I see nothing wrong with that.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Aug 27, 2010 12:15 AM EDT |
If it gets more people using Linux it's a plus for Linux in general. |
| gus3 Aug 27, 2010 12:28 AM EDT |
I'll take the contrarian view. Mark Shuttleworth built his Ubuntu enterprise on the hard work of so many Linux programmers (some paid, some not). Why should Ubuntu give the shaft to Linux users, like us? It was just a couple days ago I raised the same point about Disney. They use Free Software in their day-to-day operations, and aren't afraid to show it to the world, but they still take the position that Free Software isn't good enough for playing their movies. What The H311? |
| jackd2 Aug 27, 2010 12:49 AM EDT |
The Ubuntu One client code is freely available under GPL3. The blogger is either clueless or a purveyor of FUD. |
| tracyanne Aug 27, 2010 12:53 AM EDT |
As I understand it the Software involved is Free Software, which means the source code is available to the community, so as I understand it there is no impediment to the other distros using it. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 27, 2010 1:17 PM EDT |
Call me clueless, but GPL v.3 or not, nobody seems to have ported Ubuntu One to another Linux distribution. I'm sure there are users who would benefit from it. Just because the code is GPL doesn't mean that Ubuntu couldn't release .deb and RPM packages of it that are tested on other Linux distributions. And since this is GPL code, couldn't somebody else have ported it to Windows? The fact is that Ubuntu wanted the project to happen and chose to code it themselves. They could roll out an RPM package or a Debian Squeeze package in maybe an hour. If I knew what the hell I was doing, I'd do it myself. But I don't. Call me clueless, but I have a feeling it's not that easy to do Ubuntu One outside of Ubuntu. Anybody doing it? Love to hear from you. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 27, 2010 1:46 PM EDT |
I've done some extra checking into this, and it doesn't look like installing Ubuntu One outside of Ubuntu is all that easy or prevalent. I think there's a danger in saying "it's GPL, so go away." Ubuntu One is a project that integrated deeply into the GNOME desktop yet isn't being developed within GNOME. I suppose there's a good argument to be made that it's not Ubuntu's job to make Ubuntu One work on other distributions, but since they're going out of their way to make it work in Windows, I'd like to see them put forth a little effort for the rest of the Linux community. If Ubuntu One is a revenue opportunity for Canonical, allowing more users to access the service would boost Canonical's bottom line. I'd be much more inclined (or just inclined) to use Ubuntu One if I wasn't locked in to Ubuntu as my only Linux distribution. As it stands, Ubuntu One seems to be a great feature, but being Ubuntu-only pretty much kills the feature for me. |
| bigg Aug 27, 2010 1:49 PM EDT |
Actually, in any situation where you're wondering, "Did someone do that for a Linux distribution?" the first place to check is Arch's AUR. There is in fact an Ubuntu One client for Arch: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=30081 |
| jdixon Aug 27, 2010 2:45 PM EDT |
> There is in fact an Ubuntu One client for Arch... Hmm. I wonder if it depends on Gnome being installed. I'll may have to do some checking when I get home. |
| cabreh Aug 27, 2010 2:45 PM EDT |
@Steven "Just because the code is GPL doesn't mean that Ubuntu couldn't release .deb and RPM packages of it that are tested on other Linux distributions." "Just because the code is GPL doesn't mean that Ubuntu couldn't release .deb and RPM packages of it that are tested on other Linux distributions." Why is this expected of Canonical/Ubuntu but not other distribution? As examples: 1. Fedora Directory Server (best LDAP server available) 2. (Open)SUSE YAST Just to name two. Fedora and SUSE do not produce packages for other (read competing) distributions. Yet you expect this of Ubuntu. My obvious question: Why should Ubuntu be the only one to do this? They developed Ubuntu One. If the source is available let the others do some work for themselves. Seems to be everyone else's attitude. Even Fedora rpms for FDS don't work on SUSE. |
| bigg Aug 27, 2010 2:48 PM EDT |
It looks to me as if you need to have Gnome installed. That is consistent with my expectation, as Kubuntu users have complained that they also have to install Gnome in order to use Ubuntu One. |
| jdixon Aug 27, 2010 3:43 PM EDT |
> It looks to me as if you need to have Gnome installed. That lets out running it with Slackware then. Oh well... > That is consistent with my expectation, Mine also. Disappointing, but expected. |
| caitlyn Aug 27, 2010 5:19 PM EDT |
@jdixon: It will work with Slackware + GSB. That is always an option. |
| tracyanne Aug 27, 2010 5:20 PM EDT |
Yes I suspect it's closely tied with GNOME, I'm running Linux Mint 9, which, of course, has a GNOME desktop, and is ppretty much based on Ubuntu, still, I think, and Ubuntu One works fine..... well as fine s it's ever worked. |
| bigg Aug 27, 2010 5:26 PM EDT |
> Ubuntu One works fine It should, that's one of the things that Mint leaves in when they start their polishing of Ubuntu, so it should work the same. |
| jdixon Aug 27, 2010 7:49 PM EDT |
> It will work with Slackware + GSB. That is always an option. Yeah. And pretty much the only option now. Dropline, GWare and GSlacky all seem to be stuck on 12.2 with varying versions of 2.2x. I may install GSB when I get some more time to get my 13.1 machine fully operational, but I doubt I'll bother with Ubuntu One. |
| jackd2 Aug 27, 2010 10:20 PM EDT |
Canonical hosted a google summer of code 2010 project to write a kde client for u1. http://febuntoo.com/harald-sitter-ubuntu-one-technical-aspec... |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 28, 2010 4:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:It looks to me as if you need to have Gnome installed. So? This is desktop software, written for a Gnome desktop. Complaining about this is as silly as complaining that you need KDE installed for Amarok, or that you need Gnome installed to run AbiWord. |
