Slashdot Log In
Should the Linux Desktop Be "Pure?"
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Jul 12, 2008 04:36 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This discussion has been archived.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.
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, 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
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
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: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
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.
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.
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.
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