Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 18th Apr 2006 17:49 UTC
Linux Efforts to bring glitzy new graphics to Linux are fueling an old conflict: Does proprietary software belong in open-source Linux? The issue involves software modules called drivers, which plug into the kernel at the heart of the open-source operating system. Drivers let software communicate with hardware such as network adapters, hard drives and video cards.
Thread beginning with comment 116030
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: So What's the Problem?
by rattaro on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "So What's the Problem?"
Member since:

Besides isn't it about what I do with "MY PC"? What business is it of theres if I "choose" to use proprietary binary drivers. It's my choice. When they start dictating what I can and cannot use on my system, then how are they any better than the other camp, MS?

You can do what you want with your PC. This restricts proprietary vendors from impeding on your freedom, not your freedom to do what you want.

Going on a little tangent, freedom is not always about the right to choose. It's about rights and responsibilities. I can't choose to sell my vote. So when people always talk about right to choose, some times you have to remember that it's about responsibilities of protecting the freedom of the kernel instead.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: So What's the Problem?
by flanque on Wed 19th Apr 2006 02:29 in reply to "RE: So What's the Problem?"
flanque Member since:

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?

Reply Parent Score: 1