Download from here
Wallpaper is created by AppliArt
THANKS: Ubuntu Vibes
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
TinyOGG -- watch flash content without the flash
This is a great site if you have a low-end machine and need to access flash content. Of course, you might just have an ideological issue with flash. Tinyogg takes care of it for you.
http://tinyogg.com/
http://tinyogg.com/
Gaia 10 is out
Definitely one of my favourite projects -- over 5000 digital artists producing art to save the planet. Including stunning wallpapers, music and a magazine.
http://www.gaia10.us/
http://www.gaia10.us/
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Nifty Narwhal
This strange creature, one of the oddest choices by far, is beginning to grow on me. Here is a cool pick of the mascot for the next version of Ubuntu
[caption id="attachment_2359" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Unicorn of the Sea"]
[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_2359" align="alignnone" width="300" caption="Unicorn of the Sea"]
[/caption]
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Is Ubuntu doing the DRM tango?
[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="280" caption="The DRM two step"]
[/caption]
EARLY signs that Ubuntu is slouching inextricably towards a form of digital rights management for paid-apps can be seen in a number of announcements in the blogosphere. First it was the dumping of Aptitude in Maverick. Next we heard about the impending death of Synaptic in Narwhal. Suspicions that we are all being herded quietly down the Digital Rights Management (DRM) path began to surface, when the first paid-for-app appeared in the Software Center along with Canonical statements about how our lives are literally going to be transformed "congregating around the Software Center" as the only bone fide and sane means of installing applications in Ubuntu.
Put aside the upbeat marketing pitch about happy users and profit-making developers overjoyed that Ubuntu is "finally coming round" to economic sense, there is every reason to worry about the new economic model being touted in Ubuntu and Linux in general. Will the new Linux capitalism end the overtly socialist ambitions of Ubuntu?
LinApps, a paid Linux application site was launched recently. It generated a lot of interest amongst users as "sign that Linux is capable of making money" but offers nothing more innovative than the Microsoft Model of Commerce. Sadly there is a general antipathy towards several evolutionary new economic models based upon freedom and openness -- voluntary economic models such as flattr and the mutual benefit "ransom model" which frees applications to the community but only after a profit threshold has been reached, risk being superseded by blatant caveman capitalism.
That's right, the default Genghis Khan approach to life in which civilisation is nothing more than a walled garden built to keep the rest of the Mongol horde out and your wallet firmly under dynastic control.
If developers start bolting down every piece of code to the new Siren Song of Ubuntu Software Center, we could all end up losing a lot more than our unique community. So what if it boils down to paying the rent, in the process allowing a few greedy developers to make real money extorting funds in return for their wares tailored to the next generation? Locking us in to the Software Center will invariably kill the medulla oblongata of the system. Synaptic (and apt-get) is surely the pathway to the brain which gives our distro its unique edge?
The generation which put in all the effort to build Ubuntu (That's US) would also feel dumped without any compensation for their labours except a platform that turns, as easily from freedom into a prison. The rebranding of Ubuntu in corporate shades of naartjie and aubergine may have signaled a cultural shift from the heydays of the Ubuntu revolution, but there are still those who cling to the lofty aspirations contained in the FSF, GPL and the Open Source Definition.
Unfortunately, Ubuntu Users are increasingly being seen by Canonical as mere consumers. The Novell-lead corporate-client relationship vs Ubuntu TECH (I am because you are) is what appears to be driving the next DRM wave, as Matt Asay's 'economics before innovation' impacts on decisions about what goes into the distro and what stays out.
Does it have to be this way? I am an Ubuntu nut not because of Matt Asay or Mark Shuttleworth, but rather because the metaphor is greater than any one individual. Nelson Mandela's Principle Number 1 drives momentum in my moral universe, not allegiance to the self-proclaimed "Master of the Universe" and his minions. As an anarchist & hacktivist I much prefer the economics of voluntary aid -- true African Ubuntu as a system of mutual cooperative organisation compared to outright Western-style capitalism.
Think about it, micro-payment systems like Flattr, though still in beta, could provide the entire community with enormous opportunities, a better means of generating income than the outright ransoming of applications which invariably create a police state in which some users will be turned into criminals merely for looking under the hood. DRM is the exact opposite of file-sharing, copying and tinkering.
The so-called Ransom Model (which needs to be compared to the actual ransom model inherent to capitalism) is another means of circulating economic energy. Essentially a sponsor-paid application system, the development of new applications could get sponsored or auctioned under code escrow instead of marketed and sold. Do we really want to become nothing more than consumers? Are we not all Ubunturistas, each producing according to his or her ability?
