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

Re:Why not both?

[byolinux]

Proprietary software is never the only/best choice.

Only -- one can always refuse a piece of software. Simply say "No thanks".

Best -- many pieces of proprietary software are technically superior to free software. If you value your freedom, you will say no to these too.

Learn from other quests for purity

[cryfreedomlove]

History is full of people who passionately sought purity over co-existence and pragmatism. Here are a few:

Adolph Hitler
David Duke
Emperor Hirohito
Osama Bin Laden
The Hutus
Joseph Stalin
Richard Stallman

I'll go for peaceful co-existence any time. Live and let live, brother.

Re:Yes.

[shmlco]

"To say GNU has failed would be ridiculous."

Let me know when it's market penetration reaches 1% of all desktops and servers and notebooks.

Re:Why not both?

[jez9999]

Sure it is. As long as that choice is the RIGHT choice. ;-)