| jdixon Aug 28, 2010 8:04 AM EDT |
> This is desktop software, written for a Gnome desktop. Neither Gnome nor KDE are necessary to have a Linux desktop. I'm not surprised some developers target one or the other, but I prefer programs not pinned to either. > ...or that you need Gnome installed to run AbiWord. Abiword used to run fine without Gnome. Not in more recent builds though. |
| bigg Aug 28, 2010 8:49 AM EDT |
> Complaining about this is as silly as complaining that you need KDE installed for Amarok, or that you need Gnome installed to run AbiWord. I wasn't complaining. But if you're running a netbook, or otherwise don't have the storage or bandwidth, it's not good to require Gnome. |
| helios Aug 28, 2010 11:52 AM EDT |
I suppose there's a good argument to be made that it's not Ubuntu's job to make Ubuntu One work on other distributions, but since they're going out of their way to make it work in Windows, I'd like to see them put forth a little effort for the rest of the Linux community. Thanks Steve...there are points within your observation worth expanding...at least I think so. Canonical has worked fairly hard to separate Ubuntu from Linux from a marketing perspective. As I and others have pointed out in blogs, you will not find the name "Linux" anywhere on their front page introduction to Ubuntu. They may have a point in doing so. I've been critical of this particular fact in the past but now, I'm not so sure they are wrong. Canonical is in fact "competing" with other Linux distros for market share and public awareness. I think the fact that they named that particular application "Ubuntu One" is indicative of that competition. The further fact that they are making it work with Windows is just an indicator that they wish to garner attention from Windows Users. So when people call me up and say that they tried Ubuntu but didn't like it and are now ready to try Linux, I don't even try to explain that Ubuntu IS Linux. I simply introduce them to a distro that I believe will work for them and move forward. I sincerely hope that Canonical succeeds. Regardless of whether they choose to acknowledge their roots. h |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 29, 2010 2:03 AM EDT |
@helios I know you use Mint because it's ready to go ... but I want encrypted LVM. |
| jdixon Aug 29, 2010 10:28 AM EDT |
> ...but I want encrypted LVM. Ken's mostly installing desktops, where encryption isn't as big a concern as it is with laptops. He's also mostly installing for children, and would you want your child to have an encrypted partition which you couldn't access? |
| gus3 Aug 29, 2010 12:21 PM EDT |
Think of it the other way around: The encrypted partition isn't accessible without parental assistance. A little clever scripting, remove some headers, "chattr +i" if it's ext[234], then remove /usr/bin/chattr, and voila! A parental unit must be present to get the system up and running. |
| helios Aug 29, 2010 12:41 PM EDT |
A parental unit must be present to get the system up and running. I'm thinking it's simply done with a strong login password at boot. Hasn't failed us yet. We install 400 systems with Linux in a year's time...strong passwords vs the hassle and headaches of encrypted file systems is a winner for us. Besides...I don't have time to support an encrypted file system. We get enough calls from our kids or kids parents with more conventional questions. One of the things we are trying our best to avoid is the "Linux Sucks" syndrome. Adding problems with encryption would only perpetuate the myth that Linux is harder to use than Windows....at least in our case. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 29, 2010 7:03 PM EDT |
I'd like Mint to make both me and Ken happy. I totally understand why most people, Ken included, don't want an encrypted filesystem. And since Windows and Mac don't include these by default and make it hard to get them, I totally understand why it's not a priority for Linux and BSD and why it can also be hard to set up an encrypted partition or directory. Unless a user specifically requested encrypted /home or encrypted LVM, I wouldn't install it. For me, however, security begins with disk-level encryption. In my own personal workflow, I think wholesale theft of the hardware is a bigger risk than anything that can happen over a network connection. Hence I don't feel right running a production desktop or laptop — or any machine not physically secured — without encrypted data. Therefore, I want Ken to continue to be able to install without encryption. You can do that with Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian, but those distros also offer either encrypted /home or fully encrypted LVM. It's there if you want/need it. And I wish Mint would offer it. What's even crazier is that the security-focused OpenBSD doesn't offer easy encryption of either /home or the entire disk. You really have to want it. OpenBSD does encrypt /tmp and /swap by default, I believe, but I'd really love an easy-to-implement encrypted /home. The fact that no BSD offers this, but quite a few Linux distros do, really pushes me in the direction of Linux for my desktop/laptop machines. |
| hkwint Aug 29, 2010 7:23 PM EDT |
If you use encryption, than the password is in plaintext in /proc somewhere, so I think it gives you a bit of a 'fake' feeling of security. It only works if it's powered down before someone tries to look at data. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 29, 2010 8:30 PM EDT |
I'm not so much concerned with the live running system. It's the powered-down time that I'm worried about. Especially when it comes to laptops, physical theft is a huge problem, and this is even a concern with desktop computers. We've got lots of things like firewalls to protect running systems from over-the-network exploits, but most of us do absolutely nothing about physical exploits of the system, and in my mind the latter are much more likely than the former (especially so given the fact that there is so little attention paid to protecting the physical device from compromise). Theft and loss of hardware is more real than some juvenile hacker somehow getting into your system ... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!