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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
Even then, how are going to tell if the compiled version you get is made from the exact same source?
Use Slackware. Pat doesn't mess with the original source. Package build scripts (SlackBuilds) use original source tarballs... If you don't trust the distro's package the SlackBuilds are available for you to build your own package based on source you've independently verified. SlackBuilds are also easily modified to build packages based on the latest source for when you just can't wait for the package maintainer to patch up that new OpenSSH exploit.
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
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...