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

Eric Dunbar eric.dunbar at
Tue Oct 3 23:54:05 BST 2006

On 03/10/06, Jan Claeys wrote:
> Op di, 03-10-2006 te 07:50 -0400, schreef Eric Dunbar:
> > There is in fact EXTREMELY little difference, conceptually, between
> > Ubuntu and Freespire. Both are based on open source software. Neither
> > REQUIRES proprietary software to function -- Freespire provides and
> > HIGHLIGHTS a full 'open source'-only version for the "free software
> > purist" (I might be slightly modifying the wording of that quote).
> >
> > 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.
> Please google for "ubuntu restricted repository", "ubuntu multiverse
> repository" and "ubuntu commercial repository" instead of believing
> everything Freespire says...  ;-)

I don't care what Freespire says, just what the Ubuntuigots say ;-)

> Not that we have legal DVD playing yet, but at least MP3, MPEG4 and Real
> are legally available.  (And more will follow, I guess.)

And, the same applies (presumably) to Freespire. And, as for 'legal'
MP3 -- that's a little debatable since no one can reasonably sell a
distro with that code and gross $100K/a (basically everything but a
mom and pop operation cannot get away with that).

But, anyway, that's not what the Ubuntu FUDers (who are unrelated to
Canonical or Ubuntu... other than as users) are trying for -- they
seem quite happy to distort and ignore (taking a page from the MS
playbook, it seems).

More information about the sounder mailing list