[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
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? 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. 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 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. 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. > 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? > - 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? > 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. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpU9KYL5QFOB.pgp
Description: PGP 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