Revisiting Linux Part 1: A Look at Ubuntu 8.04
by Ryan Smith on August 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Linux
It's Free – Libre
While the value of “free as in beer” is easy to describe, the value of “free as in speech – otherwise known as libre – is harder to relate. Nonetheless, rather large books have been written on the subject, so we'll try to stick with something condensed.
Virtually everything distributed with Ubuntu is an open source program in some manner. Many of the components of Ubuntu, such as the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset, are licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), which in a nutshell requires that any software distributed under the GPL license either include the source code with the software or a way to get the source code. Other bits of Ubuntu are under slightly different licenses with slightly different legal requirements, but the outcome is effectively the same. Ubuntu is free - you can get the source code to it and modify/distribute it as you see fit.
But when we're talking about Ubuntu, there's more than just being able to access the source, as most of the development teams that are responsible for the programs included in Ubuntu have their projects open for public participation. So not only can you take the code and modify it, but if your modifications are good enough they can be submitted back to the main project and possibly be included in a future version of the software. The fundamental idea of open source software is that users are empowered to see how software works and to modify it as they see fit. Other lesser benefits also exist, such as protecting authors' rights by preventing people from taking the code and improving it without sharing it (the GPL), and making sure all the authors are properly credited.
This does not always make open source relevant for the user however. The fundamental benefits of open source software are for people that are programmers, but most users are not programmers. Being able to see and edit the code is not necessarily useful if you don't know how to use it. Even with a background in programming, I would be hard pressed to be able to quickly contribute significant code changes to most projects; very few programs are small and simple enough to be able to easily jump into these days.
Still, there are some definite benefits for those of us that can't throw out code like Linux's chief architect Linus Torvalds. The most direct benefit of course is that this software exists at all. Since all of the software in Ubuntu is free as in beer, paid developers do not develop many of the programs. Open source as a default state makes it easier for people to contribute to the development of software, and that means it's easier for such gratis software to be continually developed in the first place.
Open source software is also a benefit for the longevity of software. Since no one person has absolute control over a project, no one can terminate it. This means that someone else can pick up a project and continue should the original developer(s) quit, as is sometimes the case with old software. It also allows for software to be forked, which is to take the code from a project and create a derivative separate from the original project – the benefit being that a forked project can be taken in a different direction than the original developer may want. As proof of the importance of forking, there are a number of programs in Ubuntu that are forks of older projects, such as X11 (otherwise known as just X), Ubuntu's base windowing system.
Finally, open source software is beneficial to overall software security. If you can see the source, you can analyze it for possible bugs. If you can edit the source, you can fix those bugs rather than wait for someone else to do so - and we can't even begin to overstate the importance of this. The direct relevance to the average user is once again limited here since most people cannot read or write code, but it does filter down through benefits such as rapid patching of security vulnerabilities in some cases. The security benefits of Ubuntu being open source are some of the most important reasons we consider Ubuntu to be secure.
In short: even if you can't code you benefit from Ubuntu being a free (libre) operating system.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
195 Comments
View All Comments
Eeqmcsq - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
for your time spent on writing this article. I've made the jump to from Windows to Ubuntu (and Xubuntu for my older computers) back around 7.10 and 8.04 and I went through some of the headaches in adjusting to Ubuntu, but I eventually solved all of them and I'm quite settled in now.One comment about finding help in the form of command line instructions, rather than GUI instructions. GUI instructions for Ubuntu would not be useful for Kubuntu or Xubuntu, since they use different window managers. The command line solutions usually work for all three.
Also, boot times were noticeably improved in 9.04. Perhaps you can run a quick retest on it.
And you CAN install stuff when using the live CD. I've installed a couple of temperature monitoring utilities when I was stress testing my motherboard.
Finally, thanks again for writing such a thorough look into your Ubuntu experiences. It was a great read in seeing how far Ubuntu has come and what it still lacks.
fepple - Thursday, August 27, 2009 - link
Yeah, you can set the APT sources to use a CD. There is an option for it 'system' > 'administor' > 'software source', or you can edit the /etc/apt/sources.list fileclarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
[quote]since SMB is the predominant protocol for consumer file server gear, it’s a fair test of such use.[/quote]While this comment is not false, it presents a lazy approach to comparison; it's a one-sided contest, and Linux, pitted against Windows on home turf, doesn't stand much of a chance.
