Ubuntu and Automatix
lloydinho at gmail.com
Fri Mar 17 10:31:42 GMT 2006
Venkat Raghavan wrote:
>>Why don't you just work with the DocTeam to make the docs IN ubuntu better,
>>so EasyUbuntu isn't necessary?
>All the stuff installed by Automatix/EasyUbuntu/your favourite script is
>either documented on the wiki or easily installable from Universe or
>That said, documentation is pretty much useless if people are not prepared to
>read them. The documentation in dapper is much better than in breezy. Somehow
>i get the feeling that these scripts are going away anytime soon., though I
>wish they would and people would read documentation.
As I see it, most people find it a lot easier to use a script to install
a lot of these non-free elements, simply because they expected the
system to contain these elements in the first place and they want to add
it as quickly as possible.
If one of these scripts - EasyUbuntu? - is safe and solid, then why not
refer to it in the documentation and make it available in the
repositories? The EasyUbuntu script itself is GPL, so it wouldn't that
be a problem (though I actually had to download the sourcecode to
I mean, if we have long documentation of how to install non-free codecs
and applications on Ubuntu, then why can't we add a script that does the
same thing and then explain to people how to use it?
I'm sure that would seem a lot easier to the average user than having to
install them manually using the command line. I know EasyUbuntu or
Automatix or any of these aren't the finished article, but ideally,
wouldn't it be better to have script that is somehow associated
officially with Ubuntu to avoid the current situation where many new
users' experience of Ubuntu is shaped by a third-party script?
More information about the sounder