Do you strongly prefer for your OS to lack proprietary software....

[Nick_Jinn]

even when there is no suitable open source alternative?


I do think its better to support the open source alternatives IF they exist, but what I cant wrap my head around is why the Devs choose not to include some very popular drivers and codecs (watching DVDs for example) when there isnt an open source alternative.

So I read up on the philosophy of Ubuntu.....Middle of the road approach. Why not give the open source drivers a chance? I think we should. But what about when there isnt an open source driver? Why are we including buggy Nvidia proprietary drivers but not including support for watching DVDs out of the box? It doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me....would you end up owing them money if you included it out of the box? Is it technically legal to download Medibuntu?


If you strongly prefer not to have proprietary drivers even in the absence of suitable alternatives, why do you prefer this?

[new_tolinux]

I'm also using Windows, so no.

If there's a suitable OSS/free alternative which has these specifications I will consider using the OSS/free alternative:
- has the same or more functionality
- works without problems
- looks good (at least has a decent GUI that doesn't look like it's DOS/Win95)

If it lacks those specifications, I use whatever I think fits my needs.

FWIW: Windows Vista (for example) didn't fit my needs to run a webserver, so I installed ubuntu.

[MCVenom]

To be honest I had a bit of trouble following your post ^^;

I don't mind proprietary software, but I much prefer open source I'm thinking about installing Trisquel on an old computer that couldn't use the proprietary drivers anyway, so I'll see what's it's like being 100% free soon!

I'd like everything I use on my computing devices to be open source. But I don't completely loathe proprietary software or drivers either (I wish there was more of both for Linux, actually), and I use proprietary software often.

[Bachstelze]

Seeing how the poll is phrased, you don't seem to know very well what you are talking about. The codecs used to watch DVDs and a lot of other media are perfectly free software.

[MCVenom]

Also, yes, Canonical would probably owe money for DVD support. It's also probably illegal to download the dvd decryption codec for free; if you live in America at least.

[MCVenom]

Seeing how the poll is phrased, you don't seem to know very well what you are talking about. The codecs used to watch DVDs and a lot of other media are perfectly free software.

It's a common misconception; but yes, most of the codecs and stuff are actually open source; but patenting or licensing issues prevent them from being included.

PS: Yeah, that's the most horribly worded poll ever.

[Nick_Jinn]

Why are the Mint Devs not getting sued or arrested then? DVDs and other media work in Mint out of the Box. It doesnt seem to be a problem for them.

[MCVenom]

Why are the Mint Devs not getting sued or arrested then? DVDs and other media work in Mint out of the Box. It doesnt seem to be a problem for them.

Mint's main dev is based in Ireland, they don't recognize software patents.

[Nick_Jinn]

Mint's main dev is based in Ireland, they don't recognize software patents.

Cool.

Ubuntu isnt US based either, is it? I thought it was developed (or at least funded) by a wealthy African Business man.


It should be easy enough to release it from any country you want.




Making it a little easier to watch DVDs doesnt seem like it should be as difficult.

[NightwishFan]

I am quite sure if anyone had a reason to they would bring the hammer down hard. Though for most things I am assuming you are agreeing to the license for using Mint, though it may be violating it if they do not display it. OpenSUSE for example displays the license when you install flash or java.