Why does everyone use Ubuntu?

[dragonbite]

Funny. I was surprised when my openSUSE (Gnome) just played my MP3 out of the box in Banshee. Video formats, not so lucky yet.

Closest thing to ubutnu-restircted-formats is getting the Packman repository and look up w32codecs! I prefer to not go this route, but it's available if necessary.

One thing, though, is that I am trying to get my wireless working and in Ubuntu it takes just a couple of clicks (restricted hardware, install, (downloads), done).

[TaraIkeda]

Originally Posted by microchip8

I was not aware of that but still, do they pay the MPEG LA for royalties for offering an encoder which produces H.264 video? Do they pay the Fraunhoffer institute for royalties for offering MP3 support? I don't think so...

For MP3 support Ubuntu doesnt really need to pay up, I think they have some sort of deal concerning MP3 too so MP3 playback is actually for the most part legal on Ubuntu.

what do you mean by "it just doesn't have as many codecs"? You do realize that the same "codecs" are offered by openSUSE and others distros, and those being mplayer/mencoder/ffmpeg which offer libavcodec (besides being encoders) which provides *all* the decoders and encoders (if not taking x264 into account which is a separate encoder for H.264 video) and libavcodecs in the Linux world is *the* most important library used by many front-ends like Xine, Kaffeine, MPlayer, MEncoder, FFmpeg, Transcode, etc. Also all distros offer xvid and x264 with its separate libraries, LAME, FAAC/FAAD2, libdca (for DTS audio), Aften (for AC3 audio), etc. Your claim is absolutely not true. Go to packman and see how many "codecs" they offer and come back and tell me again that Ubuntu offers more "codecs". Which ones? The Linux world of codecs is basically built around two very important libraries and those are libavcodecs from ffmpeg/mplayer and gstreamer, both available on all Linux distros

Originally Posted by caf4926

Absolutely correct. Well said!

I think I need to clarify a bit here.
I didnt say ubuntu itself had more codecs, but its codecs installer (Ubuntu restricted extras) does include more of the essentials then the OpenSuse codecs installer.
The only thing it doesnt cover is Win32 codecs and libdvdcss.
But there are far more gstreamer codecs installed with the Ubuntu restricted extras.
I am not saying these codecs are impossible to install in OpenSuse or cant be installed in OpenSuse but they are a little harder to install then in Ubuntu as even though the OpenSuse codecs installer has a lot in it its not as much as the Ubuntu restricted extras package.
To achieve the same job on OpenSuse I had to install all three sets of Gstreamer seperately (good, bad, ugly) install VLC, Mplayer and the xine codecs package to get what I needed.
Same amount of plugins yes, but I had a little more effort installing those codecs on OpenSuse then Ubuntu.
Ubuntu's codecs installer was just easier, not better, and I didnt say there was some special media on Ubuntu then on OpenSuse.

I think you're very biased in claiming that Ubuntu somehow has more codecs (No wonder as you're an Ubuntu lover and thus is superior) while having no clue as to what codecs the Linux world offers

No you are very biased, and I have quite a bit of knowledge concerning codecs and ****.
Dont treat me like a kid here, just because I do favor ubuntu at times doesnt mean I am some sort of idiot.
I have used Linux for 5 years pal, so dont treat me like some sort of noob.
Jeez dont be a jerk about it, there are some things that I like Ubuntu for I wont deny it but come on dude there is room in this world for both OpenSuse and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu and OpenSuse both have their flaws and merits.
To just say everything about OpenSuse or Ubuntu is perfect is not my intention.
I have said once that in terms of multimedia and to a point support Ubuntu is the better from what I have seen.
In terms of stability however and performance the jury is still out.
I cannot give OpenSuse a full judgment right now but I have already seen many of its flaws and merits and can name a few things that I think ubuntu has done a better job on.
If its some sort of crime to prefer one distro over anther we should all be locked up you know, its not a crime to like Ubuntu more then OpenSuse or vice versa.
But you make it seem like I committed murder or something here.
No I just stated my observations on certain matters, I was not condemning OpenSuse or anything but I was pointing out what I think is a weak spot.
As a member of this community I have a right to say what I feel is missing in the distro, after all the best way to make improvements sometimes is to compare notes.
Look be mad at me all you want for liking ubuntu, I do and it is my right to like Ubuntu rather if you like it or not.
Linux is linux

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by TaraIkeda

For MP3 support Ubuntu doesnt really need to pay up, I think they have some sort of deal concerning MP3 too so MP3 playback is actually for the most part legal on Ubuntu.

