"I believe humans get a lot done, not because we're smart, but because we have thumbs so we can make coffee." --Flash Rosenberg
either ways i dont think if there's any need for me to use proprietary drivers, i'm cool with open source, and this is just for learning purpose
Last edited by excollier; May 8th, 2013 at 10:06 AM.
I'd rather see every non-free driver, etc., that can legally be in an install package be included and be treated during the install just as another piece of code. (Same thing applies to Ubuntu and those "restricted" packages of codecs, Flash, and fonts. If it's legal to put it in an install package, that's where it belongs.)
Are the non-free bits handled in the same way as everything else by the installer, or does the user need to accomplish the installation of non-free firmware independently and then return to the installer?
i dont think if its huge that they are unofficial, if i can run them live, why the hell not?
even if they might or might not have one or two proprietary drivers/software, dont think if it makes much of a difference
I have both Debian and Ubuntu, for different reasons. I use Ubuntu as my main OS because it just works, I like the convenience and the stability (Well I use Debian sid, not Debian stable with the stale software so Ubuntu is actually more stable). But I also like to use Debian to learn. In Debian I do a lot of things manually which in Ubuntu would have been taken care of out of the box. I think it is worthwhile to acquire those skills. I actually also like Debian's philosophy, even though it may be hard to adhere to all the time, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of idealistic visions while being pragmatic to get things done (for the same reason I have lots of respect for the FSF and RMS even though I can't, in all honesty adhere their way in practice)
I have no issue with developers and FOSS. What I think is pretty purposeless is keeping non-free code out of the primary install routine because the developers have ethical issues with that, but then helping the user install the same non-free files. If, for example, a distro opposes non-free code on an ethical basis, why then push that "sinful" work off an users? It's as if the developers don't want to dirty their hands, but don't mind or care if users have to do that.
The entire approach assumes that the users know about FOSS, know why the developers harbor those ethical objections, and are willing to inconvenience themselves as the price to be paid for using FOSS. In the case of Linux newcomers, I don't think that is an accurate assumption. New users are as likely to be ticked off by what they see as developer arrogance as they are impressed with developer virtue. We should not assume that every Linux user cares about FOSS.
I have no issues with FOSS. I understand why FOSS developers want their code to be free. I just happen to think that pushing work off on users, and inconveniencing users, because developers are averse to packaging someone else's non-free files in their installation routines is counter to everyone's interests. Specifically, it does not turn new users into FOSS converts. I suspect in many, many instances new users just see a Linux distribution that doesn't work right after the install, get frustrated, and go back to Windows.