Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 6th Aug 2006 17:30 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Plenty of loud argument has ensued over whether binary-only drivers belong in an operating system based on open source philosophies. David Chisnall examines the reasoning on both sides.
Permalink for comment 149735
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

The attitude towards closed source made me consider Linux less of an alternative to Windows. I don't think an OS should be so limiting, and I certainly don't like the attitude: the source is there, tweak it to your needs. Not all people are programmers, or even if they are maybe they don't feel like developing, don't know how, or don't have the time.

First I was inclined to be very vehement about the Open Source philosophy, but than I've come to terms with the fact that it's not my bussines to judge what some people do with their spare time. It's generous of them to make the software available for me to use if I find it suitable to my needs.

I believe that core Linux developers are more interested by ethics that market share. If you look at it in this light you can decide for yourself if you care more about ideals or about pragmatism. I, for one, have chosen the latter, because I can't afford the time to tweak my Linux system just to get some basic stuff done. It's harsh, but true.

Reply Score: 2