Why is Fedora a multimedia disaster? - Here is why.

[Dotan Cohen]

On 18/04/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Dotan Cohen wrote:
>
> > Correct. Ubuntu and XP (I can't talk for Vista), however, make an
> > effort to inform the user how to set up the system to use the formats
> > with the OS. Ubuntu goes so far as to ask "would you like me to
> > install mp3 support?" right inside Amarok. Click Yes, and it goes and
> > fetches the codec, installs it, and plays the file in under 45 seconds
> > (I timed it the second time I did it). I understand that Fedora cannot
> > legally do this.
>
> We *can* legally do this. There are atleast two ways.
>
> 1) Include proprietary software by default which we don't want to do but
> not for legal reasons.
>
> 2) Optionally provide them a way to install software like how Firefox
> installs flash plugin. The MP3 codec from Fluendo has a patent license
> and is under the MIT X11 license and available for free for example.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureCodecBuddy
>

Excellent. This is much needed, and will make Fedora much more accessable.

> >   Which is why I say don't push Fedora to the general
> > user. IE, don't create a LiveCD.
>
> You equate Live CD with a very specific use case while there are many
> others you have not considered at all.

Of course I consider the other uses. I personally use Fedora at home
but carry a Slax disk with me so I can do something useful with the
few university machines that I've identified with no password on the
bios. But a Fedora LiveCD will be used to show off Linux to potential
converts, and Fedora specifically is not good for that purpose (no
media support, etc). However, the CodecBuddy may very well be the
answer to that.

I'm being stuborn because I've turned a few people on to Linux, and I
know that Fedora is a bad first experience. Don't get me wrong: I use
Fedora at home after toying with SUSE, [K]Ubuntu, and a few others. I
simply love Fedora. Fedora ships with the latest stable Digikam, KDE,
etc... everything but Firefox. Therefore Fedora has features other
distros simply cannot match while retaining Fedora's (relative)
stability. However, those new to Linux need mp3 support, amoung other
things that stock Fedora cannot legally provide. Exposing these people
to Fedora will scare them away from Linux in general.

> >> There was a lot of talk about what can be a derived distro and still
> >> keep the Fedora name, one of the ideas was that it have to be a subset
> >> of Core + Extras, but I don't remember the conclusion.
> >
> > I remember that. I also don't remember the conclusion (I don't think
> > there was one) but it's irrelevant to this thread.
>
> We did have a conclusion. If you include any combination of official
> Fedora packages and want to have to do a official release talk to Fedora
> Project Board. Unofficial releases can be done by anyone.  The fact
> tools like Pungi and live cd tools are part of Fedora and allow anyone
> to create Fedora variants easily is a very relevant part of this discussion.

I was referring to unofficial releases. I wasn't sure if unofficial
releases could use the name Fedora.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com/what_is/open_source.html
http://technology-sleuth.com/long_answer/what_is_a_cellphone.html