This is very disappointing to see. The screenshot shows "You're ready to go!", followed by "You can use 'Software' to install apps like these:". The apps they list, in left-right top-down order, are: VLC (free), Skype (non-free), Spotify (non-free), Slack (non-free), Discord (non-free), Corebird (free), Mailspring (free), GIMP (free), Minecraft (non-free), Android Studio (non-free), Ora (non-free), Notepad-Plus-Plus (free), Tusk (free), Brave (free), and IDEA Community (free).

That is 8 free and _7 non-free_. Also in the screenshot on the left is an Amazon icon.

We've known #Ubuntu to do these things for a while now, but I grow increasingly disappointed with each release. Ubuntu also encourages the use of proprietary software through "snaps", and advertises non-free software by default through their package repositories unless you explicitly check a box (at least in previous version) during installation to use only free repositories.

@mikegerwitz proprietary software exists and there's a lot of it. i don't see a problem here.

> proprietary software exists and there's a lot of it

Well, that's the more fundamental problem, and is why I'm a free software activist. ;)

But this is disappointing because of Ubuntu's roots. It became popular back in the day because it was a fairly well-polished Debian GNU/Linux derivative. It was accessible.

But now it's a distribution that is _harmful_ to the free software community. Recommending Ubuntu to a user is blatantly recommending proprietary software. And with each release, it gets worse. (Though there are fully free derivatives, like Trisquel.)

Debian itself hasn't been endorsed by the FSF because it has a non-free package repository ( Ubuntu has taken that a step further with their snap container repository, which appears to have no license restrictions.
Vale@ganbara.nai @valerauko

@mikegerwitz locking people out of proprietary would be even more harmful. let people make that choice.

· Web · 0 · 1
@valerauko A "choice" means that the user is given an option between two or more things. But that is not what is presented. What is presented is a list of indistinguishable programs unless users choose to look at the license field, which means nothing to most of them to begin with. A choice would mean that Ubuntu would make a clear effort to mark non-free software as such (or vice versa), along with an explanation to educate users as to what that means.

Looking at that screenshot, and looking at, I see none of that. (The screenshot seems to reflect the recommendations on Snapcraft.) In fact, such little effort is made that the license fields aren't even links.

We disagree on what "harmful" means as well.

@mikegerwitz it's clearly not the mission of ubuntu or snapcraft to promote free software specifically. instead they give the users what they want