Den 20. april 2012 03:05, skrev Sean McNamara: > proprietary software running on their system. A lot of people think it > is important to remind our users that the *reason* why their OS runs > so well is because the vast preponderance of its software is free and > open source software. Licensing matters -- whether or not you agree
Exactly. So why does "the driver application" currently not show any open drivers? We should be proud of the hardware support in Ubuntu – it's awesome! Right now, the only reason you ever have to open the driver app is to use proprietary drivers. Most of the time, it won't show any drivers, either because they don't exist or because they aren't necessary. But it doesn't show it as a good thing if they aren't necessary. It's just blank. In those cases, there should be a drumroll and a 50px boldest header saying "100%!" and a list of all the awesome Linux-drivers in use on this system. The good things are hidden. The bad things are shown. Bad idea. We should stop ignoring the Open Source drivers. We are doing that now. > your own opinion, realize that you can expect resistance from various > people if you're going to say "why should users care whether their > drivers are open source or proprietary?". People will give you reasons > why -- reasons that they feel very passionately about. Just be > prepared. ;) Oh, I am. And I feel that way too. But I've stopped trying to force my own personal opinions upon others. It doesn't sell well and it forces people of differing opinions to defend their choices, which hardens their beliefs. It might even be unethical. I'm not at all worried about controversy though. I'm always prepared. I was a boyscout, you know. Not a good one, but still. :) > Instead, a good compromise would be to provide the user a summary of > the pros and cons of using proprietary drivers without making it I would rather just promote the open drivers and make them equal to the proprietary ones. If there are open drivers, then they are used. If there are none, then there's no conflict. My point of view is that Jockey is currently an application that creates a myth that Ubuntu has bad hardware support. This is because it doesn't list the open drivers; only the proprietary ones, if there are any. The best you can hope for, is to not be disappointed. It will never impress you. That's just wrong, in my opinion. > complexity, the users will deal with it the only way they can: they > will ignorantly claim, "Ubuntu sucks!" as soon as their system or some > program crashes for *any* reason. Complex problems require complex > reasoning, even with licensing itself completely out of the picture > (and the licensing debate will open a whole new can of worms by > itself). Right. So let's steer users towards a forum with people who have the same hardware. In this forum, competent people can explain the difficulty and possibly how to fix them. And thank them for contributing to Ubuntu, turning a negative experience into something positive. Leadership is only possible within a group. Currently, if you're having difficulties with drivers, you're on your own. > Are you basically suggesting a shameless clone of the Windows Device Manager? When I have things to learn, I try to learn from the masters. I feel no shame admitting that. And yes, if success is a goal, then Microsoft is a master. But no, I'm not talking about a clone. Different systems require different solutions. It should be designed for Ubuntu, not for Windows. > I think it would be a great idea to do something like what you > suggested, but what about if the drivers that are missing are critical > to the functionality of this hardware manager application? It sounds > like this component would depend on Internet access and a working Xorg > environment at a minimum. If a critical driver is missing, then you have a problem, regardless of what the GUI looks like. Currently, it looks like it's because Ubuntu sucks. Instead, we should provide an easy way of getting to the manufacturers support site. This is helpful to the user, and illustrates who is to "blame" at the same time. That's what we call a Ubu/Ubu situation. As I mentioned, the application should have a Send To function. That would enable you to transfer system information to an offline device as well, or print it out. Similarly, we might have an Install From function if necessary. > Ah, and I should mention that Ubuntu Server is a *pretty* popular Desktop and server are different things, requiring different solutions. It's a little more complicated than walking and chewing gum at the same time. > Anyway, just my two cents: you have a great idea to make a device > manager / hardware manager, but you'd probably have to ship all the > suitable alternative drivers on the installation CD so that they can't > be missed if the problematic component is the network. I don't agree with that at all. Well, I do agree I have a great idea, of course. But I don't see why drivers have to be located on the same CD as Ubuntu itself. What about hardware created after Ubuntu was shipped, for instance? The manufacturer should provide their own CD if it's necessary. Jo-Erlend Schinstad -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
