Software Boutique Free Software/Proprietary Distinction in Introduction?

[CrazyDesi]

@marfig

I agree entirely with you. The only thing that was concerning me above was making sure that Ubuntu-MATE doesn't go down the zealotry road on this matter. The level of irrational intolerance of a representative margin of the FOSS community is one of the reasons I stay away from many Linux based communities.

Thank you for the comments. I generally agree with you also. I actually think most FOSS activists(and this may just be because I am an academic in real life) have very limited knowledge of the last 50 years of philosophy and academic thought. I do not think most of their arguments are well thought out as a whole. Nonetheless, I do believe that as computers and technology is more ingrained in people's lives that it is important to take seriously the nature of the computation systems that surrounds us.

I attempted to write my statement in a way that only marginally implied a preference for free software. My original reason for doing so was because decisions like these go into many design and direction decision of Linux distributions. Ubuntu and Debian are not agnostic about open source and free software and because Ubuntu MATE is an official spin of Ubuntu, its design decisions should reflect those surrounding Ubuntu and Debian. Both Debian and Ubuntu of these have code's of conducts, statements about open source, etc. and Ubuntu MATE should reflect those principles. MATE does this a little with its discussion about open source in the documentation documentation, but, again, it isn't reflected throughout the decision making process.

@rev

Although a great number of us here on the forums are technologically proficient MATE enthusiasts, I would wager that the vast majority of Ubuntu MATE users are very similar to most desktop PC users. They are regular, not technologically-inclined, people.

While hiding proprietary software by default may lead to some sort of philosophical victory for people like us who love and promote open source software, it will only serve as a barrier to the less skilled Ubuntu MATE user.

Often people don't realize how simply hiding some options behind a menu or checkbox can quickly create a bad user experience. Even when placed right in front of a user, a checkbox will often be overlooked.

As much as it pains me to say this, most people don't care about where the software comes from; they just want to click one button so they can install Skype.

The current Software Boutique works so well because it makes software installation not just easy, but it allows the user to be lazy. Placing any obstacles between the user and that one-click-install is just making the user-experience worse for a large majority of UM users so we (the vocal minority) can make an ethical statement.

The Software Boutique is one of the first things a new user will see when they install Ubuntu MATE. This interaction should remain simple and unobstructed.

I agree, and this is why in my original formulation of what I believed the software center should say, I did not suggest that we hide the proprietary software, merely that we suggest to users that we wish they would eventually move towards free software. Martin Wimpress, for example, states that he is an "open source advocate" and I believe there is a reasonable argument to be made that he hopes people will move towards open source/free software: Google Workspace Updates: New community features for Google Chat and an update on Currents

@marfig

Besides I have been fortunate enough to have known both the closed source and open source worlds from inside out as both a consumer and developer in both industries for nearly 30 years. So I can detect false claims even in my sleep. And the idea that open source software is better than proprietary software is as flawed as is its opposite.

I think the argument that open source is better than closed software is mainly made by people that believe the term "open source" will help sell Linux to businessess. Honestly, it is just a technoutopian myth. Nonetheless, there are other reasons for free software. While I do not agree with everything in the video, here is an overview of the many times that free software is not better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1pM9suxvE:

A shorter version is here: When Free Software Isn't Better :: Benjamin Mako Hill

Overall though, I think the sentence I stated did not seem overly zealous and matches the broader design/philosophical stances of both Debian and Ubuntu.

I also believe that adding a tag for proprietary and open source/free software to each of the items in the list is important, if nothing else, for the purposes of allowing users to have a visual que of what exactly will be hidden if they check the hide proprietary software checkbox.