[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 22:26, Matt Lee wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 08:48:38PM +0000, Mark Jose wrote: > > I dislike the Microsoft company methods - their ethics if you like. > > Thats the main reason I don't use Windows. > > Right, so you don't like their proprietary nature. More that I dislike their methods of embrace and extinguish rather than their proprietary nature. The way they release information about non existant vapour ware to destroy companies etc. Doubtless that is partially down to their proprietary nature though! > > > I advocate GNU/Linux to many of the people whose computers I have to > > clean off viruses, worms, trojans. spyware.... but I never had those > > issues myself whilst on Windows. > > When you advocate this to them, do you recommend a distro? Which? Do you > refer to it as GNU/Linux? Do you explain what GNU is? Do you explain free > software? > > Curious about those :) In general, I find that the opportunity for advocacy crops up when using a Knoppix CD to recover data from a Windows system. It gives a good starting point to introduce the whole concept of different operating systems. Although I tend to suggest distros, I I usually recommend something fairly user friendly - generally a live CD for initial introduction, such as Knoppix or, more recently, Kubuntu (my own current favourite). I must admit to referring to Linux, rather than GNU/Linux in general to the people I am attempting to introduce to the system. Most people if they have heard of it at all, will have heard the term Linux - rather than the correct title, so that is what I tend to stick to for general introduction myself. I always hope that those users who convert will discover the various views on the terms by doing some research - I know thats what I did. Free software often does crop up during discussions - and I do try to explain the philosophy behind that. However, I do not find myself discussing the pros and cons of closed source binaries for the sorts of things we have been discussing this evening as a rule. If someone asked, I would happily do my best to explain the reasoning behind it and let them make up their own mind - I would not attempt to influence them - at least I hope I wouldn't. > > > How many in the wider community would agree with that though Matt? > > Not enough. > > > Personally, popularity or otherwise doesn't worry me too much, although > > of course it can be argued that popularity would bring more volunteers to > > work on projects perhaps. But the wider community seem to want converts > > to the GNU/Linux camp. > > What's better, more people using a free system or more people using a > system where they install proprietary software? To me, that negates the > point of freedom. > In an ideal world, we would be able to do whatever we wished using purely free software. This is not, as yet, possible for some people. Compatability with commercial Windows creations is essential for some people, as are accelerated drivers for graphics or Windows wireless drivers installed via ndiswrapper etc. I do think that people should complain and kick up a fuss if their new device comes with Windows only drivers or the website they wish to visit is IE only - I do and encourage others to do so. Likewise, I make a specific point of buying hardware which states that it is Linux compatible - such as my router or USB key. But until manufacturers realise we exist - and spend our money on products - people are forced to use non-free drivers etc. > > I would agree that a distro should offer the choice to the user of free > > or non-free software. Whether Ubuntu or whoever should distribute their > > release with non-free programs will doubtless be discussed at length on > > their mailing lists. Perhaps two downloads - one as usual and one with > > the non-free stuff may be a compromise - after all, the non-free programs > > are always available to users already - even in Debian. It would be > > interesting to see which proved the more popular version. > > Actually, in Debian you have to add the respository manually, but yes it is > there. I think they should not offer any proprietary software. > Perhaps I phrased that poorly - I did of course mean the non-free repositories were available by adding them to your sources.list > > Are you saying that no non-free should be available, full stop, for > > distros? > > Yes. > Fair enough :) > > Even within a non-free repository such as those used by Ubuntu and > > Debian? > > Yes. > > > I would suspect any distro which refused to allow *any* non-free software > > to be installed would soon lose ground to the rest. > > Popularity. That is not the mission of GNU/Linux, that is the mission of XP > and Mac OS X. Until GNU/Linux reaches a level where the larger manufacturers take note, we do not have the clout to see more free software from them though. > > Such a distro exists - http://www.gnewsense.org/ - you should check it out. Will do! I shall report back once I have given it a run. > > > The Debian/Ubuntu method - > > where that software is kept in a seperate repository and you have to > > physically add it to get the software if you want it - is the best > > compromise > > No, having websites run by other people where people could get non-free > software would be a compromise. Having them run by Debian/Ubuntu is not > acceptable. > Sorry, again, as above, I didn't mean sites run by third parties, I was referring to the repositories which Debian and Ubuntu run which hold the non-free packages. I would agree that a third party website could contain malicious software. > > The user is informed as to why the software is seperate from the > > rest and then it is their choice. > > Informing users is a wonderful thing. Ubuntu seem keen to not do this, > by shipping binaries with the OS. As a user of Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc, I have not noticed any binaries installed by default - but I may not have noticed. Or do you mean the proposed inclusion in the next release? > > > Because I can contribute to GNU/Linux - at least the free part with code > > or documentation perhaps? Or with some advocacy, bug testing or > > reporting? I cannot practically do so for Mac OSX. > > Why not? An awful lot of OS X is free software, there's even a lot of stuff > from the GNU project in there. There's a fair bit of non-free stuff too, > but it sounds like you've already got that. > Erm.. I don't have a Mac ;) Seriously though, I have never even considered using a Mac - just not something I had ever thought of. I only run some non-free software on my main machine, the rest are not used for gaming, so I don't use the 3d drivers on those. Having said that, I have not actually done an audit on what - if any - non-free software was installed during the actual installation. I don't think I have installed any non-free knowingly on those systems since - but I shall certainly look now you have mentioned it! > > Even with regard to non-free software within my system - such as VMWare - > > I can write documentation on how to install or use the software within a > > distro. > > That is damaging to the community and I would ask you not to do that. Also, > you could not run VMWare. If you need to run a proprietary operating system > there are ways to do that without tainting your system. > Can you comment further on this Matt? Whilst I am not too keen on the VMWare licencing myself, it does offer a way for some people to experience GNU/Linux. For example, those using Windows can run a distro under VMWare and experience it without having to resort to rebooting to acces their other partition in a dual boot system. I use other virtualisation software - Bochs and Qemu (without the accelerator), on machines for distro testing. But I do run VMWare on my main system for working on bugtesting etc. > > Whilst I would like to see all these binaries released under the GPL and > > opened up, it isn't going to happen I suspect. ATI and Nvidia are in > > direct competition and industry secrets are carefully guarded. It will > > take a while before 3d support is sufficiently good enough for me to be > > able to employ it here on my main system. > > Actually, I suspect that ATI and Nvidia are infringing on a lot of each > other's patents, and if one of them would release free drivers (and I > suspect it will be ATI, but I have little proof for that) then it could be > settled in court and they'd both able to eventually offer free drivers. > I hope that they do come to some sort of deal and we can all benefit from that. I don't run non-free software because I like doing so - it is because I need to for the specific purposes I have mentioned. > > So - should I call my main system a "GNU/Linux based" > > system and my other boxes "GNU/Linux"? > > If they run the GNU system and Linux as a kernel, yes. > > > Are those who use a few non-free programs alongside their GNU/Linux core > > not at least experiencing the pleasures of the Open Source community and > > software? > > What's the pleasure of the open source community? We're talking about > free software here, which is similar, but I'm sure open source people would > agree with you. People like Eric S. Raymond - however he has never shared > the goals of the free software movement. > > > I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on that area Matt - I admire > > your stance on the free software points, but totally free is just not > > practical for now on my main system. > > I'd be keen to see a list of stuff you have installed. > > matt > I will have a look on the machine tomorrow Matt. Then I will drop you a mail off list with the results. 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