On 13/02/07, Matthew East <<a href="mailto:mdke@ubuntu.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">mdke@ubuntu.com</a>> wrote:<div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi, On Sun, February 11, 2007 11:12 pm, Philip Wyett wrote: > On 09/02/07, Dean Sas <<a href="mailto:dean@deansas.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">dean@deansas.org </a>> wrote: >> >> Philip Wyett wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I have been reading about the Ubuntu / Linspire CNR deal and I have >> > some serious reservations about it. >> > >> > Will CNR be part of a default desktop installation? >> >> Not according to the FAQ that was released with the press release. We >> are to get some "CNR like" features eventually. I imagine this could tie >> in to the new totem hook which prompts you to enable multiverse and >> install codecs when playing patent encumbered videos, only perhaps >> referring you to CNR rather than the legally questionable packages. > > > Well... In the FAQ we can see "CNR is added to the standard Ubuntu > software > installation method to complement existing functionality". This covers a > multitude of sins and could mean many implementation methods. > > Someone needs to come out and honestly say what is the initial plans at > this > time; and make sure that person does not work in any PR or marketing > department. You are more likely to get a response from such a person by posting to an appropriate mailing list. There is nothing -uk specific about this discussion, it should continue in Sounder (cc:ed).</blockquote><div> Raising an issue or thought of this kind is applicable on the UK list. If it eventually moves elsewhere is a matter of evolution of the conversation. There was nothing wrong at all with starting the conversation on the UK list. </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">My opinion is that I'm fairly confident the developers know the disadvantages of adding a separate and parallel installation software package, and will ensure that any benefits brought by this new feature will be appropriately integrated into the current Ubuntu setup. For me, the basic requirements are: 1. Integration with gnome-app-install and existing Ubuntu channels; and 2. Flagging up the commercial nature of the software available.</blockquote><div>  Though I do have confidence, I have less confidence with developers having common sense and making changes in the best manner. Being a developer myself, we often do things that we know and understand and completely miss the point for the average user. The average user wants a solution that is consistent, simple and any addition of CNR I feel will not help in this regard. Think of what is simplest for most. We have syanptic... yes it needs a lot of improvement on the app level with app naming and descriptions, but it is a consistent and fairly simple method that should be extended. The deal should really have been Canonical doing a deal with Linspire that gives us the code that can be built and added too a specific repository for this kind of content and completely controlled by the Canonical. This maybe the eventual case, but who knows with no word out of Canonical and us all being left to look at a poor FAQ on the other vendors site. </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Your post raises a sensible concern about the way that these new announcements are communicated. So I'm cc:ing the Canonical Communications Manager. I don't think that the Ubuntu community ever really gets this information in the right way - technical implementations of new commercial and marketing policies is something that it is extremely important for the Ubuntu community to hear from the right source, given Ubuntu's emphasis on open development. Unfortunately, the general practice seems to be to plan these things behind closed doors (understandable) and then leave the general community guessing (and worrying) about the technical details and non-marketing consequences (not understandable).</blockquote><div> I agree we get poor information. Something the Community Manager 'really' needs to look at. </div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> The consequence of this practice is that my view that the implementation of this feature will be done in the Right Way has to be based on trust, rather than on reliable information having been provided. That trust is something I am always willing to give to Canonical based on past experience of them doing the right thing for Ubuntu, but I am always slightly uncomfortable whenever I have to fall back on it. I know that it's hard to marry up Canonical's business activities with an open development community, but with increased communication I believe that improvements can be made. </blockquote><div> We should not need to live on trust and hope. This is a community distribution with a Community Council. Major changes or additions like this should go to them and debated within the wider community. </div> <div>/me will leave alone the rush for eye candy that is currently in progress and only supported on a few cards with in most cases proprietary drivers. :-/ Regards Phl  </div> </div>