We've established we hate DRM, OK. But the hard fact is, if we want Linux to advance; we need some form of DRM so companies can feel safe.
You don't need to bow to old media. It forsakes the foundations of FOSS by putting your content behind an obfuscated veil, the same way closed source software is a black box. Any DRM solution would have to be proprietary because if it were open sourced it would take minutes for someone to reverse engineer it and output unencumbered media.
I hope now Ubuntu totaly commits to eveliness, why, because then many of the users that use it today run away, not all but lets say a bit more or less than 50%, maybe the get new windows-daus as replacements maybe even more than the ones that left them, but this 50% userbase of todays ubuntu users (some of them did run away earlier down the road so maybe its not 50% from todays smaller userbase), because we need demand to a new Desktop-ready Linux, or to fix the choices we have.
Today other than ubuntu for desktop users (that dont want to use a 2 year old gnome or something like that) there is basicly fedora or archlinux, and some other distries that base on them. Yes if you like to compile all stuff maybe you could even consider gentoo a desktop alternative, if you have at least a quadcore, or a stronger dualcore. Else at some point you dont have the pations to wait for the updates compiling.
Ok you could switch to something like linux mint, but then you could also just install another ppa to ubuntu and deinstall a few packages and you are at the same point, that does not really help much, or changes much.
I find that today a bit sad, because arch linux packagemanagement tool is a joke, first you have to install with the normla packagemanager another packagemanager yaourt, then the interface from this packagemanager is worse than what I used in gentoo 10 years ago. It looks like a linux-from-scratch helper script or something like that. Also the packages in AUR having often bad quality.
Also fedora just when I give it a shot, fails to stay on par with ubuntu, they supposed to be more bleeding edge and have faster releases to newer stuff, but at the moment the opposite is true, ubuntu will release in a month or so, a release with a more or less complete gnome-shell 3.8 included, fedora will release that several months later. And no using Fedoras Rawhide isnt a alternative, have that updated on my laptop at the moment and that is at least true for a weak, I cant even login to X or Cli...
So its a bit sad, its a bit like Windows gets many hate for vista or 8 and then suddenly in Linux there would start a default-desktop-war. That would be bad timing wouldnt it ^^
== GNU / LINUX QUESTION ==
And I find it funny how strong marketing works when you look on the naming shemes that are official or are mainstream. Nobody even says Android/Linux, so because of his drm stuff, they at least see that its something different, ok with Android/Linux instead of only Android you could understand that, because Linux itself is not a name that stands for free software or something so if there is no GNU/Linux you know it is not at least 99.99999% opensource. But even thats a difficult Term, RMS dont think that a distri even like debian is fully free, so there are a few full free linux versions. basicly you should only call them GNU/Linux or am I wrong here, like tristian Linux or somethign like that.
So would RMS be happier to call a not 100% free linux GNU/Linux because it values his big contributions to the os that is not only the kernel, or would he be unhappy, because someone would use the word gnu meaning non-freesoftware basicly ^^.
It sounded to me that rms wants to call each linux gnu/linux at least if gnu tools are used there. So I find it a bit funny because then they would give their name for stuff they dont want to happen.
So calling ubuntu -> ubuntu/linux and fedora gnu/linux would be funny because even fedora is not really 100% free like rms defines it it also does not only have fully free software included, like the firmwares etc.
But I think too, that ubuntu now defines a new category of linux, it would be easier if they fork also the kernel (more than distries do anyway) than it would be easier than it would be Ubuntu/ukernel or something ^^ than we could call each ubuntu mint its a ukernel System ^^ but thats also only because the term linux did get missused sadly. So now you cant call anything precisly, so android uses a linux kernel and therefor its linux, but its very different from a "normal" linux. it has nearly nothing except its usb-stack that is way better than at least windows 7 its usb stack, and some of its drivers, but others not...
Strange... but yes its a bit hard to now call ubuntu GNU/Linux.