Slashdot Log In
Should the Linux Desktop Be "Pure?"
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Jul 12, 2008 03:36 PM
from the debatable-points dept.
from the debatable-points dept.
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?"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Stupid question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stupid question (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless things have changed in the very recent, this is exactly what we have now.
Parent
Re:Stupid question (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, both of those contain binary blobs and at least Debian also distributes some proprietary software.
There are a few distributions [gnu.org] but I accept these are hardly well known.
Parent
Some well known distributions allow a choice ... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Stupid question (Score:4, Funny)
Good.
Parent
Re:There is no answer, it depends on what you want (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Truth in advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Thanks, but please don't trust us that much (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re:More checks are always better. (Score:5, Insightful)
All it takes is one person to slip in a modified binary or batch of code.
Or one person to do something stupid [slashdot.org].
Parent
Re:More checks are always better. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:More checks are always better. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:More checks are always better. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Debian team isn't afraid to have its work checked by its users.
Parent
Re:Not a troll. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
scenarios (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:There is no answer, it depends on what you want (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's wrong to force a choice upon others and I thought that was one of the main points about 'free'-software?
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seconded.
If the proprietary code in question ever becomes an issue, a viable open-sourced replacement will suddenly become more popular.
Assuming equivalent enough functionality of course. If not, well then its time to get coding!
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, this is the point of Linux. You get a system where YOU get to make the choices. So if I want to install X software I can. Now the line gets crossed when people start prohibiting Linux users from doing X or Y.
Which is why I am consistently amazed at those that rail against DRM, hardware locks, vendor-proprietary formats and other unwise, but legitimate, choices.
For instance, I cannot fathom how anyone could have a problem with a knowledgeable user buying a DRMed song from iTunes. Sure, I wouldn't do so, but so long as that consumer understands the limitations on what he is buying, I don't see the problem. Same thing for a phone with a SIM-lock or a vendor-specific database that is entirely unusable without their software. In all those cases, a full and honest disclosure is more than sufficient to vitiate any potential harm.
It's about choice right?
Parent
Disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Wrong question (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Choice and force are the ways of the proprietor. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [gnu.org].
Parent
Horrible analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
This goes back to the original argument, but I'd say that "most" people actually want to be able to use their computers to do what needs to be done.
I'm not too sure what good it does to insist on being "pure" if the result is effectively a non-functional machine that can't talk to video cards, printers, drives, cameras, and who knows what else. In short, a machine that can't do any real work.
Me, I'd rather have a computer than a paperweight...
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, alternately, the users have a program that enables them to do something that no open source alternative can do. They pay something to compensate the author for giving them this ability.
I'm a pragmatist. I use software to get work done. I fundamentally believe that free software is better because I can tinker, tune, and extend it as I need, but if it takes something proprietary to *get the job done* at a price I feel is a fair trade (cheaper than writing my own, doing it the hard way, etc.), then so be it.
Slavery it is not. Remember that freedom isn't just about allowing users to do as you think they should - it's about the users being free to do whatever they want, including entering into contracts you might find onerous.
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimbabwe is a great struggle. We're just talking about computer operating systems.
Parent
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, stop talking like this is a great and epic struggle.
Zimbabwe is a great struggle. We're just talking about computer operating systems.
No, you are wrong.
Zimbabwe is currently playing out a story that the earth has seen thousands of times in all corners. Each time it plays out, it only effects a small group of people. Sure it effects them drastically, but in the big picture its nothing new and does not have much of an impact beyond Zimbabwe's neighbors.
On the other hand, the current OS monopoly on the desktop affects hundreds of millions, maybe even more than a billion people world-wide across all countries. And in a more general sense, the "freedom vs control" of information conflict that this is a part of affects the destiny of the entire human race.
Just because the issues are more abstract with less of an obvious impact does not mean they are less important. To dismiss them in that way would be kind of like the farmers in the 13 colonies complaining that those dolts at that constitutional convention have their heads' up their asses, they ought to be doing something about this season's drought instead of blowing so much hot air around.
Parent
Drivers should be pure (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Drivers should be pure (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
On what grounds, exactly, do you purport to forbid users from choosing what software runs in their kernel? Last I checked, the concept of free choice was generally agnostic about the source of the software, only the user's desire to run it.
Posts like these (and moderator ratification), undermine the message of free choice and free tinkering because they imply that the community views some of those choices as illegitimate (as opposed to merely unwise).
Parent
Uhh, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Free vs Open (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [gnu.org], 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.
Re:Free vs Open (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, this is an example of people being ridiculous.
You're spot on about the free software versus open source debate bit. Obviously we can tell where you stand on the issue.
The big problem here is bias. "Free software" people are too frequently not content with being allowed to do their own thing. They want to criticize and insist everyone else do their thing too because their way is better or somehow morally right. You're doing that here claiming it's a "real shame that so many distributions have non-free software in their repositories." How is that a shame? Because it's not what you want? It sounds like a mild form of discrimination to me. Be content with the list of distributions you kindly linked to that are 'pure.'
What really inspired me to reply though was your 'there is no market' bit. I'm not sure if you were just aiming for a catchy sound byte or if you just have a fundamental lack of understand of how software, and in particular open source, works. Sure there's no "market" per se, but a wide userbase allows open source projects to attract more and better developers, find and patch bugs more quickly, and gives them influence to potentially change things that desperately need to be changed in the entrenched system (e.g., attempting to move away from the antiquated but universal System-V init). I'm sure there are other advantages I'm forgetting now too. The point being there are very valid reasons for trying to obtain "marketshare" for free software, it's not just because they're trying to win some stupid high school popularity contest.
I appreciate the free software philosophy. I also appreciate how religion helps some people feel good about themselves and gives them some sort of guidance. I just wish both parties would stop trying to impose their views on others.
Parent
Re:Free vs Open (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Ubuntu is concerned about giving you the choice of being 100% free, or almost free where you need restricted drivers to get something working that otherwise you could not.
Ubuntu do not force you to use restricted drivers, they give you the choice! In doing so they attempt to provide their users with a Desktop experience that works as well as Windows/Mac OSX out of the box.
I value that choice and thank them for it.
Parent
Re:Free vs Open (Score:5, Interesting)
It never will be, untill the current culture of 'software freedom' changes. Of course, there are those that don't ever want Joe User to use Linux, and those people will always stand in the way of progress toward people dumping Microsoft for a saner solution. Comically, those that stand in the way of Linux distros for Joe User are the same idiots who bitch about Microsoft Windows (choose your flavor).
Oh, yeah. Screw GNU, I'm talkin bout Linux.
Parent
Whatever works. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stupid question. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
To each his own (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [linuxfromscratch.org] if you wanted to.
purism is pragmatism (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:purism is pragmatism (Score:5, Insightful)
.
It's what put the PC into every home and office.
Working means getting the job done on time and on budget.
No one is going hold off until the geek finds perfection in an OS or an app.
Not so long as GNU Herd remains as much an existential fantasy as "Waiting for Godot" - or "Duke Nukem Forever."
Parent
Using the computer vs doing the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
No (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Submission is a troll (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Wrong Question (Score:5, Insightful)
``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.
Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Article is flamebait, disregard. (Score:4, Insightful)
If that's your concern, go with one of the FSF-approved [gnu.org] 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?
Parent
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent