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?"
To me, this is a great example of the free software vs open source debate.
Free software is a political movement, concerned with user freedom, and the creation of an operating system made entirely from free software.
Open source is a development methodology that aims to make better free software, but has no problem with using and even developing proprietary software at the same time.
Personally, I think is a real shame that so many distributions have non-free software in their repositories, but they are ultimately more concerned with getting more users to their distro than promoting software freedom.
It's quite telling that the GNU project only lists a handful of distributions, most of which very few will have heard of or used, yet I'm glad that such a list exists.
The distributions which are making inroads to getting on that list, such as Fedora and Debian, and the distributions which move further away from that list with each release, including, sadly, Ubuntu are quite evident of the difference in their communities.
Ubuntu is concerned by things like "marketshare" -- there is no market when your product can be redistributed freely.
Join the Free Software Foundation
Thirded.
We need to free the PC and this means freeing the OS. Free the OS and establish the trend. The pieces will fall into place.
For now, don't freak out if some closed source app is popular with Linux users. Linux should represent choice.
The "if the code works, use it" attitude is what gave us the DOS, Windows, and MS Office monopolies. It's particularly dangerous because most people have no idea what "working" means when they start out using something, and then establish a bad standard.
Being purist about this sort of thing is pragmatic. OK, so occasionally use Skype or whatever if you really need to. But if you simply don't give damn, you risk condemning us to another several decades of bad monopolies of one or the other kind.
Agreed, the very nature of kernel interaction requires complete transparency. That is my only qualm with ndiswrapper, it effectively bypasses several safeguards to achieve connectivity. Of course us diehards actually buy hardware we KNOW have native support :).
Freedom to use your computer in the way that best meets your needs. Linux helps me do that by allowing me to install whatever software I choose to use.
Now, should a *distribution* include non-free software? My personal feeling is that it should not, but that a user should have no problem finding and installing it from a non-free repository.
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
Join the Free Software Foundation
Why do you assume that the people who are running "pure" desktops aren't also pragmatic?
To cite the 3 examples FTFA, I don't use skype, I don't run windows apps under wine, and the video card in this box is an ati ... it does everything I want, the way I want it, at no cost to either my freedom or my bank account in terms of software ... How is that not pragmatic?
This is what happens when a venture is noticed by those who just want it all for themselves. They buy their "share" into it, then start altering it from inside.
Linux started as something slightly, if not very, different, but now as every second smart-ass asks themselves a question "Should we not make Linux a commercial alternative to X?", these sort of questions start to appear.
With that kind of thinking Linux ends up being the same kind of lousy crap just about any closed source code product potentially is - a black box of secrets with a tag that says "We guarantee you it works!"
Well, bullshit. Yes, it should remain pure. But most of your wise-ass friends, who pretend to know the way world works would want you to think otherwise. After all, how can something that is developed for nothing in return succeed. Is not all time money, they think. The truth is give anything time and it stands up. Linux is not an example modern economists like to give, because frankly their school of thought cannot fit the concept.
Just how often do people temporarily install Flash or nVidia drivers?
Join the Free Software Foundation
but has so far failed to displace close source software."
But it has. Think about it, just about everyone who wants Unix goes with Linux, a few choose OS X or Solaris, but for most people, they use Linux. Even look on a desktop OS such as OS X, the shell that it is included isn't some super-proprietary thing, it is Bash (or at least it is included). Think about compilers, the standard is almost universally GCC. Sure, there is still Windows, but as for just about every other OS out there, there are some GNU components to the core OS, even more so when you consider Unix-like OSes. GNU shook up the Unix world, from something closely-guarded to an OS anyone could modify, much as how Wikipedia has done for the encyclopedia, are there still other encyclopedias? Yes, but a lot of people turn to Wikipedia.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
make a Linux distro with no closed source code, I really want to see more open source support of third party hardware drivers. Forcing distros to be pure 100% open source code will do that. Open source Linux driver support is really really bad and forces me to use NDISWrapper and hack the Windows XP drivers to work under Linux for wireless cards.
Split up open source developers into teams:
Team #1 writes Kernel and Drivers.
Team #2 writes the main OS support programs and libraries.
Team #3 writes third party software support to do the same thing that commercial software does but under an open source license.
Team #4 writes Internet and web server applications.
Team #5 writes database and email and calendar programs and servers.
Team #6 Debugs and does quality control for the other teams.
