Should the Linux Desktop Be "Pure?" 665
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?"
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.
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.
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.
Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice .. (Score:4, Informative)
There's Gobuntu as well.
Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice .. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Some well known distributions allow a choice .. (Score:4, Informative)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Of course the answer is also yes. Let us not make the mistake of assuming that yes and no are mutually exclusive in this case!
Re:Stupid question (Score:4, Funny)
Good.
Re:There is no answer, it depends on what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
"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...
More checks are always better. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I use Debian, so a team of people have done that for me."
Item 1: You're trusting that team. All it takes is one person to slip in a modified binary or batch of code.
Item 2: The Debian team gathers and bundles hundreds, if not thousands, of other OSS projects.
Item 3: All of those projects have their own teams which are also subject to item number 1.
Like I said earlier. You're engaged in trust, but there's no way the average user is going to EVER know for sure...
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].
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.
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.
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
Re:More checks are always better. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Debian team isn't afraid to have its work checked by its users.
Re:More checks are always better. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because I don't personally check it does not make the source meaningless.
I trust that there are other users of the software who are better at doing things like this than I am. I know that the codebase is watched and studied by many programmers who would notice something fishy, and who have no financial incentive to trick me.
I don't have that luxury with proprietary software. I have to take the word of a company, rather than the word of a large heterogeneous community, that the software is safe. That is not nearly as trustworthy.
Not a troll. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:There is no answer, it depends on what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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?
Re: (Score:3, 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?
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no answer, it depends on what you want (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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!
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.
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the proprietary code in question ever becomes an issue, a viable open-sourced replacement will suddenly become more popular.
Now if only that held true for an OS implementation of DirectX...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the proprietary code in question ever becomes an issue, a viable open-sourced replacement will suddenly become more popular.
Then why don't we have viable 3d open source 3D drivers for graphics cards? I could waste my time naming lots of other examples.
Assuming equivalent enough functionality of course. If not, well then its time to get coding!
Time for who to get coding?
Your car should do everything you want it to. If you don't like the way it works, it's time to get engineering and manufacturing.
See how
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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.
Re:Disclosure (Score:4, Interesting)
I've witnessed iTunes users' response to DRM causing their stuff to stop working. They don't blame Apple. They blame themselves. "Damn, I shouldn't have clicked 'manage my own music', that was dumb of me." Or whatever. The idea of blaming Apple for the travesty of DRM is not even a consideration.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many stores can you hook to your iphone? Where is that "add new store button"?
How many players play the apple drm format for media?
How long did it take for Java or Flash to run on 64 bit based linux (which has been arround since the 90's).
Its about choice, yeah. And about the way proprietary software mindset is used to limit, precisely, choice.
No. You are wrong. This is not the best world we COULD have. We should strive for that, not to compromise so others (not you, not me), can still make a profit fro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about choice right?
Free software is about the end-user's right to do with software as he pleases. It is not about having a choice, it is especially not about having a choice between multiple proprietary options. The difference may be subtle to some, but the day it bites you in the ass and you realize that you aren't free to use your software the way you want to, you'll probably figure it out real quick. I sure did, after spending $600 on nvidia video cards that would not work with my monitors under linux because of a &
Re:Why not both? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course not, why would we allow a user to chose the software that best meets his needs from the widest possible selection?
Don't be a dillweed. Free software is about one specific issue - freedom of the end user to do what he wants with his software. That does not mean it precludes other issues. Your bitching is like saying that the national audubon society ought to support gun ownership. ITS NOT THE REASON THEY EXIST. Same with Free software, lack of choice is not the problem that motivated the movement.
You do seem to be laboring under the misconception that the word "Free" in "Free software" means whatever specific freedoms you want it to mean. It doesn't. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll understand that trying to stuff your personal issues under the mantra of "Free software" is inappropriate.
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?
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].
Horrible analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just how often do people temporarily install Flash or nVidia drivers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. In the first place, proprietary software and slavery have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common. They are as far apart as you can get, and your use of slavery as an analogy shows that you have very little understanding of either or both issues.
In the second place, one can meaningfully speak of the freedom to voluntarily enter into slavery. It happens that our society restricts this freedom, believing that it's better for all if slavery is outlawed, but there's no contradiction in saying "freedom
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your choice of framing heavily marginalizes your message (I don't mean that it dilutes what you are intending to say, I mean that huge swaths of people simply won't take you seriously, regardless of the merits of your argument)
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.
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Zimbabwe is a great struggle. We're just talking about computer operating systems.
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.
Re:Why not both? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, what about 3D rendering for CAD or something?
The point is, any 3D card that there's an open source driver for either has poor performance with ANY driver, or the open source driver has poor performance.
