Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:49 UTC
Permalink for comment 116239
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-12-15
I conditionally agree with you. I find it really difficult to swallow that a group can proclaim that Linux is open and free, as well as chant one of the most attractive things is that you can customise the system if it doesn't do exactly what you want, but then be so against allowing people the choice of adopting non-free or non-open software.
It really seems to be a contradiction of mindsets.
I do think however that compiling the drivers directly into the kernel would be a confusion of licensing and IP but that shouldn't prohibit people loading the drivers as a seperate entity.
It seems to me that in this particular instance the adoption of Linux distributions is being (or could be) hampered by the bothering of upholding to the strictest degree of what some believe Linux is about.
I guess that's also the point. If Linux is meant to be so open and free (from constraint) then why on earth would you want to restrict people from being able to experience it to the fullest?