Really? do they pay up the Fraunhoffer institute or Thomson royalties since MP3 is patented and one must pay up if he's distributing it? Do you have any proof to backup your claims? If not, I won't believe you.

Also have a look at the MP3 patent mess MP3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think I need to clarify a bit here.
I didnt say ubuntu itself had more codecs, but its codecs installer (Ubuntu restricted extras) does include more of the essentials then the OpenSuse codecs installer.
The only thing it doesnt cover is Win32 codecs and libdvdcss.
But there are far more gstreamer codecs installed with the Ubuntu restricted extras.
I am not saying these codecs are impossible to install in OpenSuse or cant be installed in OpenSuse but they are a little harder to install then in Ubuntu as even though the OpenSuse codecs installer has a lot in it its not as much as the Ubuntu restricted extras package.
To achieve the same job on OpenSuse I had to install all three sets of Gstreamer seperately (good, bad, ugly) install VLC, Mplayer and the xine codecs package to get what I needed.
Same amount of plugins yes, but I had a little more effort installing those codecs on OpenSuse then Ubuntu.
Ubuntu's codecs installer was just easier, not better, and I didnt say there was some special media on Ubuntu then on OpenSuse.

Then you should have clarified it what you mean by "having more codecs" because your previous post read as just that and not as "easier to install on Ubuntu". When someone says "having more codecs" it means that and not "it's easier to install them". There's absolutely no logical reason to assume it's the latter when the person clearly writes "having more codecs" and does not clarify/explain what he means by that...

No you are very biased, and I have quite a bit of knowledge concerning codecs and ****.
Dont treat me like a kid here, just because I do favor ubuntu at times doesnt mean I am some sort of idiot.
I have used Linux for 5 years pal, so dont treat me like some sort of noob.
Jeez dont be a jerk about it, there are some things that I like Ubuntu for I wont deny it but come on dude there is room in this world for both OpenSuse and Ubuntu.
Ubuntu and OpenSuse both have their flaws and merits.
To just say everything about OpenSuse or Ubuntu is perfect is not my intention.
I have said once that in terms of multimedia and to a point support Ubuntu is the better from what I have seen.
In terms of stability however and performance the jury is still out.
I cannot give OpenSuse a full judgment right now but I have already seen many of its flaws and merits and can name a few things that I think ubuntu has done a better job on.
If its some sort of crime to prefer one distro over anther we should all be locked up you know, its not a crime to like Ubuntu more then OpenSuse or vice versa.
But you make it seem like I committed murder or something here.
No I just stated my observations on certain matters, I was not condemning OpenSuse or anything but I was pointing out what I think is a weak spot.
As a member of this community I have a right to say what I feel is missing in the distro, after all the best way to make improvements sometimes is to compare notes.
Look be mad at me all you want for liking ubuntu, I do and it is my right to like Ubuntu rather if you like it or not.
Linux is linux

Really? you do realize that you're arguing with a video developer who contributes patches to mencoder and is the author of h264enc, xvidenc and divxenc? I bet my codecs knowledge is far better than your superficial understanding, especially when it comes to how a codec works and what a codec actually is. I bet you don't even know that x264, for example, is not a codec at all, do you?

No one stops you from saying what you like or dislike but if you want to do so, please make your posts more clear as to what you mean. As I said, your previous post read as "Ubuntu offers more codecs" and not as "It's easier to install them on Ubuntu than on openSUSE" which the latter may very well be true and I can't argue with that since I'm not very familiar with how Ubuntu installs/offers them.

[TaraIkeda]

Originally Posted by microchip8

Really? do they pay up the Fraunhoffer institute or Thomson royalties since MP3 is patented and one must pay up if he's distributing it? Do you have any proof to backup your claims? If not, I won't believe you.

