Comments on: S04E02 – Stranger in a Strange Land

By: Andy Piper

Andy Piper — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:29:00 +0000

I often listen to UUPC on double-speed on my iPhone (it makes it fit more neatly into my commute time)… but Laura CeeZedTab doesn’t come across terribly clearly that way, I just discovered. True fact!

Really nice work, all, on the new live format. I’ve not yet been able to join the IRC channel as I’ve been busy for all 2 (and as of Tuesday, 3) of the live broadcasts so far, but I’m sure I’ll be along to heckle before long.

Very much enjoyed the discussion on Richard Stallman’s place in things these days, and I agreed with much of what was said about patronising and childish rebranding etc. It’s absolutely fine to have principled visionaries like Richard standing as the “extreme” examples (meant in a positive way) of where free software comes from and why it’s important, but I do think that we increasingly recognise the need for compromises, and it’s terribly important to have a good, media-friendly, public face/voice on the whole thing that can engage in friendly debate. In a world of pervasive media and celebrity it’s increasingly important, in fact.

Unsure whether I’m surprised about the limited airplay you gave to the CanoniGNOMEAppIndicatorGATE saga. It has been a big deal in the developer community (if not the user one) and it’s really tough for me to stick with Canonical through the whole thing. That’s mostly with my developer and community hat on though, rather than as a user. Interesting stuff anyway.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:54:00 +0000

It isn’t that simple. Growing the userbase isn’t necessarily the top priority if it comes at the expense of software freedom. It grates with me that the way to make this free software acceptable is to add closed, unsupportable, shiny stuff that does not allow you to do interesting things with it. And it if flat wrong to say that Windows comes with Flash out of the box because it just doesn’t. People just believe it does because a) the installation process is simple and they forgot they did it, or b) an OEM or someone else installed it for them. I think it is totally right to give the user the option not to install closed stuff because by virtue of it’s closedness it is second rate software, if you value the freedom to inspect it, learn from it, fix it and adapt it.

By: JamesF

JamesF — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:40:00 +0000

I think this idea and the verbage are dead on. If growing the user base is the priority, first impressions are what it’s all about. As was also mentioned in the show early on, users want their machines to “just work” (like their washing machines, right Alan P?) For 99.9% of average new users, having to install something so that the OS can perform a task that other OS’s can perform straight out of the box is disconcerting and leaves an impression of deficiency… “why does this OS not come with the basic stuff needed to work right? What else does it NOT do?” If it’s not possible to do away with the check box altogether and include these codecs automatically, then definitely check it by default. (And before someone jumps down my throat, I personally do understand and value the concept of open source; I’m commenting, as mentioned, on the main goal of growth, and I think it’s the sad truth that winning over new users and educating the masses on open source are exclusive endeavors in today’s market.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:11:00 +0000

But this is now 3 checkboxes during installation with no end-user benefit
(as you agree that “the codec installs are largely seamless” – so why have the checkboxes at install ?)

Also, this goes back to my original post

> The whole issue of convenience vs. free software ideals
> could be avoided just by sticking with the packagekit dialog

Canonical muddying the “we only ship free software” line over this is silly
especially as it’s not even necessary

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:39:00 +0000

agreed, it isn’t packagekit not working, it is packagekit not being given the opportunity to work. https://bugs.launchpad.net/null/+bug/387444 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubufox/+bug/161818
I agree with you that the codec installs are largely seamless, however these are Free software anyway and are just a patent issue in some places. I don’t see any compelling reason not to have the box ticked for them anyway. The big user facing benefit is Flash working as expected and that is the nasty closed one. I can see merit in having two or even three checkboxes
[X] install media codecs (Open Source but possibly patent encumbered in some jurisdictions)
[X] download and install Adobe Flash (closed source)
[X] download and install Skype (closed source)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:58:00 +0000

That’s not “packagekit not working”
That’s something else intervening further up the chain

And this doesn’t affect local stuff (Ie. playing a local mp3 file)

I’ll admit I’ve never had this “webpage queries browser” issue,
but surely if this is an issue, it’s not beyond the wit of man to patch the browser to always respond “Yes I support Flash”,
then flash object sent to client and packagekit jumps in with dialog asking user if he wants to install

I just think that the one-off dialogs for codec / plugin installs are a better solution than including them as default in every install

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:43:00 +0000

because packagekit doesn’t work. If a simple website just includes a flash object then yes, it works, it goes and finds the flash installer and sorts it all out. Great. If a user goes to YouTube or BBC iPlayer then some javascript in the page queries the browser’s capabilities before attempting to load the flash object. The browser correctly responds saying it can’t do flash right now, then the javascript takes you over to adobe.com where non-repo based .deb breakage awaits you, packagekit doesn’t get an opportunity to sort it out for you properly in that instance. The end user who does not recall having to install flash on windows (because however it happened it was more than a week ago) thus presumes Ubuntu to be at fault.

By: Somebody

Somebody — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:29:00 +0000

I think the 3rd party software check box should be UNchecked by default because it is a legal grey area*, and it is soooo very easy to check the box yourself (if necessary, make the box even more obvious in the installer, but I am going on the assumption that even “new users” who install Ubuntu ~themselves~ are not totally stupid).

Now, that said, I think Ubuntu should also have a custom disc (or flash drive) image build farm similar to OpenSUSE. Interested users could configure the image just the way they wanted, then download and burn it onto media. This would include adding PPA’s to the apt source file. Give new users a sane default, and let power users customize their image to their heart’s content.

* If there is even the slightest chance enabling it by default could harm Ubuntu legally, and potentially take away a distro choice for us, I would rather see the users, rather than the distro, shoulder the legal responsibility to check off a simple box.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:05:00 +0000

I like the show. Well done.

One quick question. where does the music come from that you use? It is quite catchy and I NEED TO KNOW.

Also have you noticed how Mark Johnson and Alan Pope are identical twins. If you don’t believe me check out the Presenter Biographies (unless somebody has fixed the duplicate picture.)

Also 723831 is not a bug, but then neither is bug 1 but at least that made me smile.

By: Beefy Miracle

Beefy Miracle — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:47:00 +0000

I’m not seeing anywhere in that link where people are complaining about how Ubuntu names its releases. Puzzling.

By: scouser73

scouser73 — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:34:00 +0000

If Canonical want people to come over to use Ubuntu and I assume that they do, then yes it should be switched on by default.
Why limit the user experience, at least make it an opt-out system and have Ubuntu be able to display it’s full potential without newcomers unaware that they need to make sure it’s checked.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:08:00 +0000

Re: Restricted extras as default
Why is this being implemented at all?

What’s wrong with the packagekit dialog that pops up Eg. when you launch a media file that needs a non-free codec, asking whether you want to install it
The whole issue of convenience vs. free software ideals could be avoided just by sticking with the packagekit dialog

It seems odd that, on the service management side we’re moving from an “everything up front” style init system to an on-demand style system
Then at the same time, on the media codec side, moving from an on-demand system to everything being installed by default

I realise that the init system and media codecs have absolutely nothing in common
But you’d think the same underlying logic that makes Upstart a better init implementation over SysVinit would make packagekit on-demand codec installs a better implementation over defaulting to install non-free codecs