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.
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
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.
I would have just linked to the 1 page print version, but no, this site annoys by spreading the print version over 2 pages too! So here's the whole article:
Closed Source vs. Open Source in Desktop Linux
By Matt Hartley
July 12, 2008
When most people in IT think of Linux, they picture an open source operating system kernel, along with other software, coming together to create the server and desktop OS based on Free software. That image is accurate - and there's no question that it's open source code (and community cooperation) that has helped Linux to become the powerhouse that it is today.
But at what point do we accept that - whether we like it or not - closed source applications will eventually have to be let in to this otherwise "open" world? After all, this has already been happening for years, despite the Linux purists kicking and screaming the entire time.
In fact, closed source code is used everyday within the Linux world. And here's the funny thing: most of us never really think twice about it.
Closed source with Linux - it's not a new concept.
While the core of the desktop Linux operating system (regardless of distribution) is powered by open source code, it is commonly used side by side with code that gets less attention - indeed, many Linux purists seem to forget about: Closed source software and drivers are used with desktop Linux every single day by thousands of people.
From specific firmware added by select distributions to ensure wireless compatibility to the open source software known as WINE, which allows users to run closed source Windows applications, proprietary code has its place on the Linux desktop.
Besides, how would most notebooks initially built for Windows get their wireless connectivity without an NDISWrapper using proprietary wireless drivers designed for Windows? Closed source code was, is - and may very well always be - a major part of using Linux on the desktop.
If the code works, let it be.
One recent event that has again sparked hostility between open and closed source users was NVIDIA's failure to provide source code for their Linux-based graphics drivers. Yet unlike ATI, I personally have never had a single problem using the closed source NVIDIA drivers. Any issues that did arise were handled fairly quickly by NVIDIA itself.
So why is there a problem, again?
In the past, Linux developers have expressed concern over having to "work around" these NVIDIA provided drivers. To basically thinking ahead to how things will end up should a user opt to install these "binary blobs," as developers like to refer to them.
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.
Regardless of any one developer's frustration over NVIDIA driver licensing, the fact of the matter is that providing closed source drivers has worked rather well for everyone involved - for a number of years.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see NVIDIA open up the drivers as much as the next guy. However, seeing Linux purists calling out for a boycott against a vendor who is indeed supporting the Linux platform is simply begging for future repercussions yet to surface.
Negative feelings expressed above will eventually present bigger problems for any closed source software companies looking to take a dip in the Linux development waters. Given that most software companies use closed source software and many hardware companies do the same, the reaction to NVIDIA's decision is going to heavily color how hardware vendors looking into Linux compatibility choose to go forward.
The pathetic thing is that many of them will hold out as long as possible, as Linux developers are largely considered to be a royal pain in the backside by the closed source world.
Application consistency, not source code politic
The GNU project is very nice and very idealistic, but has so far failed to displace close source software. So I'd say pragmatic people, who are mostly okay with some close-source software thrown in the open source bag as long as they get the job done, have largely disavowed Stallman's radical point of views on the question.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
TFA's question is mildly interesting, in a theoretical sense; but it hugely misses the point. There isn't some "Linux Desktop Directorate of Purity" which comes together to decide whether or not the desktop should be pure. He seems mystified as to why some proprietary code; but not other proprietary code, is attacked by linux advocates. It is obvious: kernel drivers vs. userland apps. People attack proprietary kernel drivers because they aren't legal and because they are a threat to the viability of Linux as a Free platform. Proprietary apps are neither. They may or may not be a good idea; but they are completely irrelevant to the concerns of the kernel. It isn't that hard.
The only place where there is any sort of authoritative stance is with respect to licence violations. Because of the licences under which large parts of the linux desktop are distributed, there are certain places where proprietary code is not legal. Full stop. Period, etc. In practice, this mostly occurs with non-GPL kernel drivers.
In all other cases, it is purely a matter of the user's preference. There are no restrictions whatsoever on running applications of any kind of licence on linux, or compiling applications with any kind of licence with GCC, or whatever.
Now, to be fair, TFA's question is interesting in the sense that whether or not linux users should tolerate proprietary apps on their desktops is an interesting question.
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?
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.
I guess that is just another reason that calling it GNU/Linux is silly.
Freedom to me means more then access to code. It means I can do anything I want with it, not just what someone tells me to do.
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.
Non free software opens you up to abuse and bugs. Non free software can have backdoors, spyware and other malicious features. Non free software does not get the love and attention it deserves, so it's almost always buggier an and more bloated than free alternatives. Hardware that requires binary blob firmware loading is never as good as hardware that just works.
That said, there are still a few places non free software is useful. Games, accelerated video cards, Skype and so on. If you have to have those things, you might have to put up with some non free software. I've been happier without any of that. If I want to play games, I can get a console.
Freedom includes the freedom to use the software that fits your needs even if it's not 100 percent GNU approved. Imposition is imposition whether it's from closed source or shouting zealots screaming "Proprietarian Slime!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
The user should be able to choose. This is why we have Ubuntu and Gobuntu as separate distros. My own personal policy is "use the best tool for the job", regardless of whether it's GPL, APSL, CCDL, or MSEULA.
I personally like the idea of having a distro which, at install, offers to either install the "Borg Edition for n00bs" with proprietary drivers, codecs, etc, or to install the "Freetard Edition for RMS" with only GPL-compatible code.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
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.
