how to get libdvdcss and w32codecs through apt

[Evan Leibovitch]

Andrew Hunter wrote:
>>>> Then again, I was under the impression that packages from even the
>>>> universe and multiverse sections of the "official" repos were also
>>>> unsupported.
>>>>         
>>> Only unsupported for commercial support from Canonical.
>>>       
>> Sorry, I can't parse this. Please explain.
>>     
>
> Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, aims to make money through selling 
> support subscriptions. They will only _fully_ support packages in the Main 
> and Restricted repos. As Jamion said, they are not totally unsupported, but 
> only by the maintainers and the community at large.
>   
Does there exist, somewhere, a chart that details the characteristics of
the various names of repo "types":
- which are supported by Canonical?
- which are non-free?
- which are packaged by the community?
- what draws the line between what is merely non-free, and that which is
unavailable at Ubunbtu servers?

This information appears to exist, but it's scattered and inconsistent
and sometimes hidden from view.

>> While you're at it, maybe then you can help me understand why
>> un-intuitive names like "multiverse" are used intead of clear language
>> like "supported", "unsupported", or even codes.
>>     
>
> Names are names.I you have an issue with how something  is named, you might 
> consider raising this with the development team.
I'm raising it here and have no interest in taking it further. If
someone here sees any merit behind what I've said, feel welcome to use
it. Or not. I'm already part of more "communities" than I care to count;
I am putting the most effort, through CLUE, to keep Canadian law sane
wrt issues such as DRM and software patents. I've stated an opinion here
but have no intention to make it a crusade, and will gladly drop it if
my views are offensive.

> Main = the core of the OS
>
> Restricted = not in main due to licencing issues but necessary for things to "just work".
>   
I'm honestly not trying to be dense here, but is this really the case?
Will Ubuntu not "just work" if limited to only free software?

> Universe = community supported software, also the largest repository
>
> Multiverse = Non-free license software, example: Flash and Java (before it was GPL'd).
>   
OK. So far, everything is reasonably intuitive until we got to multiverse.

>> (I mean, if the "universe" is well-known to mean "everything", how can
>> you name something to mean more than that? Clearly the word "universe"
>> was badly chosen -- and then the error was compounded by creating the
>> term "multiverse".)
>>     
>
> Sorry if you think I am being a jerk but here is the definition of  the Multiverse concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)
>   
You're not being a jerk at all, and I really do appreciate your efforts
and patience in bearing with my questions (which I'm sure come across as
jerky to some others).

I hope you understand my irritation at the choice of a term that has
relevance only to quantum physicists and comic book fans. While the
definition at Wikipedia is appreciated, it's equally significant to me
that there's no definition of the word at dictionary.com. IOW, it's not
a commonly understood term like "restricted", "core" or "universe".

My point is that the frequent and common use of esoterica (who the hell
knows and an "eft" is, without looking it up?) is part of a ongoing
struggle to be "clever". This is found throughout open source culture
(ie, self-referencial acronyms such as "GNU") but offered in the extreme
at Ubuntu. I, as a single person obviously going against the tide, have
no chance in heck to change this. But as someone who has worked in IT
for more than 25 years, in large and small companies translating English
to technobabble and back, in my opinion this kind of "cleverness" is not
very appreciated in the mainstream.

>
> Silly and elitist is just a point of view. Also, might I ask for proof in your claim that Ubuntu falls behind most other distros?
>   
It's an opinion, based on my experience, having used more than a dozen
distros since 1995 (and a dozen flavours of Unix before that), and being
a paid observer over the years for a number of media outlets including
ZDnet and (currently) Computing Canada. I've teed off many people by
saying unpopular things in print -- especially when I once referred to
Apple as "open source's black hole" in a ZDNet column -- but I've been
proven in the long run right far more often than wrong.

I am hardly an indiscriminate basher. Ubuntu is by far the most
technically advanced and innovative of the distributions, and the one
that has made the most effort in making the software itself as usable
and widely accessible as possible. That too is my opinion, and the
reason that it's now my distro of choice for myself and clients. I hope
my views can be taken constructively, as I see Ubuntu's cultural
immaturity -- as opposed to any technical issue -- as the most
significant obstacle to its adoption for business. I've heard it from
vendors and I've heard it from clients. And I say what I do in the
genuine interest of reducing obstacles to adoption.

But no, I've taken no surveys, I've gathered no statistical proof. If
this provides an excuse to dismiss my POV, so be it.

> I have had to deal with people who believe that open source meant that anyone could change the software on their system (re: my father). The best we can 
> try and do is educate.
Absolutely agreed. It helps if the organization didn't seem to go out of
its way to make that education task, in some ways, harder than it needs
to be.

- Evan