headermask image

header image

Multimedia Test: Ubuntu versus Freespire

youtube-freespireI did it: I installed Freespire. Not on a real machine, but in VMware. Unlike certain OSes by Microsoft unless you pay a small fortune for it, Linux-type OSes don’t care if you install them in a virtual machine. I also did the same thing with the latest released Ubuntu release (7.04, a.k.a. Feisty Fawn) as well.

The first thing I tested was Adobe Flash. What better way to test this than to head over to YouTube to watch the DDR Remix of Chocolate Rain. In Freespire, it played right away. In Ubuntu, it would not play until I installed Adobe Flash. Fortunately, I was able to click on the “additional plugins” bar in Firefox, Flash was presented, and I was able to install it. At least getting it there was easy.

I pretty much had the same results with Ubuntu and Freespire with a number of different files I tested with: mp4, m4v (both video), m4a (AAC), and mp3. In the case of Ubuntu, it recognized it couldn’t play the file, but offered to do a codec search. In each case, it found the codec it needed, presented a warning that I might need a license to use said software, and installed the software without a hitch. In Freespire, it just played.

Given that Ubuntu tries to distribute only open-source software, with the exception of “binary blobs” for hardware drivers, Ubuntu has significantly improved the end user experience for actually getting the proprietary bits of software–namely the multimedia codecs–needed to function in the real world. Freespire would prefer to distribute only open-source software, but is a bit more pragmatic in it’s approach, including enough proprietary bits to function on the Internet.

Which distro wins? Freespire, if only because of Click and Run (CNR). CNR includes a number of applications, both free and paid. It makes it much easier to locate software you might want and install it. Either distribution would be a worthy addition to any home desktop, though.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

2 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

  1. I think the main difference here is philosophy. They both try to make
    it as easy as possible within their respective philosophies.

    To most people, the whole “free as in beer” versus “free as in speech”
    thing is a non-issue. While I realize there is a difference, and I’m
    sure you can spend time educating people on those differences, most
    people don’t really care. They just want a usable machine with usable
    software with a minimum of fuss.

    1. PhoneBoy on September 4th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
  2. Freespire does indeed come packed full of codec goodness, however i do tend to feel that by selling its soul, the heart of the distro is gone, and I wonder if it will be around in 2 years..? I love reviews like this, because you are not testing like for like, Ubuntu has never said it has all the codecs loaded from the CD, the idea was to have a single Cd (in the days of Fedora and suse being DVD only installs, and you load on what you want. Over the years its added better ways to add the codecs you require, and lets be honest, 10 minutes with Automatix, and whats the real difference between the two packages? CnR ? oh do behave.. Also, 64bit Pc’s are the future, and does freespire offer 64bit, with all those codecs? I think no.. Does Ubuntu? Oh, yes.. (i’m using it right now..)

    that being said, if i have any friends who are looking to move from the other OS, I have suggested Freespire 2.0, and they seem to be happy.. which all in all is a good thing.

    3. Dave Field on September 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 am

One Trackback

  1. By Debian-News.net - Debian News on 3 September 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Kramer auto Pingback[…] It makes it much easier to locate software you might want and install it.Read the short comparison hereQuote:I did it: I installed Freespire. Not on a real machine, but in VMware. Unlike certain OSes by […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*
  • Admin