Slashdot Mirror
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?"
The answer is no,.
Football Odds
It's wrong to force a choice upon others and I thought that was one of the main points about 'free'-software?
Anything that sits in the kernel and has the possibility of crashing your system should have source code. Anything in userland is fair game for closed source software.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I think the point of linux is to allow people to do what they want instead of having "important" people tell them what to do. This guy can shove it.
Let's be frank. There are some things that open-source isn't good at (see user interface design). Any pragmatic user is going to use the best tools for the job. In this case, going by the article, the example is Skype.
In another case, the best tool may be Firefox (over Internet Explorer). This is the reverse, and again it's (to many people) the best tool for the job.
I've never really understood the debate here. Yes, it would be great if the whole desktop could be open-source. But any realistic user (read: not a zealot) is going to use the best tool for the job (and so will I)
So by all means, work on replacements for Skype, graphics card drivers, and the like. There will always be people who like to write code and reverse-engineer and I say more power to them. Just let the rest of us use what works.
It's like going with an appliance (that is less efficient and less featured) just because it has schematics. Most people just use what works best.
For a distro like Ubuntu, which is supposed to work out of the box, this means closed-source. It's still a monstrous improvement over Windows.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
If that's your concern, go with one of the FSF-approved distros.
The way the article is phrased, it's all or nothing. "The Linux Desktop" is not a single entity, why should the separate distros all conform to a single ideal?
There will never gonna be only _ONE_ distribution to rule them all like the gleichschaltung nazis always untiringly call for. Let windows converts use distros with CSS, let gpl purists use their gnewsense, let apfel fanboys use whatever apple feeds them with. Diversity is good. Diversity is healthy. Diversity is a sign of free, uncensored evolution.
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?"
The beauty of Linux is that users can answer that question for themselves and choose the distribution that best conforms to what they want. For general acceptance things need to 'just work', but if you are pure of free software heart with the intelligence to make things that don't just work work, possessed of courage and time and command line chops, you could use something like Debian. Hell, you could build Linux from Scratch if you wanted to.
Loose lips lose spit.
One problem I can see with the f/oss movement is that it is largely centered around "scratching an itch" -- ie, developing for oneself and peers. When the majority of the user base has at least some level of experience in programming, then whether or not the system's code is available to them is a concern. For the most part though, people who use computers rather than do computers don't care.
The developers at Microsoft and Apple aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for other people to use. Their customers and end users don't really care about the philosophical and political implications of using a closed source driver - they just want their graphics card to do the things the company promised; they want their software to work and that be that.
No, certain segments of software I can certainly see the benefit in having be open and free - particularly for maths and sciences. Software the aids in the furthering human knowledge and advancement should be freely available to everyone. On the other hand, games -- not so much.
But, until Octave is a fully drop-in replacement for MatLab, there is still going to be a market for MatLab on Linux. Until nVidia opens their specs and/or drivers -- or they can be fully and completely reverse engineered, then people are still going to use the closed drivers so that they can use Compiz, or whatever it is that they're trying to do.
But unless we can get some rich bastard like Shuttleworth to put up the funding for a company to make open hardware, f/oss is always going to be playing second fiddle in the driver game. Unless we can get university maths and science departments to use Octave or wxMaxima instead of MatLab, we're going to be playing catch up and the "clone" game.
And frankly, until we stop making software a political statement, we're going to end up driving away a lot of people who just want to use the computer to do useful (to them) work and not make the computer their life. Its bad enough that Apple and MS have the images of being linked to the Democrat-Republican divide (although Rush seems to enjoy the Mac); Does f/oss really want to be linked to bomb-throwing anarchists at the world trade meetings?
Should the Linux Desktop Be "Pure?"
Short answer: No.
Long answer: There is no 'the' Linux Desktop. There is my linux desktop, your linux desktop, that guys linux desktop, and so on.
I personally like 3d acceleration and a working wifi card.
If you want a pure linux desktop, then your linux desktop should be pure.
Kindly keep your nose out of mine, plzktnx.
If you install proprietary software, you can uninstall it later easier than escaping slavery. A better analogy would be choosing to enter into slavery for a set period of time in order to accomplish some goal you might not otherwise. Say 40 hours a week in exchange for being able to afford clothing and food. You can, at your choice, choose to be your own boss if you want to remain pure, just like you can write/debug your own application. So installing proprietary graphics drivers would accomplish a short term goal until a pure version is available - and you have that freedom to choose.
To me, this is an example of people being ridiculous.
You're spot on about the free software versus open source debate bit. Obviously we can tell where you stand on the issue.
The big problem here is bias. "Free software" people are too frequently not content with being allowed to do their own thing. They want to criticize and insist everyone else do their thing too because their way is better or somehow morally right. You're doing that here claiming it's a "real shame that so many distributions have non-free software in their repositories." How is that a shame? Because it's not what you want? It sounds like a mild form of discrimination to me. Be content with the list of distributions you kindly linked to that are 'pure.'
