Should the Linux Desktop Be "Pure?"

jammag writes "According to Matt Hartley, many Linux desktop users don't like to admit that there's scads of closed source code commonly used with the Linux desktop. Hartley points to examples like proprietary drivers, the popularity of Skype among Linux users (in preference to the open source Ekiga), and the use of Wine. He concludes that, hey, if the code works, use it — a stance that won't sit well with purists. But his article raises the question: is it better to embrace some closed source fixes, and so create a larger user base, or to remain pure, and keep Linux for the specialists?"

Comments

Yes.

[NotInfinitumLabs]

That was the entire fucking point of the GNU project in the first place!!

Re:Yes.

[onecheapgeek]

Which is likely why he didn't say "The GNU project is very nice and very idealistic, but has so far failed." He did say "The GNU project is very nice and very idealistic, but has so far failed to displace close source software."

You need to finish sentences, not stop when you see a partial implication that gets your knickers in a wad.

Re:Stupid question

[byolinux]

Sadly, both of those contain binary blobs and at least Debian also distributes some proprietary software.

There are a few distributions but I accept these are hardly well known.

Some well known distributions allow a choice ...

[Zero__Kelvin]

Mandriva allows you to choose between purist and pragmatist versions. Just check the appropriate radio button when you download.

Gentoo only installs non-free stuff if you tell it to do so, since you have complete control over the entire installation process and everything is built from the source.

I'm sure there are other well known distributions that offer a choice is well.

bullshit

[speedtux]

It's what put the PC into every home and office.

That's bullshit. What put the PC into every home and office was the decreasing price of microprocessors. Microsoft was just riding the wave, they didn't cause it.

There was far better software available at the time than anything from Microsoft. The only reason Microsoft became part of the PC revolution was because IBM handed them a monopoly and they illegally exploited it.

Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice ..

[spazdor]

There's Gobuntu as well.

Re:There is no answer, it depends on what you want

[fuzzix]

Even then, how are going to tell if the compiled version you get is made from the exact same source?

Use Slackware. Pat doesn't mess with the original source. Package build scripts (SlackBuilds) use original source tarballs... If you don't trust the distro's package the SlackBuilds are available for you to build your own package based on source you've independently verified. SlackBuilds are also easily modified to build packages based on the latest source for when you just can't wait for the package maintainer to patch up that new OpenSSH exploit.

Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice ..

[mabhatter654]

the Mozilla Foundation Gecko-based browser distributed under the Trademarked name and dress "Firefox" can ONLY be distributed by them with that branding according to the license. You are more than free to download the exact same source code minus the little orange "fox" artwork and do whatever you want to under the 3 open source licenses they support. But most distros want to use the same firefox that is distributed from the Firefox website... that is not "free enough" software. This is where Debian renamed their source-based repositories "Ice Weasel" and there's a few other clever names for the non-branded "Firefox".

Thanks, but please don't trust us that much

[gwolf]

I am a Debian Developer. Depending on the package, I sometimes work quite close with the upstream developer, sometimes quite far. But the main work I do is:

• to ensure it correctly fits in with our policies - All files are in their place, no conflicts, etc.
• Check the bugs reported by our users, try to fix them, and coordinate with the authors about any fixes that "touch" their code
• Keep often track of their code, new versions, fixes, etc.

I am not by far as familiar with the code as the upstream authors, I am familiar only with certain well-known details. So, yes, there is a safety layer in there, but it's not as thick as you seem to assume

Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice ..

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Errr ... why is the last part relevant? Isn't all software always built from source? Unless its interpreted, of course, in which case there's very little to build."

I will assume you have never used/don't know about Gentoo. You'll note that there is only one sentence in my post, the first half of which talks about the install process. Thus the second part of my sentence refers specifically to that install process. Gentoo differs from most Linux distributions in that, rather than downloading pre-built binaries to your system, it downloads the source and builds it on the machine that Gentoo is being installed on using the custom options selected by the person doing the install. Gentoo is therefore much more flexible, but also not for the faint of heart, the inexperienced, or those in a rush to start using their Linux box immediately.

Re:Why not both?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Can we please use "Microsoft's market power" or something,

No we can not. The reason is we don't want to pander to your misunderstanding of the word monopoly. It does not mean one-and-only. It just means only-one-that-matters. I refer you to the definition used by Milton Friedman in his book "Capitalism and Freedom":

In Economics, monopoly (also "Pure oligopoly") exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.

Microsoft dictates almost everything about the desktop. For example, they've forced video card manufacturers to support directx, to even build in "protected path" drm-support in hardware.

Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice ..

[Zero__Kelvin]

It is normal and expected that distribution maintainers build with different ./config options, or apply various patches. That much is true. What is not normal is for them to fork a project and then pretend to be using un-forked code.

" ... if you don't trust the package maintainers then you shouldn't use that distro.

I suppose this will offend a bit, but that is an absurd statement. What percentage of the people using any OS know and trust the people rolling it? I can go by reputation, or if I am smart I can reject a given OS because they have a history of being shady [ I won't mention the M word ;-) ], but I ultimately have to use something based on reputation and a solid dose of faith unless I roll my own.

Proprietary software destabilizes my desktop

[Frantactical Fruke]

The only closed source software on my machine is the Flash plug-in, which lurks behind the no-flash plug-in. Every time I give in to temptation and view some Flash thingie, I expect it to hog half of my CPU, crash Firefox, take away the sound from other apps and refuse to shut down for anything less than a kill signal. Yes, Flash has been gradually getting better, but it still remains the one big sore spot on my computer and the reason I won't let any other proprietary software on it to mess things up even more.

So, hell yeah, I want a pure free software system.

Re:RMS

[julian67]

mp3 can be encoded and decoded using entirely free software, the problems with mp3 are not about copyright/free software/proprietary software but with software patents, a legal minefield which makes distribution of mp3 decoders (players) and especially encoders a potential risk. It's perfectly possible to have a GNU/Linux desktop composed exclusively of free software, and which can play and encode mp3. It's just that US based distributors, with a few exceptions, are wary of offering it.