ethical ubuntu

Quim Gil qgil at
Wed Jun 14 09:32:19 BST 2006

I've got in the mid of an ethical debate about the Ubuntu default
installation, and perhaps you can provide some more info. 

The debate where I com from is focusing in the non-free packages
installed by default, with apparently no choice for the user (?) and no
info provided (??).

There is this example of a Ubuntu Dapper default install:

xxxxx at zzzzz:~$ vrms
        Non-free packages installed on zzzzz
        linux-386 Complete Linux kernel on 386.
        linux-restricted-modules- Non-free Linux 2.6.15 modules on 386
        linux-restricted-modules- Restricted Linux modules on 386.
        linux-restricted-modules- Non-free Linux 2.6.15 modules helper
        ttf-gentium Gentium TrueType font
        5 non-free packages, 0.5% of 1068 installed packages.

The Gentium TrueType font is like free as for today by FSF standards, no
problem. About the rest:

- Are these modules installed always, or just depending on the devices
found by the installer?

- Is the user receiving any kind of information about these non-free
packages being used during the installation process?

- Is it a way for the user tu avoid in any way the installation of these
packages, either through a pre-install menu or any kind of optional
configuration during the installation process?


- The user of this example had apparently a 100% Debian system working
on the same hardware. Would this mean that he can *probably* (I'm not
asking "surely") remove the non-free kernel packages without damaging
the system?

I know about the plans, I just want
to know these details about the current Dapper behaviour. Thank you.

Quim Gil /// |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Aix=F2?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_=E9s?= una part
	d'un missatge, signada digitalment
Url :

More information about the sounder mailing list