On 5/4/07, roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When the click & users being our parents (<-- will always be click & play fans) and other windows attached users just expect things to work.
As someone who spent a lot of years troubleshooting WordPerfect issues on Windows on a volunteer P2P support web site, I can say definitively that anyone who expects Windows to "just work" is in acute need of a brain transplant. I've got way too much experience in dealing with DLL Hell dependency issues to buy into that theory. A lot of the "easy to use" expectations are the direct result of flatly irresponsible software marketing hype. Bottom line: computing isn't for people who don't know anything about computers and software, at least in any system that allows tweaking/installation of different software. There's an unavoidable -- and endless -- learning curve otherwise. Computing is a bottomless pit in the valley of Knowledge. That said, my transition to Linux after I retired from my law practice and was no longer dependent on Windows has not been entirely a smooth experience, but I didn't expect it to be. And I do see plenty of room for improvement of Linux and the software that runs on it, not to mention gaping holes in the Linux software map once you get outside fairly basic computing needs into specialized niche markets like the law office market. (That's why I'm contributing to a FOSS project to develop software needed in that market.) I've been working with computers since the late 1960s. In that time, I've had many acquaintances who came to me for advice soon after they acquired their first computer and asked for help in learning how to use the darned thing. Newbies tend to be overcome by the complexity of even a well-functioning system. I've got a standard rap I give them about computing being like any other complex subject. You've got to approach it with the realization that you will never fully comprehend the subject and bite off small hunks you can chew and swallow. E.g., RTFM and learn to do on your computer what you can already do with your typewriter. Once you have that down, then start exploring what else the thing will let you do. And expect to hit obstacles along the way just like you hit obstacles when learning any other subject, like how to live peacefully with a spouse. The rap usually gets them over the initial shock of the complexity.
I see no reason why Ubuntu couldn't provide an option during install to install 3rd party apps via the network. I don't think Adobe is going to want to sue anybody wanting to make their format more popular..except for maybe microsoft for unknown Godly reasons.
I haven't checked again in the last few years, but it at least used to be that anyone could redistribute Adobe's Acrobat Reader. What stops some distributions from distributing it on their installation ISO's is the fact that it is closed source and not licensed as FLOSS. E.g., Debian has a hard and fast policy against distributing non-FLOSS software. That isn't to say that there aren't legal barriers to distribution of some packages, e.g., those encumbered by patent claims. See e.g., my legal analysis of Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, which governs copying and distribution of a lot of Microsoft "open" software specifications, including the new Microsoft Office Open XML schemas currently pending standardization at ISO's JTC-1. <http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted>.
As far as win32 codecs, again, I still say users should be prompted with an option during install and during first boot-up. After the install, should still be as easy as installing an additional package. Some good examples are Mandrake (Mandriva) and Gentoo.
I'd say there are strong legal reasons for them not to do so. There's a vulnerability to a contributory infringement of patents/copyrights claim, much like the roadblock the P2P distribution networks ran into in the Supreme Court Grokster case. There are some pretty strong legal reasons such software has to be downloaded manually by the user from repositories outside the U.S. E.g., with the win32 codecs, Microsoft could easily bankrupt any distribution with legal expenses long before its infringement lawsuit came to trial. And once it sues, it's too late to stop because the violations of the Microsoft IP rights have already have already occurred, entitling Microsoft to damages. One of FLOSS's big weaknesses is the lack of revenues needed to slug it out with the big proprietary vendors in court. Avoiding litigation exposure is the only option open to most FLOSS projects, forcing FLOSS developers to steer clear even of questionable claims of IP rights. E.g., Microsoft's claims that the Linux kernel infringes their patents can't be tested because only the big boys like IBM could afford to do so and they won't for fear of triggering Patent Armageddon amongst the big players. The latest Supreme Court patent decision involving Microsoft does offer some hope, however. The way I'm reading it, the court is inviting a case to test whether software is patentable. See my comment here. <http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070430121005424&title=Unfortunately%2C%20they%20didn%27t%20resolve%20the%20overall%20patent%20issue&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=564772#c565148> Best regards, Marbux _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
