| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Review review
Review review
Posted Apr 16, 2007 4:48 UTC (Mon) by rqosa (guest, #24136)In reply to: Review review by Max.Hyre
Parent article: Debian redefines itself with new release (Linux.com)
> Ubuntu may be major, but it edges toward commercial, and is certainly not philosophically free.
Ubuntu's "main" component is as philosophically free as Debian's "main" component. See here.
> > Debian [...] leaves out the Win32 codecs that would allow users to play several standard video formats.
> I assume he means the ones that are patented—the non-free ones.
Both Debian and Ubuntu include patent-encumbered codecs and other software; if all patent-encumbered software was excluded, there would be almost nothing left.
Because he said "Win32 codecs", he probably meant things like the "Binary Codec Packages" here. If so, then he's incorrect, because Ubuntu doesn't include those either.
(Log in to post comments)
Review review
Posted Apr 16, 2007 5:08 UTC (Mon) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link]
> If so, then he's incorrect, because Ubuntu doesn't include those either.
Correction: Actually, he didn't say that Ubuntu includes Win32 codecs.
Review review
Posted Apr 16, 2007 22:29 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
> Ubuntu's "main" component is as philosophically free as Debian's "main" component. See here.
Only in statement. Ubuntu includes lots of stuff that are non-free by Debian standard (pristine firefox/thunderbird, GFDL+Invariant section docs, CC BY-SA , some firmware, etc.), so either Ubuntu is less serious about its commitment or Ubuntu freedom philosophy is different from Debian.