ethical ubuntu

[Chanchao]

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:01 +0100, Jack Wasey wrote:

> I'd like to invite comments on the new spec:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EthicalInfo
> 
> "Ubuntu has a clear policy on using open and free standards. Making installation 
> of Skype and several other applications easy undermines this policy. 

OUch!!  I think that's very unfortunate wording of making a point that I
essentially agree with.   "Not making it easy" sounds like 'making it
hard', or intentionally erecting artificial obstacles in the way of what
a user (might) want to do, or at the very least NOT doing things to make
computers easy. (Keeping in mind that computers and Linux especially are
already perceived as being hard to use.)

Plus I think you should always express something as a positive, i.e.
'recommend' something, rather than 'oppose' the thing that's not being
recommended. 

"Besides", a user might wonder, "what other things may have been made
artificially hard?" "is that why my modem doesn't work?"  etc.

Besides, using Skype is NOT 'not easy' in any way.  It goes like:

- buddy goes like "hey I'm on Skype, we can now phone for 
  free, get it!!"

- user goes to skype.com, skype.com sees that user is using Linux and
offers their Linux application for download.  Ubuntu is mentioned
specifically, so the user downloads the appropriate .deb installation
file.

- user double-clicks the .deb.  Ubuntu automatically realises that one
additional package is required (qt-something), downloads it, and
installs the lot in seconds.

That is NOT not easy. That is just like installing it on any other
system, be it Red Hat or Windows.  So in addition to being an
unfortunate way to present the issue of not recommending proprietary
formats, it's ALSO factually incorrect, because it IS easy.

> Some software or services have poor ethical reputations. 

Again that's a negative.  Don't.  And, WHAT poor ethical reputations?
It's used in animal testing?  They support the  Burmese junta?  Illegal
logging?  Destruction of the environment?  Bill O'Reilly?  etc.

I think I would avoid the word ethical altogether, it means different
things to different people in different situations.

Be positive.   Advocate the merits of free/open formats and free/open
software.  But don't try to put your soap box in between the user and
her granny in Argentina who's happy as a clam she managed to get Skype
working.

That, I think, would not be ethical.

Cheers,
Chanchao