Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 21:56 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
Linspire "It was reported this week that Novell has banned all proprietary software from their Linux offerings. To me, this would be a bit like McDonalds announcing it will adopt an Atkins-only menu, selling only healthy, low-carb salads, and dropping fries, shakes, and the Big Mac as we know it. It might be a noble thing for McDonalds to only sell healthy items, but they would likely see a big decrease in customers. Most consumers want more balance in their menu choices, not less. Limiting choice, especially the most popular ones, is usually a bad idea."
Permalink for comment 149156
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Rediculous
by Noremacam on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:44 UTC in reply to "Rediculous"
Member since:

proprietary - used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right

I understand that, but I argued that if there aren't compatible alternatives, then stop denying the only working choice. An example I gave earlier was adobe Flash. There is a OSS product called Gnash that allows you to play some flash movies, but it's buggy and still incomplete. They don't have the exclusive right to playing flash movies, just the exclusive right to the software they created. The same can be said for virtually all the software I mentioned earlier.

I like linux because it runs the software I want, and perhaps more interestingly, it doesn't run the software I hate. I believe that Gnome has built a much more functional desktop than Microsoft ever has(and I've played with the Vista beta too, for that matter).

If there's something immature in fighting for what you believe in, there are sure a lot of immature people in the world (I can name at least two).

Immaturity isn't determined by whether you fight for your beliefs, but rather what specifically you fight for. Fighting to end poverty in Darfur wouldn't be immature, but going on strike at work because your lunch break is 55 minutes instead of 60 would be. My argument is that this would be a minor nuisance except for the zealots who want to deny others a choice. The only thing that including proprietary software in a particular distribution(of your choice, naturally) is going to do is bring in more users.

It took me 4 years of slowly playing with linux to switch because while I had to learn linux, I had a non-functional computer. I couldn't use it for my daily tasks, so as soon as I really wanted to do something, I had to reinstall windows.

There are (at least) two reasons to use Linux: because it does what you want, or because you agree with the OSS philosophy over the proprietary one to the point where you can make do. I'm not sure you fall into either category, so why make yourself unhappy with Linux?

Well it does what I want with the help of proprietary software. Example: Rhythmbox is my favorite music program(all the windows programs are either too bloated or too minimalistic). However no matter how great Rhythmbox is, it's totally worthless without the proprietary codecs that drive the player. It may be simple, efficient, easy to search, well organized, not bloated - all the right things. But without proprietary software, it's utterly useless. I don't keep my entirecollection in ogg, nore when I download music do I giveup if they don't provide an ogg based format.

Linux, combined with proprietary components, works better for me than MacOS or Windows. Linux makes me happy. I'd go nuts if I didn't have Deskbar in windows. Typing in $PATH programs is so much more efficient than browsing through a massive disorganized menu in windows. The system update is so far less annoying(for the record, I'm using ubuntu at the moment). You don't have to activate your copy(unless you use xandros 4, but again, that's a chocie). You don't have to fear that your computer, or rather the makers of the operating system are somehow working against you on their crusade to make sure you're using their operating system the way they want you to. I love the freedom and flexibility that the linux desktop provides.

But it's totally irrelevant without proprietary software/codecs.

Most people make it sound like it's a piece of cake just to install the software afterwards. Granted, anyone who's done it a bunch of times before, will find it pretty easy, it's sheerly impossible for the new user. Even if they figure out the package management system, most distro's don't even include the proprietary software they need to function in their repositories. Some distro's don't/didn't even have repositories! Depending on your distro, some packages must be installed manually with great stress to get their computer to function.

I couldn't learn linux efficiently because it required(by law apparently, according to other people in the comments) having a crippled computer environment to learn in. For a lot of software there's only one option the proprietary option. It's required for watching dvd's, playing music in anything but ogg, watching videos in anything but theora(which is 99.99% of what's out there), browsing the web(several websites are unfortunately crippled without flash), and playing 3D games(unless 1-2 fps adds to your experience somehow?).

Reply Parent Score: 2