What really inspired me to reply though was your 'there is no market' bit. I'm not sure if you were just aiming for a catchy sound byte or if you just have a fundamental lack of understand of how software, and in particular open source, works. Sure there's no "market" per se, but a wide userbase allows open source projects to attract more and better developers, find and patch bugs more quickly, and gives them influence to potentially change things that desperately need to be changed in the entrenched system (e.g., attempting to move away from the antiquated but universal System-V init). I'm sure there are other advantages I'm forgetting now too. The point being there are very valid reasons for trying to obtain "marketshare" for free software, it's not just because they're trying to win some stupid high school popularity contest.
I appreciate the free software philosophy. I also appreciate how religion helps some people feel good about themselves and gives them some sort of guidance. I just wish both parties would stop trying to impose their views on others.
No, Ubuntu is concerned about giving you the choice of being 100% free, or almost free where you need restricted drivers to get something working that otherwise you could not.
Ubuntu do not force you to use restricted drivers, they give you the choice! In doing so they attempt to provide their users with a Desktop experience that works as well as Windows/Mac OSX out of the box.
I value that choice and thank them for it.
Those who push for "pure" desktops are supposed freedom advocates, but they don't want to advocate the freedom of allowing users to use whatever software they want.
OSS software is great. I wish more software was open. I wish Nvidia would provide open drivers.
But what I really want more than anything, is to run the software I need to make my box work.
For those who want a pure box, then run it. Don't try to force it on me however.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Is this even a real question? You could paraphrase it to: "Should open source and closed source software be segregated?".
First problem: The software-using community is not a monolithic entity that makes these types of decisions
Second problem: Even if we were a hive-mind borg-like entity that the submitter implies, how do we create a consensus and enforce it?
Third problem: With the advent of networking, no computer is an island, and the entire computing world is a massive and complex ecosystem. Closed source and open source solutions WILL interoperate, no matter what some doofy-ass slashdot submitter cares to ponder. Is this person going to stop browsing sites with his "pristine" desktop that he can't access the source code to?
In short, don't fall for this troll and get into heated philosophical debates about a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
``Should the Linux Desktop Be "Pure?"''
There is no "the Linux Desktop". And if the question is if there should be one, the answer is no.
There should be choice. That way, those who want to have "pure" systems can do so. And those who have other preferences can have it their way.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The author really likes skype. A lot. He has an nvidia card. He didn't do his research. He claims "Despite their concern, I would point out that NVIDIA has a fairly decent track record with bug control and, mysteriously, Linux developers have been able to make things work on their end despite this issue with the licensing behind the current closed source NVIDIA driver. " yet according to https://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Linux_Graphics_Essay the proprietary nvidia and ati drivers and other binary drivers are regular features in the list of top kernel oops. When he talks about mp3s and encrypted DVDs and binary wireless drivers in the same sentence he is clearly confusing the issues of copyright license, software patents and the legality of breaking DRM and the like. I can easily play and encode mp3s and watch encrypted DVDs using only free software, that's free as in speech. His arguments are based on misunderstandings and poor research so they're not very interesting. He also completely misses the fact that the Linux kernel contains non-free and unattributable code which could be the subject of a much more interesting article.
"Non free software can have backdoors, spyware and other malicious features ..."
And you've gone through all of the millions, if not billions of lines of code that make up a typical Linux distribution and you know for a fact that there are no backdoors, spyware or other malicious features hidden away in the OPEN source?
Right.
Most people just pop in the CD or download the installer and let it do its thing. There could be ANYTHING in there, and no one would know it...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
If I want to play games, I can get a console.
From a software Freedom perspective, how is that any different than dual booting Windows?
No, I use Debian, so a team of people have done that for me. This might not be a complete check but it's more than you can say for non free software. I trust my MD5 checksum correct Debian CD far more than a crapware loaded Dell.
After install, all the usual things you do to check non free software are done. There's no WGA type daily encrypted communications leaving my network. How about yours?
.
It's what put the PC into every home and office.
Working means getting the job done on time and on budget.
No one is going hold off until the geek finds perfection in an OS or an app.
Not so long as GNU Herd remains as much an existential fantasy as "Waiting for Godot" - or "Duke Nukem Forever."
The above is not a troll, but a legitimate point. There could just as easily be malicious code hidden somewhere in an open-source distribution as it could be in a proprietary nVidia driver. Not likely in either case, but still possible. And in either case, how would you know?
In fact, if I were a terrorist or a nation-state, I'd consider building a team that becomes a major and prolific contributor to a few high profile OSS projects like, say, Apache or Sendmail.
A few innocuous, well-placed lines of code and suddenly you'd be in a position to shut down half the internet.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Software opens you up to abuse and bugs. Software can have backdoors, spyware and other malicious features. Software does not get the love and attention it deserves, so it's almost always buggier an and more bloated than a whale (I struggled on that one). Hardware that doesn't work is never as good as hardware that just works.