Also have a look at the MP3 patent mess MP3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think Canonical does pay for the MP3 codec, I dont have any concrete documentation on the matter but from what I understand yes Ubuntu can ship the codec legally.
I think its enabled because of the partner repositories, I know Adobe allows flash to be shipped on the partner repository but then again its not preinstalled so I am not completely sure on the Ubuntu MP3 playback deal.
A lot of documentation on the matter is a little out of date so I cannot 100% back up my claim.

Then you should have clarified it what you mean by "having more codecs" because your previous post read as just that and not as "easier to install on Ubuntu". When someone says "having more codecs" it means that and not "it's easier to install them". There's absolutely no logical reason to assume it's the latter when the person clearly writes "having more codecs" and does not clarify/explain what he means by that...

Perhaps I should have been more clear yes, I just have a fast type style that gets to a point and if I need to add more I can do so later.
I have a lot going on when I post on a forum as normally I am helping out on some other linux forum.
My styling is unorthodox but it works for me.

Really? you do realize that you're arguing with a video developer who contributes patches to mencoder and is the author of h264enc, xvidenc and divxenc? I bet my codecs knowledge is far better than your superficial understanding, especially when it comes to how a codec works and what a codec actually is. I bet you don't even know that x264, for example, is not a codec at all, do you?

Well I am certainly not a person who knows every codec out there and how a codec works but yes I know my bases.
I dont pretend to be an expert, I am definitely not a video developer but I am aware of mencoder...
I dont pretend that I fully know what it does, much less how gstreamer or something like that exactly works.
But I do have a basis of what most of the codecs do, I dont know exactly how they work granted but come on you dont have to be a video developer to understand what they do.
But that still doesnt make me an idiot, I am not a developer yes but hey last time I checked you dont need to be a developer to use Linux.
I think having a base line of what codec does what is a good start though and I probably know more about it then most.
Still my knowledge of codecs I think is pretty fair, I am not a expert or a coder but I get the basis of what a codec is and how it works.

No one stops you from saying what you like or dislike but if you want to do so, please make your posts more clear as to what you mean. As I said, your previous post read as "Ubuntu offers more codecs" and not as "It's easier to install them on Ubuntu than on openSUSE" which the latter may very well be true and I can't argue with that since I'm not very familiar with how Ubuntu installs/offers them.

Well if you need to know what Ubuntu packages with the ubuntu restricted I can give a list:

adobe-flashplugin
gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg
gstreamer0.10-pitfdll
gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad
gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse
gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly
gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse
icedtea6-plugin
libavcodec-unstripped-52
sun-java6-jre
ttf-mscorefonts-installer
unrar

and look at the multimedia installer for opensuse:
Flash
Latest Amarok (with MP3 Support)
Encrypted DVD
Extra XINE Codecs, for DivX/Xvid etc. (libxine1)
Win 32 Codecs (w32codec-all)

so for the most part the Ubuntu restricted extras package is more robust.

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by TaraIkeda

I think Canonical does pay for the MP3 codec, I dont have any concrete documentation on the matter but from what I understand yes Ubuntu can ship the codec legally.
I think its enabled because of the partner repositories, I know Adobe allows flash to be shipped on the partner repository but then again its not preinstalled so I am not completely sure on the Ubuntu MP3 playback deal.
A lot of documentation on the matter is a little out of date so I cannot 100% back up my claim.

Unless you provide me with sound reliably information, I won't believe it. Also, it is impossible for Ubuntu to legally offer a codec in a country which has laws with prohibit the installation of (patented) codecs, no matter if one has payed for the license/patent of that codec.

Perhaps I should have been more clear yes, I just have a fast type style that gets to a point and if I need to add more I can do so later.
I have a lot going on when I post on a forum as normally I am helping out on some other linux forum.
My styling is unorthodox but it works for me.

Yes, better wording and better explaining can help a lot and remove or strongly minimize possible confusion and possible wrong assumptions by others. When you said that "Ubuntu has more codecs" my very first sentence in my reply to you was, and I quote myself, "What do you mean Ubuntu offers more codecs?" This is because I wasn't sure if you understand what a codec is, or if you mean that it's easier to install it on Ubuntu or if you really mean that Ubuntu really offers more codecs, which in my thinking was the least possible thing.

