Orwell wrote:
one1ai wrote:
Orwell wrote:
but with the hardware that I currently have, my computer simply will not run without some proprietary stuff.
Will not run at all, or will not run the way you are used for it to run?
I can't get Internet access without a proprietary wifi driver. Given that a number of my classes distribute homework assignments via the Internet, I'd be more or less screwed if I was unable to connect to the Internet. Sorry, but passing my courses is more important than avoiding a proprietary device driver.
And even if I didn't need the internet for schoolwork, Linux (and computers in general) are pretty crippled without internet access. How am I going to install updates or useful programs?
Quote:
Orwell wrote:
they don't accept that some people do need support for some proprietary things
That's an overgeneralisation. It's all about making more sacrifices than you currently are making. If you don't want to make more, be happy with the sacrifices you've made.
This whole discussion is BS.
First of all, people using gnewsense generally make sure to get a laptop with a wi-fi card which can work without a proprietary driver.
I do not think free software is at fault in there, but the companies making the hardware, is there a reason
at all to make the driver proprietary? Not at all.
Anyway, I once went to one of his conferences, and you can actually understand the reasoning behind his decisions when you do that. So, I really think RMS is right and that he is not as much of a zealot or extremist as some so-called pragmatics and the press would want you to think.
On the other hand, I use proprietary drivers for nvidia. With my logic, I don't do 100% free software stuff exclusively. But I do put a lot of weight on free software stuff when deciding what to use. The risks of proprietary software are real and have been proven multiple times (lock-in). Anyway, the way I understand FSF logic is that you'll grow a dependency on the company and won't be able to use your computer eventually. But in the case of drivers... you cannot use your computer RIGHT NOW. Unlike other software, in the case of drivers, you have already lost the battle when purchasing that piece of hardware that only works with proprietary drivers. As there are simply no free software alternatives that would work.
Going with free software exclusively is but a practical issue to me. It is to prevent lock-in and scheduled obsolescence. It is to prevent dependency on a random company which could get sold or disappear in a year. In the case of a ... web browser it is absolutely ret*d not to do 100% free software as there are such alternatives and the free software alternatives are magnitudes better than proprietary software. I would stick in free software for many other things including IDEs and office. Propritary software is quite an unnecessary risk in those worlds. Vital parts of the system like the kernel, the shell and the default desktop apps must also be free software- duh.
In the case of games , nobody is going to die if you have to stop playing a certain game due to the risks of proprietary software, all you'll have to do is get another game... Even if all your games dissappeared, so what? It is not you'll die if you can't play games anymore... So, I don't really see much of an issue with proprietary games or other trivial , unnecessary apps.
In the case of hardware drivers, the choice is seriously between not using your hardware or using a proprietary driver. I wish getting laptops and computer parts that do not need these things was easier, but it is not. I cannot possibly think of a way to solve this issue. And IMHO, it is anti-consumer abuse not to release full specs of your hardware so that anyone could code a driver . So activism should go against the hardware companies and not against the people that were imprisoned by them.
Quote:
gNewSense is a distro for hardliners. I mean, the borderline commies at Debian went so far as to reject Firefox as not free enough, and they're still not extreme enough for some people? I can understand wanting a distro with a stricter free-software stance than Ubuntu has- it almost encourages its users to unable nonfree repositories. But there are plenty of distros like Debian and Fedora that maintain strict policies on software freedom while a) making it possible for the user to make their own choices on their own computer and b) actually innovating and providing something new and better to their users. I don't see gNewSense doing that.
It is childish and lame to resort to name-calling. It is specifically inaccurate to use "commie ad reductio" in this case. Saying that gnewsense reduces choices is BS, I wonder if you actually used that thing before making your informed opinion?
gnewsense is a distro flavor for the people that do not need nor want proprietary stuff. I'd love to see it used more for example in schools, because there are computers out there that have roles and hardware setups that would need only what gnewsense offers. If you prefer ubuntu go with ubuntu (saying it encourages nonfree repositories does not sound right to me). If you prefer debian go with debian, etc, etc etc.
The debian not allowing firefox thing was a good idea, it forced firefox to become freer. Firefox is free software, but the firefox logo and stuff weren't. It is mozilla which forced debian to replace firefox with a different browser that was firefox on the inside but used different branding.
_________________
.
10 Nov 2009, 2:14 pm
