[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 18:25, Matt Lee wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 05:58:51PM +0000, Ben Goodger wrote: > > "People who don't use the proprietary network drivers included with > > Ubuntu because they're proprietary are idiots, as they have given up > > vital functionality for a side issue." > > I disagree. Would that make anyone who chose to install gNewSense, which > removes those same drivers an idiot as well? > > The fact that Ubuntu Feisty will ship with binary drivers is not a > small issue, nor one that should be taken lightly. It is removing the > freedoms of users for the sake of convience and should be avoided. The > purpose of the system is to have a system that is completely free > software, and while users cannot be forced to not install proprietary > software, it is irresponsible of distributions to include and install > proprietary software by default, or to make that software available > for installation as part of the system. > > matt The problem currently lies with functionality as I see it Matt. The nv driver works fine as long as I don't want accelerated graphics. For my less powerful systems, I choose that with no question. However, for my main machine, I like acceleration - I play a lot of games on my system - so I have to make a choice. I can have no acceleration and keep my system free; install the nvidia non-free binary blob or remove my (mostly free) OS and install Windows. Now, there is no way that Windows would go on any of my machines, so, as I like my gaming, it is the nvidia commercial driver which I use. Ideally, a free accelerated driver is the best option, but unless things have changed recently, this is not yet available. As for distros having the non-free blobs or not, well I guess that is a way to make GNU/Linux more appealing to the non technical users who perhaps are considering moving from the Microsoft option. By not offering the "extras" such as 3d acceleration or closed source modem drivers, codecs etc, will we alienate those people? I fully understand the views of the FSF and in many ways we should aspire to their position, but for an awful lot of users they are simply not 100% practical. Is it better to have lots of users who try to use free software whenever possible, but still feel they can use closed source software if it is needed for their enjoyment of the PC, or do we maintain the view that all software on a GNU/Linux system has to be free and open? It is a difficult decision I find, which is why I run free when I can (i.e pretty much most of my systems here), but will install non-free if I have to for my computing enjoyment. I can see both sides of the discussion - and have sympathy with both. Mark -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html