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?"
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.
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.
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.
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
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
All it takes is one person to slip in a modified binary or batch of code.
Or one person to do something stupid.
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.
A person slipping in malware is a rogue. A closed source vendor slipping in malware is a business plan. Most likely to happen more often.
The average user is not able to tell anything but all it's needed is that one of the advanced users sees something out of place (network traffic). If the software is open he can go check. If it's not, he has to reverse engineer. Most likely to happen less often.
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.
What is wrong with you ?
I don't get all you people and your "If I were a terrorist".. scenarios.. freaking scared ass whimps the lot of you. Stop worrying, and live life.. You letting the boogie man get to you.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
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
It isn't necessary for every user to check every piece of software.
If somebody does something malicious then it needs only one person out of the whole FOSS ecosystem to notice it and raise the alarm.