[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 19:28, Matt Lee wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:12:56PM +0000, Mark Jose wrote: > > The problem currently lies with functionality as I see it Matt. The > > nv driver works fine as long as I don't want accelerated > > graphics. For my less powerful systems, I choose that with no > > question. However, for my main machine, I like acceleration - I play > > a lot of games on my system - so I have to make a choice. I can have > > no acceleration and keep my system free; install the nvidia non-free > > binary blob or remove my (mostly free) OS and install Windows. > > Those are the three options, as I see them. > > > Now, there is no way that Windows would go on any of my machines, > > Why not? Playing devil's advocate for a moment, is there much > difference between using a mixture of proprietary and free software, > and using Windows? I'd be interested to know why you don't run > Windows. Here's why I don't run Windows - I don't like it, and I > don't like it because everything I tried to do with it was difficult, > and things would frequently break and I would wind up with spyware, or > unreliable software. The system didn't respect my freedom, and so I > moved to Mac OS X, thinking things would be better. They were a little > better - things generally didn't break down as much, and I didn't have > any spyware, but I still couldn't change the way things happened - it > also didn't respect my freedom. So I moved wholesale to using Debian, > and I don't have any non-free software on my machine, and it's a Mac, > and so none of the proprietary drivers are available for it, and so I > do not have that option. I have the radeon driver installed, and 3d is > not too shabby on it, but I am aware it could be better, however I > would not install a non-free driver on my system, even though it means > I can't play games on it, because to do so would be to give up on the > idea of free software. I've used systems without the freedoms I have > now, and I would never want to go back on that. I dislike the Microsoft company methods - their ethics if you like. Thats the main reason I don't use Windows. I don't have any thoughts about the actual products one way or the other - from what I can remember, they were a mixed bunch - some good, some OK, some dreadful. The fact that I am unable to look at the code and perhaps discover why a specific problem keeps causing that blue screen is something which I would say now, but at the time I ditched Windows, it was purely down to the Microsoft corporate attitude. I have never used a Mac - I would not buy one for the same reason as I will not use Microsoft products. I advocate GNU/Linux to many of the people whose computers I have to clean of viruses, worms, trojans. spyware.... but I never had those issues myself whilst on Windows. > > > so, as I like my gaming, it is the nvidia commercial driver which I > > use. Ideally, a free accelerated driver is the best option, but unless > > things have changed recently, this is not yet available. As for > > distros having the non-free blobs or not, well I guess that is a way > > to make GNU/Linux more appealing to the non technical users who > > perhaps are considering moving from the Microsoft option. By not > > offering the "extras" such as 3d acceleration or closed source > > modem drivers, codecs etc, will we alienate those people? > > The purpose of the system is to be free software, the purpose of the > system is not to be popular. Maybe some people will not want to use > the system, because a certain codec is not available, but we should > not include those codecs by default, or make them available to them in > any way. Same with drivers. Non-free kernel modules are in a grey area > anyway, as to create a derived work of a GPLd piece of code, it must > be GPLd. How many in the wider community would agree with that though Matt? 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. 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. Are you saying that no non-free should be available, full stop, for distros? Even within a non-free repository such as those used by Ubuntu and Debian? I would suspect any distro which refused to allow *any* non-free software to be installed would soon lose ground to the rest. 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 in my view. The user is informed as to why the software is seperate from the rest and then it is their choice. > > > I fully understand the views of the FSF and in many ways we should > > aspire to their position, but for an awful lot of users they are > > simply not 100% practical. Is it better to have lots of users who > > try to use free software whenever possible, but still feel they can > > use closed source software if it is needed for their enjoyment of > > the PC, or do we maintain the view that all software on a GNU/Linux > > system has to be free and open? It is a difficult decision I find, > > which is why I run free when I can (i.e pretty much most of my > > systems here), but will install non-free if I have to for my > > computing enjoyment. > > I think that if you're running a GNU/Linux system, you should not > install proprietary software. I cannot see a difference between > running the GNU system with some free software and some proprietary > software and running Mac OS X, for example. > > matt 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. 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. 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. So - should I call my main system a "GNU/Linux based" system and my other boxes "GNU/Linux"? 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? 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. 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