Team #7 Writes documentation and books on open source projects.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
to free the desktop, you need to free the hardware too, so unless you're typing on a Sun T1000, you're already using plenty of closed code
First, I apologize for misconstruing your meaning.
Part of the reason why I got an unintended meaning is that you apply the word 'should' to universal nouns ('the kernel') -- 'should' normally expressed a preference but it was unclear as to the bearer of that preference. Code for the kernel 'should' have source only insofar as the relevant people prefer that over a closed-source solution.
That, I suppose, is the heart of my issue with RMS et. al. over this sort of thing -- they have a tendency to elevate their personal preference to universal 'shoulds' instead of acknowledging them as being inherently subjective values that might vary considerably from person to person.
OK, what about 3D rendering for CAD or something?
The point is, any 3D card that there's an open source driver for either has poor performance with ANY driver, or the open source driver has poor performance.
In all those cases, a full and honest disclosure is more than sufficient to vitiate any potential harm.
That is exactly what is missing - especially in the case of DRM. People do *not* understand the limitations of what they are buying, because the vendor is misleading and dishonest. The people shafted when their NFL videos became unplayable with no refund, or their Microsoft video store purchases, or ... have no clue what happened or why. In their mind it was simply a defective product.
And in practical terms, they are exactly right - which is why "Defective by Design" is a good anti-DRM slogan.
For such a staunch FSF idealist, I find it ironic that you infringed on their copyright by failing to include the required notice in your copy and paste job.
if everyone is free, surely you should be free to sell your children into prostitution?
Children are not property, and cannot be bought and sold.
Surely you should be free to murder someone if you feel like it, right?
I shouldn't even need to explain the difference here. Surely you are capable of determining the difference between voluntarily entering into a contract, and murder. How you got modded "insightful" with harebrained, ridiculous examples like this is beyond me.
If people were permitted to become slaves, this would have an impact on society, not just those involved in the contract.
People can become slaves. I take it you don't know much about the BDSM community, do you?
"Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
Software freedom has not to do with choice nor with forcing people to use or run software. It is the software proprietors who are trying to control what software you can use (theirs, not competitors), how you use it (digital restrictions management), and what you're allowed to do with the software should you get a copy of it (via restrictive licensing).
Software freedom has to do with giving people the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify all published computer software. If a job needs to be done with a computer, a free software activist will endorse using or writing a free software program to do that job.
Software freedom activists explain these freedoms in compelling ways so as to convince others to run (and develop, if one is so inclined) only free software. Software freedom activists value social solidarity and see the control proprietors try to impose as unethical and a social ill. The way to combat this social ill is to teach people that we should value our freedom and work to protect it.
The problem with software choice is that it attempts to that free software (which respects your freedoms and encourages social solidarity) and proprietary software (which treats you as a subordinate and prevents you from organizing with your fellows) are equals when in fact they are opposites.
We should care how people are treated and what freedoms they have. We should value our software freedom for its own sake and act accordingly.
Digital Citizen
That is interesting. At first I was thinking" Firefox isn't Open Source, really? , and then I realized that the statement assumes GPL software is the only kind of Free as in Speech software, which it is not of course. Does anyone else know more about this "non-free" as in not-GPL stuff that is in Mozilla based software?
Gobuntu is apparently replacing Firefox with Epiphany, which is a trade-off this FOSS advocate would definately not be willing to make (nothing against epiphany.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Which is why I am consistently amazed at those that rail against DRM, hardware locks, vendor-proprietary formats and other unwise, but legitimate, choices.
The presence of closed-source programs on your computer makes it more difficult to support the free software on the same computer. One workaround is to have one pure machine for use with free software and shared-source software and one impure machine for restrictions-managed software.
For instance, I cannot fathom how anyone could have a problem with a knowledgeable user buying a DRMed song from iTunes.
What is the Free alternative to a song by Genesis or Yes?
Same thing for a phone with a SIM-lock
North Americans buy phones with a subsidy lock because they can't walk into a phone store and buy phones without a subsidy lock.
In all those cases, a full and honest disclosure is more than sufficient to vitiate any potential harm.
Disclosure isn't enough in an oligopolized market. Case in point: Which set-top video game console sold in North America is designed to run free software?
While free software for the Linux desktop is obviously better , proprietary software can be useful until there's a good free alternative.
I'm not saying the Linux desktop should be free , i say there should be a completely free Linux desktop.
In other words , it's a good idea to work towards a free desktop , but it shoudn't be imposed as the only 'good' way .
Slipping shoelaces ?