D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] Ubuntu and freedom?

 

On Thursday 07 December 2006 08:23, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:22:45 +0000
>
> Mark Jose <kernowyon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I picked the above from Neils mail to illustrate what I consider to
> > be the problem with the FSF type viewpoint.
> > By using non-free software for a wireless driver, the user can at
> > least get their wireless connection working in the first place. If
>
> There's always the wired network. Just because wireless is a problem
> doesn't mean a cable cannot be used.
>
> > they were limited to relying on free software only, there is a chance
> > that they would be simply unable to use their connection - full stop.
>
> How many people *only* have access to a wireless connection?

I am sure most people will have access to another connection, but again, the 
problem of suitable modules for that will arise. 
Lets say the average UK based PC user decides to try a distro. Now most of the 
ISPs in the UK offer a free ADSL modem - generally USB because they are cheap 
and work adequately for most people. From my own experience, that could well 
be the Alcatel/Thomson Speedtouch 330 or the BT Voyager.
Neither of those commonly issued devices will work "out of the box" within a 
GNU/Linux system - even those which are including "non-free" drivers. 
A couple of weeks ago, I had two people who were very interested in moving to 
Ubuntu from Windows. They both reported back to me that their USB modems did 
not work. Getting these devices working - using non-free drivers - is not 
exactly user friendly, but can be done. Without using the non-free drivers, 
there is zero support for the devices. 
As it happened, one decided to return to Windows, the other has decided to 
purchase a compatible ethernet ADSL card. 
Whichever view you take on the free/non-free argument, lack of support for 
basic functionality in devices is a real issue for new users. 

>
> We had the same problem with internal modems - PCI modems are still not
> fully supported because of non-free code but that didn't stop people
> using free software by using external modems.

Indeed - I bought an external serial dial up modem myself for that very 
reason - but it is not really a practical answer for many people, even when 
you do explain the advantages of speed increase and more reliable dial up.
The average user who may be considering moving away from Windows is going to 
expect a few things may cause headaches, but they would be expecting things 
like modems to work. Those of us who have used alternative systems to the 
Redmond one are familiar with the issues of getting modems to work or 
tweaking things into life - but the vast majority of computer users have not 
got the time or understanding to go through the process of building and 
installing their own driver to support a device - they expect to see a driver 
on the CD which came with the device or at least in their chosen distro.

>
> > Yes, I would agree that it may be better - in an ideal world - to
> > have a totally free system, but currently that is not always a choice
> > for many users (the vast majority I suspect).
>
> The vast majority have a wired network connection available.

Neil - in the case of many (all?) of the people on this list, I am sure that 
is correct. Doubtless amongst most of our computing friends it is the same. 
But then look at all those other people who own one computer rather than the 
several which we own. It is unlikely they would have a wired network 
available to them. Granted, those people may not be likely to move to an 
alternative system, but the option needs to be there for those people to try 
a distro if they wish - after all, choice is the idea!

>
> > Likewise the printer issue. No idea if the Lexmark is supported under
> > Linux,
>
> CUPS, GPL, at least as much support as my brother would have needed. (I
> was considering using his Lexmark myself but I didn't need to do so.)
>
> > but if it was supported only by a non-free driver supplied by
> > Lexmark, then should the user be forced to dispose of the printer and
> > buy a "GNU/Linux compatible" one?
>
> No. That's why non-free exists in Debian. However, where CUPS does
> work, the default is to use it. In my brother's situation, that would
> have been quite sufficient. There are other reasons why he doesn't use
> GNU/Linux, some of which I'm trying to resolve within Debian.

Ah, but you appear to be looking at the whole free/non-free debate slightly 
differently to some of the other "free only" supporters there. The non-free 
section in Debian and Deb based distros is not liked by many of the free only 
supporters. Their view - and one which has been put on the list in the past - 
is that the non-free sections should not exist. In an ideal world, I would 
like to see all software being free, but it isn't going to happen - at least 
not for a long time yet - so non-free is, in my view, a good compromise.
Yes, CUPS is always a good option for printers - assuming your printer is 
supported of course. Not all are sadly.

>
> > Because, lets face it, not many
> > manufacturers even bother to inform us if their hardware is
> > compatible with any other system than Windows.
>
> That's not the problem, CUPS supports most older printers. It would be
> nice if manufacturers acknowledged CUPS support but in the absence of
> this, CUPS is still a usable default in most cases.

Agreed - in some cases, CUPS actually allows a printer to function long after 
support for it has gone from the Redmond latest release.


