Enabled repositories in default install

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 06:42:26AM +1000, John Skaller wrote:

> Anyhow the Debian names make more sense to me, and it seems
> silly to change them for Ubuntu, since the categorisation concept
> is the same.

The components in Debian (main, contrib, non-free) serve to divide up
software according to licensing terms, separating "Debian" from "not Debian,
but distributed by Debian".  The components in Ubuntu sort packages
according to quality standards as well as licensing terms (and the licensing
guidelines are different), so the Debian names don't apply.  To use them
anyway would be much more confusing.

> I mean really, 'universe' isn't enough so we have
> to go to 'multiverse' .. why not Galactic Empire? :)

"Universe" is the universe of free software.  "Multiverse" further
encompasses the related, but distinct, universe of proprietary software.

> I was really confused by 'restricted' too, what the heck?  Hey, I'm over
> 18! Show me that R-rated software now!!
> 
> The thing is, 'restricted' is exactly the opposite: its actually the
> supported non-base applications, which one should feel most free to
> install ..  one should feel less restricted about it than the unrestricted
> universe about which one should tremble and backup before installations ..
> :)

"Restricted" means that your rights to the software are restricted, in
contrast to the core (main) component of Ubuntu.

This is a bit confusing because two types of groupings are used in a single
set.  A more accurate representation would be to add a dimension:

main/free (main)
main/restricted (restricted)
universe/free (universe)
universe/restricted (multiverse)

However, this would be quite a lot of trouble and it's not clear that the
benefit would justify the effort (which could be better spent improving
the distribution itself).

-- 
 - mdz