Freespire's Google ads: "What is Ubuntu Missing?"

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Wednesday 04 October 2006 00:45, Eric Dunbar wrote:
> > > The primary difference is that Freespire offers the OPTION to install
> > > proprietary software that is 100% illegal if it were done through the
> > > 'open source' model. In most jurisdictions to which members of these
> > > lists belong playing DVDs without an appropriate licence is illegal.
> >
> > we are in agreement here.
> >
> > > > not that it
> > > > is a bad thing. I happen to disagree with it, because I prefer
> > > > software to be free,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately most of the tempest in this particular teapot does not
> > > stem from such a clearly articulated dislike of the notion of
> > > proprietary software/formats (as you put forth) but, instead the
> > > tempest is because of dislike of the company itself and the
> > > fabrication of "facts" regarding said companies behaviour.
> >
> > Of course, and that I disagree with, however I still disapprove of
> > freespire's approach. They have a right to take it on, and people have a
> > right to use it, but I don't like it, and not because I oppose closed
> > source software on ideological grounds.
>
> How is Freespire's approach different from Ubuntu's? They're adding
> value to open source software and using that to generate income.
> Canonical's business model is to provide the software for free and
> support the users of that software. Linspire's is to provide the
> software for free and support the users by adding software that is
> LEGALLY UNAVAILABLE through free channels.
>
can't you see that these are fundamentally different business models? 
Canonical sells a service, Linspire sells a product.
> If every Tom, Dick and Harry went the free software route and
> supported only free/open source software there wouldn't be an
> encrypted DVD player, we wouldn't have legal (and supported)
> MP3/multi-media playback, etc. Also, there wouldn't be a whole lot of
> room for Canonical to support Ubuntu without ongoing cash injections
> from the SABDFL.
>
Like I said, I personally try to avoid proprietary software. It doesn't mean I 
don't use it, but it does mean that I will find an alternative if I can.
> I presume you also don't visit most internet sites because they run on
> MS or Apple servers or have content created by closed source
> programmes, that you don't communicate with people who use proprietary
> e-mailers, or view images manipulated by Photoshop or...  ;-)
>
see above, but in any case, there is a name for what you are doing here: 
ridiculous ad absurdum. It means to take something to its logical extreme so 
that it is no longer logical.

> I'm thinking you and I are talking in circles ;-P
>
that's true ;) maybe we should stop, we've both voiced our opinion, and this 
will presently start to just become noise for other readers of the list, if 
it hasn't already.
> Eric.

Sasha