[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 10:34:01PM +0000, Tom Brough wrote: Tom, Thanks for this long email - I'm going to break it down and ask you a few questions :) > As a long(ish) time user of various distros of GNU/Linux and someone who > likes to advocate and discuss endlessly (to the point of obsession) the > merits of free software I have mixed freeling (yes its a deliberate > typo) about some of the comments made recently about freedom vs comfort. It's great that you advocate free software. When you advocate it, what points do you make? > On the one side I have great empathy with Neil's argument ... when we > dilute free software with proprietary software, even at a very low level > (some might say especially at the low level) we run into dangers, some > of which have been better describe by Neil both recently and in the > past, and many more that would just take a whole lifetime to enumerate > and diliberate. I think it's important to remember where we came from. What spurred the development of a free software Operating System, which was later made complete by a free kernel? It was a non-free driver, for a laser printer. Is it possible that the dangers that RMS saw in the 1970s, are happening to us all? Users of a free operatin system, locked out by 'gifts' of non-free software. > On the other hand, I don't want GNU/Linux to be dismissed (as it is in > my "non-technical" circles) as just a "geek" thing, because we all agree > that free software can bring many riches (not necessary in the literal > sense) to peoples lives. Since most people want an "easy life" its > tempting to slip into using proprietary fixes on an otherwise free platform. I think you'll find in non-technical circles, operating systems are considered a geek thing. Most people want an easy life, yes. What do most people do on their computers that requires non-free software? > For the most part, when considering software applications, there is for > the most part a good choice of both free and proprietary applications, > so in essence there is little need to use proprietary software UNLESS it > supports a "must have" feature (and this is purely the choice of the > individual user) that is not supported in free software. Even so it is > preferable that the user seeks assistance from the developer community > through honest dialog, to get the "must have" feature put on the wish > list for future revisions of the free software alternative. I'm not sure there would many features that most typical users would need that we don't have. There might well be some quite specialist software. > Proprietary hardware drivers are even more of a challenge for free > software developers. This is mostly down to the fact that hardware > drivers obscure the truth in ways that are not visable to the user. One > distro may work with hardware while another does not ..... is this > because of the inclusion of a free driver the other distro does not have > ? Or is it because its included a non-free driver ? Or is it a > configuration issue ? Or is it a free driver that has proprietary > firmware ? Is that firmware their to restrict the freedoms of users or > is it there for a good reason (eg FCC regulations on appropriate > frequency / signal strengths for WIFI devices) etc .... etc ...... Can anyone advise me on any hardware, apart from wireless cards that we don't have drivers for? > And so while it is fairly transparent to the end user when they are > using Word as opposed to Open Office (for example) it is not so > transparent when he/she is using their favourite USB gizmo whether or > not they are using a totally free driver. What gizmos don't we have drivers for? I've always found USB stuff works. > If we follow "Neil's" path (appologies to Neil if he thinks I am picking > on him, its not intentional), and only foster thoes users who are > prepared to use 100% free software and understand the freedom issues > inside out, then quite frankly (and remember I have gone on record to > say that I have great empathy with Neil's views) I would NOT be a > GNU/Linux user today. What proprietary software do you use now? > The GNU/Linux user community can not grow from a "puritain" user base > alone, IMO the growth would be too slow and too painful. How can growth be too slow? Remember, the goal is not to be popular, but to be free. > On the other > hand a rapid acceleration of users using GNU/Linux "mixed" with > proprietary solutions, may not understand that some of the software they > are using is at odds with the FSF movement and its aims and purpose. And > worse still foster a belief in the proprietary hardware vendor camps > that they can "get away with it" All hardware is proprietary, surely? Until we have machines that can copy hardware, it will always be proprietary in nature. Even worse, people might not give up proprietary software. > I want people to be comfortable with using free software. Ideally I > would like them to be comfortable with a totally free platform, but I > don't want to hold them back simply because they should not be using > proprietary software. You can't stop people using what they want to. We can however, refuse to help people install non-free software on our system, we can do as many kernel people are doing, saying they can't help you if you're using proprietary modules, etc. > I want to ensure that when people do use proprietary software in > conjunction with free software platforms, that they are aware of the > issues and consequences of such use, and that they should be seeking / > demanding a free and transparent alternative from the suppliers of such > items. And commiting themselves as much as humanly possible to the > process of migrating to a free alternative as the first opportunity > available. How do you propose this will work? If you're saying people can use Nvidious drivers as long as they try to demand a free alternative from Nvidious, you're not going to have a lot of luck. The likes of ATI and Nvidious KNOW we want free drivers, but won't give them to us. Installing their drivers doesn't help. > I think this is the way to minimise the growing pains and shorten the > long road ahead without compromising the values, aims and purposes of > the FSF. I'd disagree. So, maybe we don't have 100% of 3d graphics cards working yet, and maybe not every wireless card will work, but I don't think there's much else that simply won't work, that people could concievably need to work? matt -- Matt Lee Chief Webmaster, GNU Project - http://www.gnu.org/ - Free as in Freedom Free Software Foundation - Free Software, Free Society - http://www.fsf.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 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