If I have things to do I'll use as much free software as possible to get it done, even if that requires a little extra hassle. But I'm not going to reorder my life just to be "pure". Additionally, I figure it's better if people are using OS'es that are 95% free than not using a free system at all. What is important is for the community to continue pushing, requesting, pleading and working towards the goal of 100% purity.
Most people have been told that they would rather live 50 years on Porterhouse steaks, than 150 years on Tofu. Most people have been told that they would rather use Microsoft than Linux.
Most have have believed these thing.
Most people, sad to say, are easily led and functionally stupid.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
GNU/Linux is the virtual America.
Does that make RMS the virtual Bush? Well, I guess they both have about 30% approval ratings among their own citizens and most of the rest of the world thinks they're nuts... so, yeah. I can see that.
Why not give the users a choice? Why should the developers of a Linux distrobution have complete control over what you install? As long as installing the closed source software doesn't violate any licensing and works well why not use it? If open source advocates don't like it they should code something that works as well or better than the closed source application.
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.
How would you promote software freedom if people is unable to use free software?
Case in point: where I work the email client is Lotus Notes. There's no Linux Notes client that I know of, I use the windows version in wine. So, I have two options, either accept some non-free software in my computer or use MS-Windows.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
There's Gobuntu as well.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
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?
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".
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:
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
The only people who care about whether a piece of software is free as in speech, open source, free as in beer, yada yada yada are developers and those whose for whom ideological concerns transcend practical necessities.
Expecting the average user to CARE AT ALL is pretty damned arrogant if you ask me.
The average user wants their computer to work, end of story. The software that runs on their computer is not a political or religious issue to them. If the computer works well, then they are happy. If it does not work well, then they are unhappy. They only care about licensing to the extent that a license requires payment for the software to be used.
I for one am kind of sick of having to beat Fedora and Redhat into shape using 3rd party repositories and my own hacks because the developers are too snooty to include Nvidia or ATI drivers, MP3 support, mplayer, etc, etc, etc.
I do care whether something is open source, but not because I have some axe to grind against commercial software. I care because open source code tends to have fewer bugs because there are many, many more eyes that can look at it.
That being said, if a free as in beer piece of code works, I'm going to use it, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize to some self appointed moralists for doing so.
I like the GPL because it prevents someone from taking code that is open source and making it closed source. It prevents someone form pulling an IPF. But that being said, issues such as that are a distant second behind "does the code work?"
If you're worried about Nvidia or skype or whoever suddenly dropping support for linux, then don't use their stuff. Worrying about what OTHER people will do or not do is called being a busybody and people like that are universally despised.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
There is no need to choose between one restriction or the other. The Linux kernel should always be free and there should always be enough free software to available to assemble a respectable, even superior, distro, but that's very different from saying that every distro "should" be assembled completely from free software. In fact, a good argument could be made that such a restriction would, in itself, make the software less than "free". Even the GPL tolerates coexistence with closed software, if somewhat begrudgingly and with the view that it is "lesser".
For any given commodity there are clusters of customers who share a common set of interests and tastes. Whenever such a cluster reaches sufficient size and stability it will support it's own customized version of that commodity. So long as there is a sufficiently large and stable community of people who support pure OSS the market (if it's a free market) will provide at least one, and probably several, pure OSS distros. But as long as that group of people is not representative of the entire market there will also be distros that are not pure OSS. It would be foolish to hope or strive for any other arrangement.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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
Know? I have no idea. But that wasn't what he said
Trust? All of them. Otherwise they would not be using it.
How is doing that, then, not an allocation of a degree of trust? You trust that the reputation is accurate. Coupled with your "dose of faith", you trust that there is a low chance of the maintainer being malicious. Thus you trust the maintainer. If any sane user didn't trust these things, they would not use the distro.
Everybody seems to be focusing on bugs but the most important problem with proprietary software is that you are giving control over you're live to a third party. The software we are using is becoming more and more ingrained in our lives. For every piece of proprietary software you have on you're PC the more control you give to the company developing that software. There is no law and control in place that forces these companies to act ethically. The whole open source process force companies to act ethically and even if they don't there is a whole list of controls in place from legal to political that helps out every now and then. Can you really trust a person you have never met or company that only responsibility is to make money. By all means use proprietary software but know what you are doing.
The choice should be with the user, not with the distribution.
If I want to fill my desktop and PC with tons of software that is closed and made by Microsoft or whomever you dislike, that is MY choice. It is My PC so I do whith it what I want.
Yes, I use NVidia drivers that are closed source. Yes I have Opera running. Yes I have other software that I payed for.
I use openSUSE and there I can select between an OSS and a Non-OSS. That way I can decide myself wether I want it pure or not.
The reason they did it was because some people were moaning about Non-OSS software in the distribution and that that wa s what holding SUSE (now openSUSE) back, so they changed it.
And that is were the choice should be. With the user, not with the distribution, not with some freak with a beard.
To me it is about choice and if I have a duistribution that does not give me that choice (I do not know if they exist) that that is NOT a good thing.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Hey, don't blame Linux users for that Wine stuff! The use of Wine is a tradition that dates back to ancient China 9000 B.C.!
I agree that its overuse causes some problems tho.
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...
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.