The bottom line, the thing that everyone understands about Linux, in any form, is that it’s free. From that point on, things get more complicated and less understood. Though it’s not very crowded in the “Operating Systems” section, Linux distros are the only operating systems that one initially understands in relation to its price. No one will ever say to you: “I hear Windows 7 Home is $99.99, what do you think?” It’s highly unlikely that anything meaningful will be derived from such an observation since price is not the point, but for Ubuntu, “free” is a source of strength and weakness, and users are immediately engaged with the implications and limitations of our understanding of the term.
If it were possible to separate Ubuntu from the existing perceptions associated with Linux and open-source software, one would see an operating system that is competitive with Windows and OS X. The software that comes standard with Ubuntu is enough to meet the needs of most academics, and more specialized software is freely available through the Software Center. Ubuntu’s software offerings are primarily open source, and because they’re typically developed first in Linux, they’re often faster and more stable than their Windows or OS X versions; that is, Open Office (reviewed here) works better in Ubuntu than it does in Windows. Powerful and advanced utilities like the graphics program, GIMP, run just as well, or better than Photoshop, and the open source offerings go on to include multiple free alternatives to nearly any Windows or OS X program. To put it in the simplest terms, there’s nothing wrong with Ubuntu; it’s a perfectly fine operating system. However, perfectly fine does not mean finely perfected. Though it may be frustrating at times, its everyday use is still no more frustrating than the common problems one encounters on more popular operating systems. What makes those frustrations different for Ubuntu is a matter of definition. Everyday inconveniences occurring on the only OS that someone has ever used are “computer problems,” and the problems that arise on other OSs are addressed with more specificity: “Windows problems,” “Linux problems,” and so on. To most users, the OS and the computer are one, which means that Linux distributions like Ubuntu come packaged with a distinction from the whole of one’s prior computing experience; it’s separate from the computer case and is installed over, or in addition to, the OS that was your computer.
It may appear obvious in hindsight, but the first thing you notice about Ubuntu is that you don't already have it. You are likely installing over an existing OS, and there is a sense of finality to that process. It's very likely that you will be erasing everything you can't save or haven't thought to save. It’s the first hurdle that one has to overcome, and Ubuntu has done everything it possibly can to ease you through this transition. For example, before installing, you can “test-drive” Ubuntu from the installation CD. Sooner or later though, decision time is at hand. Even though the installation itself is very quick and painless, it's still the first disadvantage that Ubuntu has to overcome; the fact remains that even when you know that Ubuntu can do everything you need it for, it still has to overcome the status quo. What special advantage must it have before it’s worth starting over? Likewise, must something be wrong with your primary OS before you can think about switching? In practical terms, the advantages that Windows, Apple, and Linux have over one another are less than profound when you already possess one or two of them.
Upon installation, one finds a wide variety of software and utilities; internet, office, media, and others are installed along with the OS, and most (if not all) needs beyond that are addressed with Ubuntu's Software Center. The Software Center program works similarly to an app store; it's a searchable index that hosts a majority of the programs available for the OS. It's an incredibly convenient tool, and probably the first place that a new user will want to go, but it's also the site of the first ethical dilemma in Ubuntu’s open source experience.
When thinking of software, open source or not, there's “free,” as in “free to take,” and then there's “free,” as in “free to use in any way.” The Free Culture debate has taken to defining the different uses of “free” as “free as in free beer” and “free as in free speech.” Up to this point, Ubuntu is both, it is free to use and distribute in any way; it is entirely yours. It follows then, that deciding how free your daily computing experience will be is a decision that is entirely yours as well. Ubuntu makes very sure that you make those decisions yourself. For example, it comes installed with Firefox, but Firefox is missing a number of plugins that make it more functional. These are Ubuntu’s “Restricted Extras,” and they include Java, Flash, video codecs, fonts, mp3 codecs, and others that are grouped together because they’re proprietary formats. "Restricted Extras" aren’t included in the Ubuntu installer, and because of this, you have to decide whether you want them or not. Since they’re made available in Ubuntu’s Software Center as “Restricted Extras,” choosing to use them--or not--is not truly a terrible ethical decision, but in a way, the choice is framed as such. Clearly, the use of the word, “restricted,” to describe the package of support files poses the question, “do you value convenience more than openness?” Are you willing to break the open source seal? However, that’s not really what’s being decided in installing support for proprietary formats. Effectively, the decision is about whether you want to draw your own borders or let the popular discourse of open source draw them for you. The files that support viewing Flash, and listening to mp3s are free (free as in free beer), and declining access to those formats represents your refusal to support proprietary formats. At the same time, the decision itself is not as binary as the way in which the question is framed. There are many degrees of “free” in software licensing –-it’s not one or the other. Decisions like the one detailed here are common in Ubuntu; the system’s structure ensures that the user is more aware of the qualities that their software may have, and that can be seen as a generally positive thing.
Linux OSs are the only OSs that are designed to present ethical dilemmas to its users, and to some degree, that may be a barrier to more prevalent usage. Yet, the ability to recognize and evaluate these scenarios is an increasingly relevant skill. It’s easy to criticize Linux distros and open source software for programming ideology, but that’s also currently the most prevalent feature in consumer technology as well. So, when Richard Stallman tells the world he’s proudly using the first 100% open source computer, and that it hardly works, the internet laughs; they see a man trapped by an extreme interpretation of the ideology he pioneered. Yet, the other side of the equation is not terribly different. In the business of consumer electronics, the limitations of what software can work with other programs, and what software can work on certain devices is decided by a commercial ideology -- the "Walled Garden." Where Ubuntu shines is in between these ideological extremes; its first boot gives users a clean start, a stable system, and access to an extensive library of free software. Linux has reached a state of maturity in Ubuntu that will feel familiar to Windows and OS X immigrants: its interface is logical and intuitive, reminiscent of other systems, although just a little different. However, Ubuntu’s unfamiliar aspects are likely to be its most rewarding. The many open source, free, professional-grade programs joined with the simplicity of their distribution is the one tremendous advantage that Ubuntu has over its competitors, and it demonstrates the positive side of the open source and Free Culture debates.
Ubuntu. Canonical Ltd. 2004.
Ted Freeseman
Bowling Green State University
MA Student
Department of Popular Culture