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

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.

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