You as much as acknowledge this in the article, so why not provide some counterpoint? For example, consumer file server gear, even if it supports SMB almost ubiquitously, is usually *nix-based. So instead of just showing Windows and Linux clients interacting with Windows servers, show them interacting with *nix servers as well. Do some NFS transfers as well; NFS is well supported in consumer NAS these days.
You also really missed the boat on the video drivers. 8.04 was not the first Ubuntu release to include the Restricted Drivers Manager (known simply as "Hardware Drivers" in later releases). This handy app will identify hardware, such as AMD and NVIDIA GPUs, that can take advantage of proprietary drivers, and will offer to to install the same via synaptic (APT) with just a click of the mouse. No CLI, no headaches.
Still, a thorough review, and generally well-researched. I'm looking forward to the 9.04 follow-up.
Since you mentioned hardware HD decoding, I recommend taking a look at smplayer from the testing ppa (https://launchpad.net/~rvm/+archive/testing)">https://launchpad.net/~rvm/+archive/testing). Unfortunately vdpau doesn't work with the nvidia blobs in the default Ubuntu repos, but I believe there's a PPA providing vdpau-compatible blobs for anybody not wanting to do CLI installs.
db
VaultDweller - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
[quote]While this comment is not false, it presents a lazy approach to comparison; it's a one-sided contest, and Linux, pitted against Windows on home turf, doesn't stand much of a chance. [/quote]This isn't Linux pitted against Windows on home turf, it's Linux pitted against Windows in the real world.
clarkn0va - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
Well, no doubt SMB is the dominant method of sharing files for consumers in general. Obviously comparing Linux to Windows makes sense in a world where Windows is the incumbent, but it's not the whole story.I hope Part 2 will address some of the objective benefits of Ubuntu, and not fall into the trap of "worse because it's not the same as Windows".
VaultDweller - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I agree in principle, but there has to be a distinction between "Worse because it's not compatible with Windows," "Worse because it's not as easy as Windows," and "Worse because it's not the same as Windows." Die-hard *nix advocates tend to dismiss the first two as if they were the latter, and this tends to undermine their argument.Also, in some cases "Worse because it's not the same as Windows" can be a valid point, because the public has been trained to the point that the Windows way is the "intuitive" way. Of course, this isn't truly intuitive, as people who learned Linux first would find Linux methodologies more intuitive - but that's largely a moot point, as that's not the reality we live in today. You could say the same thing about the color red - in the western world, when we see red we can intuitively guess that it means Stop, or Warning, or Error, etc. The fact that this is not an understanding we're born with but rather a socially acquired intuition does not mean it would be any easier to suddenly change the color of traffic lights and expect people to adjust without problems.
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
All of the NAS gear I can get my hands on is either SMB only, or is a Time Capsule which is SMB + AFP. I don't have anything that does NFS, which isn't so much a comment on testing (I could always set up another box) as it is usefulness. NFS just isn't common on consumer gear; SMB is a more important metric if you're looking at file transfer performance, because that's what most people are going to be working with. This doesn't preclude doing NFS at a later time though.And the Restricted Drivers Manager is limited to the drivers in the Hardy repository, which means they're a year+ out of date.
amrs - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link
Interestingly, if one checks the SmallNetBuilder NAS charts, it looks like out of 87 NAS devices, 49 have NFS. 56% in other words. And you say NFS isn't common? Really now? Seems a little biased to me.ekul - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
While a lot of your issues have complicated solutions or lengthy technical backstories I can solve your complaint of smb shares mounted in nautilus not being useful in non-gtk applications in one simple command (or as you seem to hate commands the gui can do it too).theory: make a symlink to the directory nautilus mounts to so it can be easily accessed. Symlinks to directories or files are transparently (to users and applications) identical to the location they refer to. Windows doesn't have symlinks (only useless shortcuts) so it isn't surprising you were not aware to do it.
howto: gvfs uses the directory /home/$USER/.gvfs as a mount point so link to it:
ln -s ~/.gvfs ~/linkname
howto gui: in nautilus go to your home folder then choose view -> show hidden files. Right click on .gvfs and choose make link. Then you can rename the link to whatever you want and hide hidden files again.
hint: symlinks are your best friend. My home dir is littered with links to places on the filesystem I visit a lot to avoid a lot of clicking/typing
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - link
I suddenly feel very humiliated...The symlink is a very elegant solution, I'm embarrassed I didn't think of that myself. It's a bit of a lousy solution in that there even needs to be a solution, but as far as things go that's a very insightful suggestion.