Well I am certainly not a person who knows every codec out there and how a codec works but yes I know my bases.
I dont pretend to be an expert, I am definitely not a video developer but I am aware of mencoder...
I dont pretend that I fully know what it does, much less how gstreamer or something like that exactly works.
But I do have a basis of what most of the codecs do, I dont know exactly how they work granted but come on you dont have to be a video developer to understand what they do.
But that still doesnt make me an idiot, I am not a developer yes but hey last time I checked you dont need to be a developer to use Linux.
I think having a base line of what codec does what is a good start though and I probably know more about it then most.
Still my knowledge of codecs I think is pretty fair, I am not a expert or a coder but I get the basis of what a codec is and how it works.

No one else has ever called you an idiot. The only one who called you an idiot is yourself. And you certainly don't have to be a video coder to understand/know what codecs are. This also is not the reason why I argue. The only reason is due to you saying that Ubuntu offers more codecs than openSUSE, which as I said above, I didn't really know if you knew how the Linux codecs world looks like or if you meant something else by that, hence me asking for more explanation by stating my reply with a question to get an answer from you about the "it offers more codecs" thing

Well if you need to know what Ubuntu packages with the ubuntu restricted I can give a list:

adobe-flashplugin
gstreamer0.10-ffmpeg
gstreamer0.10-pitfdll
gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad
gstreamer0.10-plugins-bad-multiverse
gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly
gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly-multiverse
icedtea6-plugin
libavcodec-unstripped-52
sun-java6-jre
ttf-mscorefonts-installer
unrar

and look at the multimedia installer for opensuse:
Flash
Latest Amarok (with MP3 Support)
Encrypted DVD
Extra XINE Codecs, for DivX/Xvid etc. (libxine1)
Win 32 Codecs (w32codec-all)

so for the most part the Ubuntu restricted extras package is more robust.

We have a thing called openFATE where you can suggest improvements to SUSE and the way it offers things. However, this may be better directed at the packman team which you can contact by mail and discuss it with them

Personally, from looking at the above naming scheme, I'm a bit confused/uncertain as to what they imply by naming a package with "-bad" or "-ugly"

[Sagemta]

Tarakelda,
Doesn't the codecs that you mentioned come from the Medibuntu repo?
It's been a while since I've used Ubu,but I think the arrangement is something like what Packman has. Which I think goes something like this where the repo is located,somewhere in the EU,access to the codecs we're talking here is allowed. In the USA we're not but we can get access here if we want,at our own peril.
Now I can be wrong about that as I said it's been a while. However, back in the days when Ubu was "plagued" by some accounts with Automatix. There was a box on the Automatix screen about whether or not I agreed to the fact that in some countries some codecs were illegal. Checking it meant I agreed that if I were in one of those countries I knew I was doing an illegal act.

[RedDwarf]

Originally Posted by microchip8

Unless you provide me with sound reliably information, I won't believe it. Also, it is impossible for Ubuntu to legally offer a codec in a country which has laws with prohibit the installation of (patented) codecs, no matter if one has payed for the license/patent of that codec.

He probably is talking about the Fluendo MP3 plugin. Fluendo payed for the patents.
But recently Fluendo asked openSUSE to stop distributing it (is still available to download from its website), I suppose they did the same with Ubuntu.
Anyway, that doesn't means the mad and ffmpeg based MP3 decoders have also a license. Neither means anything about MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX) and other codecs legal status.

Originally Posted by microchip8

Personally, from looking at the above naming scheme, I'm a bit confused/uncertain as to what they imply by naming a package with "-bad" or "-ugly"

That naming scheme comes from upstream.
-bad are just bad coded plugins, that need a source code review. Perhaps are incomplete or whatever.
-ugly are plugins that are fine from a technical POV but problematic from a legal POV.
-good are good coded and without legal problems plugins.

...but I don't know what he is trying to argue. That same packages (without the -multiverse split) are available in Packman.
If he is trying to compare the Ubuntu metapackage with the openSUSE codecs-gnome 1-Click... what codecs-gnome installs is:

ffmpeg
flash-player
gst-fluendo-mp3
gstreamer-0_10-ffmpeg
gstreamer-0_10-plugins-bad
gstreamer-0_10-plugins-good
gstreamer-0_10-plugins-ugly
libdvdcss
libxine1
w32codec-all

The only thing lacking is gstreamer0.10-pitfdll... that only works in 32 bits and doesn't really provides anything (perhaps one or two exotic codecs) not available from libavcodec anyway.

