![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Restrictions and how to evade them
Jan. 14th, 2009 01:14 amIs it me or are Ubuntu's dependencies fundamentally broken in places?
I don't much like Evolution as an email client -- too like Outlook, of which I'm not a fan -- but I can't simply remove it all, because components ranging as deep as the GNOME Panel itself depend on it. Why? I can understand why one or 2 components might, such as the "About Me" applet -- although I don't like it - but why does half of the GNOME desktop need one email client?
Yet, on the other hand, I've just been installing an Asus Eee 900 for a friend. I installed Xubuntu, as it's rather lighter-weight than full-on Ubuntu and he will never need the full desktop. Then the special Array.org kernel. Then I added all the restricted components -- and there's another thing, which I'll get back to -- and checked them out. All fine.
Finally I added the Netbook Remix launcher.
But no, it doesn't work. This iconic launcher had no icons and no menu bar. Why? Because it uses GNOME for them. But does it depend on GNOME? No.
So I had to start over, wipe the machine and install "proper" Ubuntu. Three hours' work down the drain.
(Yes, I could have done "apt-get install ubuntu-desktop" and sucked in all the GNOME stuff... But that would probably have filled up the 4GB SSD of the Eee PC and even if it didn't, left me to clean up all the now-redundant Xfce stuff, Abiword, etc. Cleaner to start afresh.)
So what is going on? Why does a shell that needs GNOME and GNOME components such as the go-home panel applet and maximus and so on not depend on GNOME, whereas I can't remove an email client I don't want from my GNOME system because large chunks of GNOME depend on one particular desktop application?
And speaking of components and restricted ones, it is a real pain in the neck to have to manually add in ubuntu-restricted-extras on every single Ubuntu box I install. They are not "optional" if you want to use the Web; Flash, Java and so on are pretty much mandatory. So, come to that, are the w32codecs from the Medibuntu repository.
I am not American; I am not in the USA; I never plan to live in the USA. Yet as far as I know, I have to jump through hoops installing this stuff because they can't be included by United States laws. These do not apply to me. Other distros can be freely downloaded in Europe which do include these elements.
It's not just me. Ubuntu was founded and funded by a South African who lives in Britain and the company behind it is in incorporated in the Isle of Man in the British Isles. I am fortunate enough to have met Mr Shuttleworth and a fair few of the Ubuntu developers. Many of them, too, are European.
None of us are restricted by US law. Nor are Canadians or Mexicans or Uruguayans or Brazilians, all of whom are also American.
But for this one country, to meet its restrictions, Ubuntu is delivered crippled by the removal of all these essential components.
I am not some radical Stallmanite; I don't care about an all-Free-with-a-capital-F distribution. If I did, I'd be using Debian or GnewSense or something. Ubuntu is not a crusading Free distro, it's a no-nonsense get-the-job-done distro. I use it because it is easier and less cluttered than Suse or Mandriva and is not some rolling alpha-test like Fedora. (I used to. I spent five or six years fighting with RPM and got very tired of it indeed.) Oh, and unlike Xandros, it's fairly current and is updated regularly and is small-f free.
No, I am pragmatic; where the Free alternative is good enough, I'll use it. When it isn't, or if I need something non-Free, I'll use that instead.
Ubuntu needs those codecs, plugins and modules.
Can we not have an uncrippled version of Ubuntu for non-USA-citizens to download and use, without hassle overcoming US restrictions? It's even being sold in the shops now, yet even that version, as far as I know, doesn't include all the proprietary-content players.
I don't much like Evolution as an email client -- too like Outlook, of which I'm not a fan -- but I can't simply remove it all, because components ranging as deep as the GNOME Panel itself depend on it. Why? I can understand why one or 2 components might, such as the "About Me" applet -- although I don't like it - but why does half of the GNOME desktop need one email client?
Yet, on the other hand, I've just been installing an Asus Eee 900 for a friend. I installed Xubuntu, as it's rather lighter-weight than full-on Ubuntu and he will never need the full desktop. Then the special Array.org kernel. Then I added all the restricted components -- and there's another thing, which I'll get back to -- and checked them out. All fine.
Finally I added the Netbook Remix launcher.
But no, it doesn't work. This iconic launcher had no icons and no menu bar. Why? Because it uses GNOME for them. But does it depend on GNOME? No.
So I had to start over, wipe the machine and install "proper" Ubuntu. Three hours' work down the drain.
(Yes, I could have done "apt-get install ubuntu-desktop" and sucked in all the GNOME stuff... But that would probably have filled up the 4GB SSD of the Eee PC and even if it didn't, left me to clean up all the now-redundant Xfce stuff, Abiword, etc. Cleaner to start afresh.)
So what is going on? Why does a shell that needs GNOME and GNOME components such as the go-home panel applet and maximus and so on not depend on GNOME, whereas I can't remove an email client I don't want from my GNOME system because large chunks of GNOME depend on one particular desktop application?
And speaking of components and restricted ones, it is a real pain in the neck to have to manually add in ubuntu-restricted-extras on every single Ubuntu box I install. They are not "optional" if you want to use the Web; Flash, Java and so on are pretty much mandatory. So, come to that, are the w32codecs from the Medibuntu repository.
I am not American; I am not in the USA; I never plan to live in the USA. Yet as far as I know, I have to jump through hoops installing this stuff because they can't be included by United States laws. These do not apply to me. Other distros can be freely downloaded in Europe which do include these elements.
It's not just me. Ubuntu was founded and funded by a South African who lives in Britain and the company behind it is in incorporated in the Isle of Man in the British Isles. I am fortunate enough to have met Mr Shuttleworth and a fair few of the Ubuntu developers. Many of them, too, are European.
None of us are restricted by US law. Nor are Canadians or Mexicans or Uruguayans or Brazilians, all of whom are also American.
But for this one country, to meet its restrictions, Ubuntu is delivered crippled by the removal of all these essential components.
I am not some radical Stallmanite; I don't care about an all-Free-with-a-capital-F distribution. If I did, I'd be using Debian or GnewSense or something. Ubuntu is not a crusading Free distro, it's a no-nonsense get-the-job-done distro. I use it because it is easier and less cluttered than Suse or Mandriva and is not some rolling alpha-test like Fedora. (I used to. I spent five or six years fighting with RPM and got very tired of it indeed.) Oh, and unlike Xandros, it's fairly current and is updated regularly and is small-f free.
No, I am pragmatic; where the Free alternative is good enough, I'll use it. When it isn't, or if I need something non-Free, I'll use that instead.
Ubuntu needs those codecs, plugins and modules.
Can we not have an uncrippled version of Ubuntu for non-USA-citizens to download and use, without hassle overcoming US restrictions? It's even being sold in the shops now, yet even that version, as far as I know, doesn't include all the proprietary-content players.
