[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:25 +0000, Ben Goodger wrote: > > This should come with the > > system as it may be vital > > Wrong - how is the user going to know about the issues if you > hide the > issue by default? > > The issues are irrelevant if the user will reject the system for its > lack of modem support. The issues are *NOT* irrelevant. I've come to appreciate recently that the entire community is only in existence because of the issues surrounding free software and freedom, at least in my opinion. One should at the very least, as I think Neil stated, not provide these proprietary blobs: rather, explain to a new user the issues and help them to understand just why freedom is important and these blobs aren't included by default. > > Ben, what is more political than the proliferation of > proprietary > > > software into countries that cannot afford basic > healthcare or > > > sanitation? Why should poor countries not have a free > operating system? > > > Why do you support non-free distributors who want to > prevent those who > > > cannot use proprietary software from having access to that > technology? > > > > > > What has this to do with an e.g. American using a > proprietary wireless > > driver for the hardware he owns? > > Because that selfish act denies the opportunity to improve the > free > alternative. > > The free alternative does not exist. Is it selfish to not send myself > into Washington DC with explosives strapped to my body in order to > improve Iraq? That's just plain ridiculous: I hope you weren't being serious. > > When the next whizzo junk arrives on the rich man's > doorstep, he's going to dump the old one. Maybe someone has > the sense > to send the older device out to someone who could not afford > the > original (Tom?) but there's no point if the free software > driver has > been neglected because of a lack of input and testing. > > For this hypothetical example there is no free driver (or it is > unusably buggy) and as such is unlikely to get much use. > > > > I'd like the FSF to stop trying to force freedom upon me by > telling > > Mr. Shuttleworth to withhold my freedom to use hardware I > own. > > Tortuous logic. You want to prevent freedom from dissuading > you from > denying freedom to use proprietary hardware with a proprietary > driver > because you don't care about fostering freedom by encouraging > the free > alternative? > > Frankly, no. It infringes upon my freedom to try and prevent me from > doing whatever I like with my computer. It's mine, after all - who are > the FSF to tell Shuttleworth to make it more difficult to do so? The FSF is not telling anyone to do anything. They are stating their own beliefs about what's right and what's wrong. If you consider GPLv3 to be doing more than this: in my opinion they're simply ensuring use of their own creations in a way that's inline with what they believe. I think the point FSF is making though, beyond this, is that it's all well and good adding a proprietary bit here and there now but the question is where do you draw the line? And what will this look like in 5 years time? 10 years time? Once you disregard your principles on one occasion it becomes a lot easier to do the next. Take me for example:I'm giving up biscuits (I eat way too much sugar!). I know though, as soon as I have that first biscuit the next ones become a lot easier to justify. Maybe not a perfect analogy but I think we've already been seeing similar things happen in Ubuntu - starting with wireless drivers by default, and now moving on to graphics drivers by default. > If I want Flash, I will install it. Useful GPU drivers? I will > install them. The debate is over whether Ubuntu should include such > things by default. My stance continues to be that I should have to > choose to do these but I should not be hindered; as for drivers, they > should be included only where necessary - for instance, a modem driver > might be required to use the thing, but non-free Palm drivers are not > needed for basic use. As for new users, they don't give a damn as long > as their Internet connection works, Make them give a damn. Why, when people introduce others to Free Software, is it never the community or freedoms that our community has that people are told about? This certainly hasn't been my experience over the past year, yet I think it's our strongest selling point. I hate to say it but proprietary software isn't such a terrible solution in a lot of cases: what they don't offer is freedom, which *IS* important and which we offer. Jon -- 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