shameful censoring of mono opposition

Remco remco47 at
Tue Jun 9 02:48:52 UTC 2009

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Derek Broughton<derek at> wrote:
> Remco wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Derek Broughton<derek at>
>> wrote:
>>> Remco wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:52 PM, David
>>>> Schlesinger<David.Schlesinger at> wrote:
>>>>> As Derek pointed out, Wine is indeed in the universal repository. You
>>>>> were completely mistaken about it, rendering your argument meaningless.
>>>>> The appropriate response at that point is to say, "I was wrong", not to
>>>>> try to switch to a completely different argument in mid-stream.
>>>>> Nobody's come within a parsec of suggesting that the codecs you mention
>>>>> should be part of the default install.
>>>> I guess you're really not getting my point. I was actually trying to
>>>> let you work that one out by comparing it to the codecs.
>>> That's not an argument, it's a complete misdirection. The
>>> non-free Codecs _aren't_ in Ubuntu repositories, Wine is.
>> You're arguing semantics. I don't care about semantics.
> Sorry, but no.  You are pretending to have a rational discussion, while
> dismissing perfectly valid arguments.

What's your argument against my position? That I maybe made a semantic
cock-up in a throwaway comparison? That's a great one... How does that
relate to Mono?

>> The codecs are
>> not-in-Ubuntu the same way as Wine, because they are not installed,
> No, they are not.  The codecs are NOT in Ubuntu at all.  Show me where they
> exist in the repositories.  Wine is in the repos.

If the codecs are not in the repos, then I'm amazed as to how they got
onto my system. Clearly, the ffmpeg project (yeah, universe) doesn't
exist. Besides, how is the exact location of the codecs relevant? I
can install them in the same way as I install Wine.

>> Wine isn't installed because
>> Mark Shuttleworth doesn't want Ubuntu to be cheap Windows:
> Excuse me, but when did slashdot become an authoritative source of knowledge
> of the workings of Mark Shuttleworth's mind (or of anything else, for that
> matter).  In any case, the first of those simply says Wine won't be
> preinstalled on Dell minis, and the second is even more vague - it says that
> Shuttleworth isn't staking the future of Ubuntu on Wine.  Neither one says
> that Ubuntu will ever _not_ include Wine.

Slashdot is not the source. Look one click further and you'll find the
actual source. You just fell in the same trap as the Wikipedia
naysayers. It's just easy reference. And if you don't want to see this
as the motivation for not including Wine, then so be it. I think it's
pretty clear why Wine is not supposed to be on the default install.


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list