[marriedWpt]

I'm not sure how Ubuntu desktop became the standard for Linux desktop.

I love Ubuntu server, but some quick issues with Ubuntu desktop- Netflix needs a hard to install plugin, mouse acceleration cannot be disabled completely, unstable operating system installs that could break with a reboot or update.

Like I said, love ubuntu server, but I can't understand why Ubuntu desktop is recommended.

[blaser-waffle]

> Like I said, love ubuntu server, but I can't understand why Ubuntu desktop is recommended.

Have you been using linux on the desktop for any period of time, mon ami? It shouldn't be a surprise why it is so popular. For a long time "it just worked" out of the box.

I've run debian, gentoo, arch, centos, freebsd for a minute, and linux mint -- mint being an ubuntu derivitive -- and only fedora and ubuntu played nicely out of the box. And of those two, only ubuntu made ndiswrapper and wifi drivers function adequately without handholding (though fedora 20 and newer are great).

If anything, I'm surprised ubuntu server is a thing. For the server I'd just slap on debian or centos and be done with it.

[mikece]

I'm not a "Linux community member" but I have never understood why having a popular distro that included non-F/OSS libraries and tools in the distro to make the transition easier for people coming from macOS and Linux was such a bad thing or a reason to fight. If, instead of Ubuntu, something like Mint were the Linux distro option for Lenovo, HP, Dell, etc then new users could do "common user things" like watch Netflix, play a DVD, etc. Those of us a little more hard core already know how to get Fedora, Debian, or Slackware running (and drivers cajoled into working) on the hardware so why not aim for a larger audience? Making Mint a popular choice will be a benefit for Debian (and Ubuntu as long as LMDE isn't the flavor or Mint being offered and supported).

[TheCoelacanth]

It just the inevitable conflict between deontological and consequentialist ethics.

Deontological ethics: non-free software is bad, so making a distro that includes non-free software is bad

Consequentialist ethics: non-free software is bad, so reducing the amount of non-free software that someone uses by giving them a mostly-free distro that includes non-free software is good

There's never going to be agreement because they are using completely different frameworks for judging if an action is good or bad.

[parvenu74]

You don't think that going the "Consequentialist Route" and funding bounties for developing F/OSS alternatives to the non-free components[1] if viable? What's not viable, in my opinion, is the shunning by the purists of everyone who doesn't believe and act like them. Some of us might if we're allowed to get there one step at a time and if they encouraged the transition the F/OSS as a whole would benefit.

[1] Setting aside issues like NVidia drivers...

[the8472]

> What's not viable, in my opinion, is the shunning by the purists of everyone who doesn't believe and act like them.

That is hardly consequential(ist). The group doesn't exactly wield much power. What influence they have is setting the bar higher so that others can get there one step at a time as you say.

[rayhendricks]

sudo ubuntu-drivers autoinstall works just fine in Ubuntu to install drivers. Also google chrome works, although video playback is not gpu accelerated.

[Zhyl]

Netflix works fine on the latest Firefox and Chromium, included as default on a large number of distros.

[jandrese]

Ever since the Widevine fiasco Netflix and Amazon have just worked out of the box on Linux.

[shmerl]

> I'm not sure how Ubuntu desktop became the standard for Linux desktop.

It's not even the most popular distro these days. It was just hyped too much in the past, and there is still the afterglow of that.

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/index.php?module=statistics&vi...