[ubuntu-in] Canonical kills free Ubuntu CD program

[Stereotactic]

On 04/07/2011 01:10 PM, Manish Sinha wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Stereotactic<maillist at postinbox.com>  wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 02:40 AM, Manish Sinha wrote:
>>> On 04/06/2011 07:53 PM, Stereotactic wrote:
>> This debate can *never* be settled; so let it be.
> True. So don't bring it up again ever if you can't defend.
>
Philosophical arguments can never be agreed upon. In the initial thread 
I had rallied against the role of LUG's. How useless they can be if it 
concerns the spread of libre software. Neither am defending; but well if 
the context of the mail escapes your notice, I can't really help it :(
>> Thats good. Still, it's main flagship was always Gnome and hence there are
> The most important upstream is still Debian, not GNOME (some-one
> please correct me if wrong)
There was a talk about how little Canonical has supported Gnome (<1% of 
the code base or whatever); it's all over the net so I wouldn't really 
bother to prove my point.
>> Thats where the power of choice really is. However, Mark has mentioned
>> somewhere that Ubuntu *might* become one; its an unsettled question.
> He hasn't mentioned anywhere AFAIK. Instead, Rick Spencer, Desktop
> Engineering Manager has stated that Ubuntu is not moving to rolling
> release.
>
The thread is *NOT* about rolling release. Please. It was, I repeat 
again, the role of LUG's to spread the word for libre software. Despite 
it's existence, I barely see any activity; heck, its not even mentioned 
in the mainstream media. How many of us have made *ANY* effort to work 
on those lines? Having a website or IRC presence alone does not count, 
IMHO.
>> That's an abberation. Again your opinion.
> It isn't opinion, but experience.
> You voice opinion, not claim opinion. If there is a claim, then it
> means it is based on some experience.
>
Ha! I'd let this pass :) No issues.
>> Rolling release can be based on Unstable or Testing versions; Unstable is
>> not so cool as testing really is. But I let that pass. And I mention *again*
>> that rolling release is *not* the point of debate.
> Ubuntu does have rolling versions. It is called development versions.
> You keep on updating it. Try it out.
>
:) First there is none; then there is "development version". Okay :)
>>> Whatever you say, Ubuntu would have never gained so much popularity
>>> with rolling release ever.
>> Your opinion.
> Not opinion, but truth.
As per you? Okay :)
>> Linux; it's installer is best in the ecosystem. Period.
>> I am NOT objecting to say Ubuntu One as a service in the cloud, for example.
>> That's an additional module, not really a part of the main OS. Canonical has
>> full right to charge whatever it deems fit in the cloud. Paid software in
>> software centre really is pushing the commerce in user's desktops.
> So what is wrong in users wanting to buy software? If they want, let
> them buy. If you don't want to buy, don't buy.
>
The idea is against proprietary standards. Against the concept of "paid 
software" in the base operating system. I "*repeat again*" that no one 
objects to Ubuntu One as a cloud service where users "*may*" pay for 
whatever or if they are so concerned about syncing issues. Neither does 
anyone object if there is anything for "paid support".

But it's against the proprietary standards and as I mentioned, stiffling 
EULA's that are bound to come with it, one day or other.
>> In the long run, it would slowly compromise with the ideals of Debian and
>> GNU.
> How? All I find is talk and no evidence. You know when we talk about
> Free we mean libre and not gratis.
> Please head to http://gnu.org for more information
Again, it has no relevance to you assertions. Please try and understand 
this. Canonical is profiteering from free code & turning on proprietary 
standards without contribution back to community.
>> A non-techie user (as per your definition) would again be oblivious of
>> "fancy terms and conditions"; once the critical mass, in terms of users, is
>> reached, there would perhaps be no stopping Canonical to implement it's own
>> (jaundiced) terms.
> The license is also "Terms and conditions" for using the software. I
> hope you know this. Free software license are also as fancy to the
> end-user as those 20 page long EULA.
> Have you ever looked how long the full GPLv2 license is?
It's still "copyleft". I hate copyright in any manner whatsoever because 
it's very nature is RESTRICTIVE. Sorry but the "length" of the licence 
has nothing to do with it :) At least, it doesn't incapacitate the user! 
GPL3/4/5 or whatever version may be 1000+ pages or whatever, still it 
keeps the "freedom" intact.
> Anyway I had a good laugh. Nice conspiracy theory.
Ha! Glad you did :) Ignorance is bliss :) Atleast, I made your day :)
>> It has already moved towards Unity and slowly poisoning
>> it's relation with other companies in the ecosystem refusing to play ball
>> with others.
> BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.. http://goo.gl/NoyJS
:) http://imgur.com/kBhRq  Hope this helps the attitude of some people :)
>> Perhaps it has *balls* enough but the future is going to stormy
>> for all of them.
> Reading this same shit for past 5 years. Nothing happened
Reference to above quote; you are unlikely to see anything in the long 
run/future :) So I'd let that pass again.
> --
> Manish
>