What will the new paid-for-apps cost us in the long run?
Will we sacrifice human rights alongside FOSS merely so that a few may earn a living?
Let us rather debate the issues to come up with better economic models, ones that are based upon Ubuntu and Community, rather than Patent Law, Intellectual Property and even the Rights of the Individual vs the Rights of the Collective.
[/caption]EARLY signs that Ubuntu is slouching inextricably towards a form of digital rights management for paid-apps can be seen in a number of announcements in the blogosphere. First it was the dumping of Aptitude in Maverick. Next we heard about the impending death of Synaptic in Narwhal. Suspicions that we are all being herded quietly down the Digital Rights Management (DRM) path began to surface, when the first paid-for-app appeared in the Software Center along with Canonical statements about how our lives are literally going to be transformed "congregating around the Software Center" as the only bone fide and sane means of installing applications in Ubuntu.
Put aside the upbeat marketing pitch about happy users and profit-making developers overjoyed that Ubuntu is "finally coming round" to economic sense, there is every reason to worry about the new economic model being touted in Ubuntu and Linux in general. Will the new Linux capitalism end the overtly socialist ambitions of Ubuntu?
LinApps, a paid Linux application site was launched recently. It generated a lot of interest amongst users as "sign that Linux is capable of making money" but offers nothing more innovative than the Microsoft Model of Commerce. Sadly there is a general antipathy towards several evolutionary new economic models based upon freedom and openness -- voluntary economic models such as flattr and the mutual benefit "ransom model" which frees applications to the community but only after a profit threshold has been reached, risk being superseded by blatant caveman capitalism.
That's right, the default Genghis Khan approach to life in which civilisation is nothing more than a walled garden built to keep the rest of the Mongol horde out and your wallet firmly under dynastic control.
If developers start bolting down every piece of code to the new Siren Song of Ubuntu Software Center, we could all end up losing a lot more than our unique community. So what if it boils down to paying the rent, in the process allowing a few greedy developers to make real money extorting funds in return for their wares tailored to the next generation? Locking us in to the Software Center will invariably kill the medulla oblongata of the system. Synaptic (and apt-get) is surely the pathway to the brain which gives our distro its unique edge?
The generation which put in all the effort to build Ubuntu (That's US) would also feel dumped without any compensation for their labours except a platform that turns, as easily from freedom into a prison. The rebranding of Ubuntu in corporate shades of naartjie and aubergine may have signaled a cultural shift from the heydays of the Ubuntu revolution, but there are still those who cling to the lofty aspirations contained in the FSF, GPL and the Open Source Definition.
Unfortunately, Ubuntu Users are increasingly being seen by Canonical as mere consumers. The Novell-lead corporate-client relationship vs Ubuntu TECH (I am because you are) is what appears to be driving the next DRM wave, as Matt Asay's 'economics before innovation' impacts on decisions about what goes into the distro and what stays out.
Does it have to be this way? I am an Ubuntu nut not because of Matt Asay or Mark Shuttleworth, but rather because the metaphor is greater than any one individual. Nelson Mandela's Principle Number 1 drives momentum in my moral universe, not allegiance to the self-proclaimed "Master of the Universe" and his minions. As an anarchist & hacktivist I much prefer the economics of voluntary aid -- true African Ubuntu as a system of mutual cooperative organisation compared to outright Western-style capitalism.
Think about it, micro-payment systems like Flattr, though still in beta, could provide the entire community with enormous opportunities, a better means of generating income than the outright ransoming of applications which invariably create a police state in which some users will be turned into criminals merely for looking under the hood. DRM is the exact opposite of file-sharing, copying and tinkering.
The so-called Ransom Model (which needs to be compared to the actual ransom model inherent to capitalism) is another means of circulating economic energy. Essentially a sponsor-paid application system, the development of new applications could get sponsored or auctioned under code escrow instead of marketed and sold. Do we really want to become nothing more than consumers? Are we not all Ubunturistas, each producing according to his or her ability?
What will the new paid-for-apps cost us in the long run?
Will we sacrifice human rights alongside FOSS merely so that a few may earn a living?
Let us rather debate the issues to come up with better economic models, ones that are based upon Ubuntu and Community, rather than Patent Law, Intellectual Property and even the Rights of the Individual vs the Rights of the Collective.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)