new and worth bragging about. Anybody can
> > copy someone else's work and change the branding and then flaunt the law.
> > The only things that someone may want Mint for that you cannot do in
> Ubuntu
> > IMO is the Domain Blocker and Backup Tool and I have no use for either.
> So I
> > take a pass on Mint and stick with Ubuntu.
> >
>
> Nothing wrong with sticking with Ubuntu. But being so biased when
> having obviously never done any deep research just sounds petty.
> Have you seen the software manager in Mint 9? To say it is far
> superior to any other software manager is not doing it justice.
> I am a die hard Synaptic user and the value of this tool won me
> over.
>
> How about the menu? More intuitive? Check. Can modify it in
> place? Check. Easier to navigate than tying to remember "what
> top level menu do I use to start?" Check. Remember I have been
> using Ubuntu for a year and a half. CentOS about that long. I
> don't throw this out lightly.
>
> What about the backup tool? Completely redone for version 9. BTW,
> what were they following Ubuntu on there?
>
> New for version 9 desktop settings tool? Mint has that. It is
> a big improvement on old versions in Mint. Following Ubuntu there?
> Not at all.
>
>
> > I would recommend SimplyMEPIS (Debian based with KDE), PCLinuxOS (unless
> you
> > want 64-bit), Ubuntu and Mint. Notice that I recommend Mint, but I do not
> > give it credit for things that it does not deserve credit for. With
> Ubuntu
> > installing the restricted extras is easy and simply done and with it you
> are
> > joining the largest community and it is a leader in the Linux world. With
> > Mint you get Ubuntu a month later with some things thrown in, some of
> value
> > and some not. It is not a leader, but reactionary. They follow Ubuntu or
> > take an even more conservative approach and stick with the status quo.
>
> Well, I pretty much stomped on this assertion. No need to keep
> piling it on. Ubuntu is a wonderful distro. I use it myself
> and if people prefer it, I have no problem. However DO A LITTLE
> RESEARCH on Mint before the slams. Don't just spit out baseless
> opinion.
>
> >
> > <snip>
>
> >
> > If you think that I am being hard on Mint then think carefully about the
> > principles involved and why Ubuntu does things its way. Usability is its
> > main focus.
>
> You mean like moving the minimize/maximize/close buttons to the
> left for no apparent reason?
>
>
> > But that usability should not be at the expense of the rights of
> > others. It is a trade off and Ubuntu recognises that and makes the
> drivers
> > and codecs available, but it forces the user to agree to the EULAs and
> > accept responsibility. <snip>
>
> Uh, you could download the Mint version without the codecs, but
> I am sure you knew that having done so much research. Come on Roy,
> you normally do better than this. Where did this blind bias come
> from? As far is EULAs? 95 to 99% of people never read them. So
> you can say the people agree with them, but in reality, they just
> click <Agree> because not to do so means they don't get what they
> want.
>
> >
> > Roy
> > <snip>
>
> Just know Roy that tomorrow I will be back with you. Your posts
> are normally very good and very well informed which is why I so
> shook my head on this one.
>
> Loyal
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please email LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com & you will be removed.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
LINUX_Newbies-digest@yahoogroups.com
LINUX_Newbies-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment