Re: [LUG] Ubuntu and freedom?

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:06:30 +0000
"Ben Goodger" <goodgerster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 07/12/06, Neil Williams < linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I don't consider wireless to be "basic functionality", neither is 3D nor
> > graphics acceleration nor internal PCI modems.
>
>
> If a PCI modem - or indeed a wireless modem - is all you have, then it's
> pretty basic.
> In these situations the user has a choice between using Linux with the
> non-free driver where available, using Linux without networking or using
> Windows. Since lack of proper support for USB modems kept me from Linux for
> two or three years, I don't see why any normal user would tolerate it -

A machine on a home network doesn't need a modem of it's own. One
hardware modem can support multiple machines - I know, I used to have
exactly that configuration. The proprietary internal modems were
removed and replaced with ethernet cards, one machine was given a cheap
hardware modem and ipchains did the rest (it was a while ago).

Right, I'll tell my grandmother to pop down the road and buy an extra PC, external modem, ethernet router and such. This solves the problem - thanks!

> they'd likely choose either the first or last option. In the last option
> they're using _all_ proprietary software by choice; in the first they're
> using a whole ton of free software (good!) and a single proprietary kernel
> module which provides access to their networking.

You are confusing networking (ethernet) with modems (phones). Ethernet
can provide access to the internet - just use a router instead of a
modem or a hardware modem where ADSL is not available. There is *no*
need to support proprietary internal modems with non-free drivers by
default. Absolutely none.

People do not want to buy new hardware to use free drivers.

> 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.

No non-free package is vital to anyone. Not any more.

Stop thinking that everything you want is essential. There is a world
of difference between "want" and "need".

I don't actually want modem drivers, as I have a proper network set up. I spent money on it because I was willing to do so in order to use Linux. Not many people will do that - they will either use the proprietary drivers included by default or they will remove the disc and go right back to our dear friend Windows.

> what shouldn't happen is that NVidia drivers are
> bundled as they are not necessary: 3D is of course not basic functionality
> and the free drivers should be used wherever possible. My point is that
> where not possible, there is an effective choice between proprietary drivers
> and a doorstop for many people.

There is no "essential" hardware that is not supported by free software
drivers.

Apart from Internet connectivity.

There is a hardware or software solution for every essential need.

3D is already supported by free software - well in advance of Vista.
What is needed now is *wider* support for 3D. i.e. what is needed now
is for users of non-free drivers to get involved. Dump the non-free
junk and set about helping the 3D developers to work out how to support
different cards.

The non-free junk happens to provide 3D acceleration - not vital, but wanted. The free junk does not provide 3D acceleration. NVidia is unlikely to release proper drivers under a free license, but the merest hint of 3D acceleration will convert me to the free junk instantly. Of course, it might take a purchase of NVidia by Intel to do so.

> 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?

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? 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, and it is extremely naiive to think that they will use an insular GNU/Linux system because the drivers are non-free.