Roy, thank you for this post. I use ubuntu and teach Linux using mainly ubuntu. I agree with you about Mint's ignoring of the licensing issues.
--- In LINUX_Newbies@yahoogroups.com, Roy <linuxcanuck@...> wrote:
>
> I was NOT having a bad day. My problem is not with Mint but Mint USERS who
> 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@...> 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]
>
No comments:
Post a Comment