Ubuntu and Automatix

Scott angrykeyboarder at angrykeyboarder.com
Fri Mar 17 12:53:18 GMT 2006

Andreas Lloyd spake thusly on 03/17/2006 03:31 AM:
> 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.

That makes perfect sense especialy since "Linux for Human Beings" makes
it appear that Ubuntu is  "Linux dor Dummies".  People aren't interested
in spending a lot of time hunting down packages they just want them
installed quick and easy.  After all that stuff came with thier Windows
(or Mac) -baed computer to begin with.

> 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 
> confirm that).
> 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?

Ubuntu can't be offically associated with i as long as a script is going
to allow you to install w32codecs & libsvdscss, t, lest they get
themselves in deep lega doo-doo.

© 2006 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved

More information about the sounder mailing list