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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Best -- many pieces of proprietary software are technically superior to free software. If you value your freedom, you will say no to these too.
the few bits of proprietary software I run (after buying them) on my Linux box, notably BibblePro [bibblelabs.com] and Antidote [druide.com] are there because :
- I find them superior to the open/free equivalent and
- They don't lock me into anything since they don't create any proprietary format (except maybe the settings for the Bibble conversions, but that doesn't matter much since I have the original and the end results)
I wouldn't use software that lock my data into a proprietary format (like MS Office, especially when I don't have a
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).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, I apologize for misconstruing your meaning.
Part of the reason why I got an unintended meaning is that you apply the word 'should' to universal nouns ('the kernel') -- 'should' normally expressed a preference but it was unclear as to the bearer of that preference. Code for the kernel 'should' have source only insofar as the relevant people prefer that over a closed-source solution.
That, I suppose, is the heart of my issue with RMS et. al. over this sort of thing -- they have a tendency to elevate thei
Uhh, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhh, no. (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy chosing Skype is telling RMS to shove it - and there are a million other guys out there just like him.
This guy is not a geek.
He will never share your values - he will never learn to speak your language - but the closed source vendor can and will speak his.
And I support his right to make choices with which I disagree. More power to "the guy" for deciding for himself what he wants!
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, unless they attempt to pass laws against the use of closed-source software, please stop with the "they're trying to impose their views on mine" crap, they're just excercising their "free speech" rights.
I'm pretty sure I've seen people arguing for doing just that.
Also, " At least one application program is free software today specifically because that was necessary for using Readline. [fsf.org] ". This is the same kind of "forcing" that I've heard old missionaries would sometimes do, "we'll help with X / teach you X, but only if you come to church and pay tithes", and it stinks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nothing's stopping you from finding an alternative to X. Better yet, write your own.
Someone did, it's called libedit. And that was a duplication of effort that should not have been needed.
Keeping GPL'ed code covered by the GPL is the main point of the GPL.
In the cases discussed at that link, the purpose of using the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) is to make other code be GPL.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How far do you take this? If you are using one of those free-only distributions that gnu.org lists, you still are probably using non-free software. There are very likely microprocessors in your mouse, your keyboard, and your monitor, all of which are probably running closed, proprietary software.
How come choosing a keyboard based on functionality only, ignoring freedom, is evidently fine with them, but the FSF doesn't want us to do that for, say, video cards, cell phones, and software?
Re:Free vs Open (Score:4, Insightful)
That link shows how out of touch the FSF is with reality. Let's look at each of their points.
No free software. So? Using it just as it came out of the box, it is a far better phone than any other phone I've had.
It can play DRM media. Since they would not have any DRM media to play, how is this a problem for them? Are they under the mistaken impression that it can ONLY play media that has DRM?
It exposes your whereabouts. They don't say on what they base this claim.
Won't play patent-free and DRM-free formats. Simply wrong. It plays WAV and AIFF files. Note also that MP3 is an ISO standard, and a de facto standard. The formats FSF recommends have not been submitted for standardization. Based on their rhetoric in other areas (such as document formats), it is vital to support standards, and avoid non-standards. Oops.
FreeRunner. Hahahaha. Oh, they are serious? They seem to overlook that when people buy a phone, they want something that actually functions well as a phone.
Free vs Practical (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
GNU/Linux isn't designed for Joe User, at least not yet.
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Strangely enough popularity does influence what people use.
I use Skype as it is the standard software for my office, but also because I do not relish trying to get my family to install the open alternatives. If someone brings out open VOIP software that supports video and can be installed by anyone then I'm interested.
I also have Flash to allow my kids to play various web games and for my wife to watch BBC iPlayer. That saves me a lot of grief. If Gnash could do all that then I would use it.
I prefer free ap
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was about to reply with a similar comment. While Apple may have some decent UI designers, I don't think it's valid to make any blanket statements about proprietary software in general and UI quality, because there's tons of proprietary software out there with absolutely horrible UIs. All the Microsoft software I've used has had crap UIs, as has all the Rational software I've used. A lot of the open-source software I've used, including KDE, K3B, Amarok, Firefox, and many others, have had good-to-excelle
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."
bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Umm. TFA is terminally unclear on the concept... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally like 3d acceleration and a working wifi card.
Me too. I have an Intel card and a wireless card using the ath5k driver which is now free software and part of Linux.
Having these things does not mean you cannot do it with freedom.
Go "buy" someone else (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
A question that doesn't need answering (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
What I learned by reading tfa (Score:3, Insightful)
Choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares as long as it works (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
It's Software, Not a Revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 conside
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For such a staunch FSF idealist, I find it ironic that you infringed on their copyright by failing to include the required [fsf.org] notice [gnu.org] in your copy and paste job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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!"
Re:At least respect the purists. (Score:4, Funny)
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.