FTFY
I hate grammar Nazi's.
If I want to play games, I can get a console.
From a software Freedom perspective, how is that any different than dual booting Windows?
that is a good question. Consoles are, if anything, even more proprietary than the MS Windows OS. But if I played games, I would rather restrict my proprietary software to one device, than infest my general purpose computer with DRM, NSA backdoors, or what have you.
The game console is not advertised as a general purpose device. It is sold as playing games offered by the company and approved 3rd party software vendors. In the same vein, binary blob firmware is not a problem for software freedom purists. The code does not run in the general purpose CPU, it simply a low cost replacement for a ROM in the hardware. In fact, the binary blob does not have to be traditional "code" - it could just as easily be the connection list for a FPGA.
What is a problem is binary kernel drivers like Nvidia and Broadcom. There is a reverse engineered open source driver for Broadcom that doesn't crash all the time like the Windows driver. It still uses the binary blobs, however (that the end user has to extract from the Windows driver).
Skype is a problem - what's wrong with Ekiga? Our office just uses hardware ATAs and VOIP phones that don't pretend to be general purpose. A more uncomfortable case is NXclient. The protocol is documented and can be implemented, and there is a fine open source NX server (freenx), but the open clients aren't as ready for prime time. I ended up installing the nomachine free beer NX client for my Dad.
Flash won't work on unapproved operating systems. Linux users don't care, because Linux is "approved". But it won't run on FreeBSD. But Linux users don't care because FreeBSD is not Linux.
There was a time not that long ago when the open source community universally decried websites that required Flash. Yet that stopped the instant Flash became available for Linux. It demonstrates just how shallow the commitment to open source principles really is.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
That link shows how out of touch the FSF is with reality. Let's look at each of their points.
No free software. So? Using it just as it came out of the box, it is a far better phone than any other phone I've had.
It can play DRM media. Since they would not have any DRM media to play, how is this a problem for them? Are they under the mistaken impression that it can ONLY play media that has DRM?
It exposes your whereabouts. They don't say on what they base this claim.
Won't play patent-free and DRM-free formats. Simply wrong. It plays WAV and AIFF files. Note also that MP3 is an ISO standard, and a de facto standard. The formats FSF recommends have not been submitted for standardization. Based on their rhetoric in other areas (such as document formats), it is vital to support standards, and avoid non-standards. Oops.
FreeRunner. Hahahaha. Oh, they are serious? They seem to overlook that when people buy a phone, they want something that actually functions well as a phone.
you've still got to obtain binaries to compile that code. and everyone is dependent on the BIOS, too. is there even such a thing as PCs with opensource BIOS?
And how can you trust the original Pastel code that birthed the GCC compiler set? Sheeit, there are probably exploits injected way back that still exist... And what about the processor itself? Pentium bug, anyone?
As for a C compiler... You'd surely require a series of hand-assembled bootstraps to be sure you were safe... and if the target machine's BIOS has been exploited then it doesn't really matter how you build...
Or you could assess the risk in a reasonable manner.
You forgot the "or a nation-state" part. In fact, didn't I just recently read about the Pentagon worrying about code or instructions slipped into devices and chips from countries like China? And China, in turn, worrying about using software created in the US?
Infrastructure attacks are primary targets, and it's pretty widely acknowledged that cyber-warfare is the next major battleground. And worse, it's one in which nearly anyone can play.
Some people get paid to worry about such things. And all so that other people can "live life" with their heads comfortably buried in their... ah, in the sand.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I want FOSS to be about giving people options. More options = more freedom. It is no more wrong for Linux to have proprietary apps than it is for Open Source apps to be ported to Windows or Mac or (before it was free) Java or for FOSS apps to be written with .net.
I would like to remind you, if people could not mix and match, Firefox would never have caught on, and everyone would still design websites using non-standard HTML and CSS and IE would be the despot of the web (and MS likely never would have bothered creating IE 7 which helped IE become a modern browser). If nobody's hardware worked and nobody's must have apps like Flash Player worked, nobody would ever switch to Linux.
It is also worth mentioning that if MS didn't exist, Linux couldn't have existed. MS, in cooperation with IBM, standardized the PC market. If the 386 architecture had not caught on, Linux would never have become more than a pet project for Linus Torvalds, since nobody else would have had hardware that worked with the early releases (originally, Linux was written by Torvalds so he could learn about the 386 platform, and thus is was very 386 dependent, it wasn't until later that it would be ported to every architecture imaginable).
The Gospel according to lolcat
Rather than arguing over whether the Linux desktop should be pure or not, isn't a better solution to do as someone else suggested further back and compromise. Create two versions, one that is essentially for the purists and thus more suitable for specialists who like to tinker with things; and one that is more practical in terms of mass appeal. This would essentially kill two birds with one stone and help to widen the appeal and use of the Linux desktop by the masses, wouldn't it? Just a thought...