>
> The basic issue is that I ignore the marketing junk that comes with
> computer equipment - the "unique selling point" of most kit is
> completely pointless to me. I want a device that does a particular job
> and I tend not to have particularly specialised requirements. Many
> people swallow the marketing hype and think that certain features of
> their kit *MUST* work or else when, actually, if they took the time to
> think and look at the alternative, they would find that the core
> functionality is all they really need.
>
> Next time you go to buy some computer equipment, look at the options on
> the shelf and instead of thinking that some "wizzo" feature is cool,
> think of what you actually need. Get the basics working and worry about
> the bells and whistles later. Free software is at a point where all
> "basic" and "core" functionality is supported, one way or another.
> Don't believe the advertising, look at what functionality you actually
> use, day to day.

I never buy hardware based on hype. I do look on the box to see if it is 
compatible with Linux - I prefer to spend my cash with those companies who do 
check that Linux based systems work with their kit.
If I buy a device - for example a webcam I purchased a while back because it 
was cheap and would work on my younger daughters Windows system at a push 
(the older one uses Kubuntu) - and the device works on my system, I email the 
manufacturers and let them know. I will explain how to get it going and am 
happy to help them with any issues. Admittedly, only once have I had any real 
feedback from one of those mails - but that was from a laptop manufacturer 
who were looking at pre-installing a distro onto their machines to give 
customers an alternative to Windows.
 

>
> > I am of a similar view to Ben - I want to be able to use my PC for a
> > wide range of purposes. If that means I have to use non-free software
> > to do so,then I do. Whilst I would love to see free software written
> > to support my graphics card 3d acceleration or what have you, I need
> > to use the system in the meantime.
>
> How much do you actually use the 3D?
>
> Personally, I can't see that 3D ever becomes "basic" functionality.

A lot. On the machine where I use the Nvidia driver, I spend quite a lot of 
time per day gaming. Quite likely to be in the region of 3 or 4 hours plus 
per day I suspect. On my other systems, I use the free drivers.

>
> That doesn't stop free software developing cool things, it just
> highlights that cool features are not worth requiring non-free when the
> core functions work fine with free software.
>
> "Cool" functions are often specifically written to be unique to that
> machine and are often no more than marketing gimmicks. It is much
> harder to support these things because the only people susceptible to
> buying that kit are those who are not willing to use (and therefore
> help improve) the free software support of that particular widget.

Indeed - many of the best pieces of software are free. 
"Cool" is not relevant to me - functionality is though. I don't care about the 
3d desktop stuff like beryl - its not something which interests me. But 3d 
acceleration for my games is - so I have no choice but use the Nvidia driver 
on that machine. If it helps, I do play free 3d games on it.

>
> > Once a viable free alternative is
> > available, I shall use it
>
> In the meantime, how do you expect that free alternative to be
> developed? Are you willing to help by using it and reporting what does
> and does not work? Are you going to just ignore the problem and rely on
> someone else to fix your problem?

On any item of free software I use, if I spot a problem, I email the 
developers. Quick examples - Gramps, the genealogy program, I worked with Don 
Allingham the dev, to fix an issue. Likewise with Camorama - a webcam 
program - I have reported bugs and tested their fixes. I always report issues 
if I can - and will have a go at fixing them and sending the fix to the devs 
if it works. But I am not a programmer, so my skills in the fixing field are 
limited to really simple things!

>
> > - but I have no intention of crippling the
> > functionality I require from my PC for the sake of "politics".
>
> Have you tried the free alternative?

Yes - and, where it does the job, I use it. But if the functionality of the 
free alternative is not suitable for the purpose (e.g 3d acceleration), then 
I go for the non-free in the places where I need to. So that means one system 
out of the 6 or 7 I am running currently is using the Nvidia driver and the 
rest use the free choice because I don't need 3d. 

>
> > Of course, each user of a system will have their own needs and views
> > to which they are entitled.
>
> True - but please consider the implications of your decisions. Things
> only get better when people are prepared to tackle the issues, not
> stick their heads in the non-free sand.
>

I do Neil. I prefer to use the free alternative when possible - as mentioned, 
most of my systems are (hopefully) fairly good. 
A steady pressure on the companies which release non-free drivers will 
hopefully get them to change their minds and release a free version. I have 
no problem with people emailing Nvidia or other companies who provide 
non-free software and calling for them to reconsider - but until they give 
way to that pressure, most people will continue to use the non-free driver I 
suspect.

This topic always seems to raise some interesting comments doesn't it! 

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