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 116034
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: My answer is YES
by porcel on Tue 18th Apr 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "My answer is YES"
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

And I want a cow that sings lullabies.

Nobody owes you a freeking thing. Given that these tecnologies are proprietary, how is anyone supposed to provide them in an OS that by definition was created to circumvent any attempt at stop the free sharing of software code?

You folks simply do not understand the foundations of the free software movement. If you don't like what the software stands for, don't use it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: My answer is YES
by sappyvcv on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:07 in reply to "RE: My answer is YES"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Then stop trying to insist it's ready for the desktop ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: My answer is YES
by Moulinneuf on Tue 18th Apr 2006 21:06 in reply to "RE[2]: My answer is YES"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Its ready for the desktop , it as problem on some hardware component , you just have to choose the one that work with GNU/Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: My answer is YES
by raver31 on Tue 18th Apr 2006 22:33 in reply to "RE[2]: My answer is YES"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows does not play dvd and divx out of the box. Windows cannot play quicktime or realplayer files out of the box.
Windows cannot edit MS Word files out of the box.
Windows cannot edit MS Excel files out of the box.

Windows does not have full drivers for Nvidia or Ati out of the box.

So, by your logic, is Windows ready for the desktop ?
Certainly not for mine.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: My answer is YES
by archiesteel on Tue 18th Apr 2006 22:41 in reply to "RE[2]: My answer is YES"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Then stop trying to insist it's ready for the desktop ;)

It is ready for the desktop. Just because you disagree with an poster on an internet forum about how "pure" a Free kernel should be has nothing to do with Linux being ready or not for the desktop.

Hey, I think that Windows still isn't ready for the desktop (I'm the local family/friends tech support), and that doesn't prevent it from being on 90% of them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: My answer is YES
by Governa on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:13 in reply to "RE: My answer is YES"
Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

I don't care about 'the foundations of the <insert poetry here> movement'. I want the best linux experience out of the box. Period. If this can be achieved by using proprietary software (like PC-BSD seems to do), then just do it! You still live in a dream world. Wake up! Linux is not a hacker's OS anymore and the end user doesn't care about the opensource poetry...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: My answer is YES
by jaylaa on Wed 19th Apr 2006 00:18 in reply to "RE[2]: My answer is YES"
jaylaa Member since:
2006-01-17

I don't care about 'the foundations of the (insert poetry here) movement'. I want the best linux experience out of the box. Period. If this can be achieved by using proprietary software (like PC-BSD seems to do), then just do it! You still live in a dream world. Wake up! Linux is not a hacker's OS anymore and the end user doesn't care about the opensource poetry...

Yeah, well..

I don't care about 'the foundations of (insert profit motive here) theory'. I want the best Windows experience out of the box. Period. If this can be achieved by giving away the OS for free (like some OS's seem to do), then just do it! You still live in a dream world. Wake up! Windows is not a rich persons OS anymore and the end user doesn't care about capitalist ideals...

The second paragraph is only as silly as the first. MS could give away Windows for free and gain lots of users, but then they don't make any money which is their objective. Linux could include all kinds of proprietary stuff and gain lots of users, but then it wouldn't be Free, which is it's objective. What would be it's purpose? Remember that thing called Unix? Is that what you want? Because the only reason we have alternatives to Unix in the *nix world is becasue of the opensource poetry...

GPL'd software is obviously not for you. And before I'm labeled an open source zealot I'll state that I myself use proprietary graphics drivers. But I don't shit on the ideals of the movement that got me this whole Free OS in the first place.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: My answer is YES
by cr8dle2grave on Tue 18th Apr 2006 20:51 in reply to "RE: My answer is YES"
cr8dle2grave Member since:
2005-07-11

Rubbish!

Linux is not now, nor has it ever been, an FSF/GNU project. Linus has always very clear that he orginally choose to license Linux under the GPL for primarily pragmatic reasons, and not as an endorsement of the larger philosophical and ethical stands taken by RMS and company. In fact, Linus barely even tries anymore to hide his contempt for RMS.

Linux doesn't stand for what you seem to believe it does and if you can't reconcile yourself with that fact, then it is you who should be seeking alternatives. I hear that the HURD project is looking for some users.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: My answer is YES
by Moulinneuf on Wed 19th Apr 2006 02:36 in reply to "RE[2]: My answer is YES"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry to burst your bubble but FSF stand for free software foundation which mean that GNU/Linux the OS and Linux the kernel is part of it by beeing free software.

Sorry to burst your bubble again but GNU/Linux the OS and Linux the kernel are both part of the GNU project because the GNU project is an **idea** to make a free UNIX system.

GNU/Linux and Linux stand for free software and the free software movement , your delusionnal if you think otherwise and its a shame that you have to be reminded of it , again , Linus may disagree with RMS on detail , but last I looked , Linus still do is work under the GPL and RMS still continue to work on making GNU a reality and work at making the FSF relevant everyday.

Just so you know the Linux kernel is also dual licensed , because since you dont know anything at all you do not know that previous to behing GPL the Linux kernel was under another License , hence the GNU/Linux also is to differentiate from the previous license.

Lets not forget that Linux and Hurd are not the only two kernel in existance for GNU ... but then again you did not knew that either.

http://www.kernel.org/

Nope , dont seem to say OS in there ... it clearly say kernel.

Reply Parent Score: -1