[consused]

Originally Posted by RedDwarf

...Since they aren't worried about patent laws I don't know why the multimedia support isn't installed by default, without the need of any "ubuntu-restricted-multimedia" package...

Sorry, but that statement is just nonsense, based on your opinion. "Not being included by default" shows that as a global distribution they are concerned about it. That way provides a disclaimer for any problematic countries. I assume they could afford good legal advice.

[microchip8]

Originally Posted by RedDwarf

He probably is talking about the Fluendo MP3 plugin. Fluendo payed for the patents.
But recently Fluendo asked openSUSE to stop distributing it (is still available to download from its website), I suppose they did the same with Ubuntu.
Anyway, that doesn't means the mad and ffmpeg based MP3 decoders have also a license. Neither means anything about MPEG-4 Part 2 (DivX) and other codecs legal status.

True

That naming scheme comes from upstream.
-bad are just bad coded plugins, that need a source code review. Perhaps are incomplete or whatever.
-ugly are plugins that are fine from a technical POV but problematic from a legal POV.
-good are good coded and without legal problems plugins.

Still, me as an Ubuntu clueless person when it comes to how they name their packages, my first thought when seeing the "-bad" and "-ugly" in the names was "ZOMG... do not install, it'll blow you up". This, however, can be very misleading to a clueless newcomer since "-bad" and "-ugly" may not necessarily mean that it won't work or will screw you, since as you said, -bad only needs code review (and may very well work most of the time, if not all) and -ugly deals with license but works otherwise. Personally, I like how SUSE names them better

[TaraIkeda]

Originally Posted by microchip8

Unless you provide me with sound reliably information, I won't believe it. Also, it is impossible for Ubuntu to legally offer a codec in a country which has laws with prohibit the installation of (patented) codecs, no matter if one has payed for the license/patent of that codec.

Well I assume it is indeed fluendo that allows the codec to be preinstalled... at least with Jaunty I know MP3 playback was on there right away but that might not be the case next time around.
But yeh I am unsure what the deal is there.

Yes, better wording and better explaining can help a lot and remove or strongly minimize possible confusion and possible wrong assumptions by others. When you said that "Ubuntu has more codecs" my very first sentence in my reply to you was, and I quote myself, "What do you mean Ubuntu offers more codecs?" This is because I wasn't sure if you understand what a codec is, or if you mean that it's easier to install it on Ubuntu or if you really mean that Ubuntu really offers more codecs, which in my thinking was the least possible thing.

No what I meant was it was just easier to install codecs on Ubuntu as the restricted extras package loads a lot into the system, the OpenSuse codec installer offers less.
But again its not like the codecs dont exist in opensuse, they are just a little harder to obtain... though not impossible.

We have a thing called openFATE where you can suggest improvements to SUSE and the way it offers things. However, this may be better directed at the packman team which you can contact by mail and discuss it with them

yeh I was thinking about doing the openfate thing, I already have a launchpad account and used to giving out suggestions.
Contacting the Packman team is another good idea.
Look I am not enforcing anything, I am just stating as from a new users perspective Ubuntu might be a little easier to work with when concerning multimedia.
The margin betweeen opensuse and Ubuntu isnt too huge however.

Personally, from looking at the above naming scheme, I'm a bit confused/uncertain as to what they imply by naming a package with "-bad" or "-ugly"

Thats gstreamer at work there, RedDwarf summed thart part up.

Originally Posted by RedDwarf

The only thing lacking is gstreamer0.10-pitfdll... that only works in 32 bits and doesn't really provides anything (perhaps one or two exotic codecs) not available from libavcodec anyway.

well on the ubuntu restricted extras package indeed the gstreamer0.10-pitfdll is listed for 32bit.
But as for the Suse codecs package for gnome vs ubuntu restricted extras deal what I listed was what i remembered off the top of my head of what was included with that package but I remember it offering a few extra tidbits that made a good 88% of my multimedia work...
the rest was covered by medibuntu who also offers the gstreamer stuff and other packages.