Resisting the binary blob [LWN.net]

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 15, 2006 14:37 UTC (Wed) by pbardet (guest, #22762)
In reply to: Resisting the binary blob by seyman
Parent article: Resisting the binary blob

The thing is that those links are not there yet. Also, the last time I checked for a distro I could install, FC did not have links to point you to the binary drivers. You had to google around to find out how to do it, ie spend a few hours understanding why it doesn't work out straight out of the box, or CD.

In theory, it' easy, in practice, it's only easy for techies who want to take the time to do it. Regular people don't want this and stick to MS. When you install it, MS doesn't tell you go there find that, they just do it. Linux should be the same.

Once again, Linux is not only about freedom, it's also about choice and alternatives. Binary drivers are an alternative, that like it or not, will stay as long as Intellectual Property will be recognized in this world.
Sure, I wish I could install a working system only from free software. I don't think it can happen yet, based on the market share of Linux.

If we want to see distros 100% free software, I can't see why we can not see distros that want to use non-free drivers as a base. This is freedom. Right now, Ubuntu is oriented toward the user, I just switched from Gentoo to it for this specific reason. The day they feel the free driver is better, they will switch back to it (if they ever switch to the binary). I'm pretty sure they want to stay away as much as possible from ties with other companies, as any other linux distribution. But in the meantime, if making it easy for your user is the goal, let's use the best as default and let techies change their systems since it's so easy for them.

Only the future will tell us if one way of doing is better than the other. I find it interesting to see how they would succeed, but I may never know.

(Log in to post comments)

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 15, 2006 23:32 UTC (Wed) by quaid (guest, #26101) [Link]

IANAL, TINLA, etc.

Fedora does not have an easy way to find links to these "solutions" because to provide such links may be against the law in the US.

Read this page for more details:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

Yes, it has always been true that those who are free/libre have the right to choose to make themselves un-free.

You also have the freedom to make or use a distro that is un-free. The point of this article is that Fedora should be celebrated for being free rather than vilified for failing to support someone else's desire not to be free.

Sure, I wish I could install a working system only from free software. I don't think it can happen yet, based on the market share of Linux.

I certainly don't have any problems installing a working system only from free software. Seems like many other people also don't have any problems. :)

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 16, 2006 14:04 UTC (Thu) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link]

"Fedora does not have an easy way to find links to these "solutions" because to provide such links may be against the law in the US." I don't care about the reason. I care about the result: It's not easy for end-users to get things done with such a distribution. I've heard it so many times before "oh it's not our fault, it's the law's fault". "Yes, it has always been true that those who are free/libre have the right to choose to make themselves un-free." I feel perfectly free when using Linux, whether it contains free or non-free components to make it work properly. If you don't, it's your problem, not mine. I make a living of producing proprietary software, and both models can interoperate fine. I have no problem buying a software if it meets my need. The fact is that whether I use free or non-free software, I always feel a little screwed by the fact that if I encounter a problem, I'm always dependant on other parties, whether they're open source or commercial since I don't have the time, or the experience to fix drivers or complicated software. In theory, open source is great since you can fix, but in practice, it's not true for most people using the software since they have no capacity to do so. "I certainly don't have any problems installing a working system only from free software." Good for you. I still haven't found a way to get decent video playback on my MythTV box with Nvidia card with the free driver, while the Nvidia driver worked fine right away, no tweaking, no fussing around. When xpdf, kpdf or any other version craps on a pdf file, I'm glad to have acroread installed on my machine, without getting to hunt down links. The opposite is true also (which sometimes raises questions about acroread, but it's another story). I just had to click on Firefox's (free software) window complaining about missing plugin. Weird that a free software can link to proprietary one, but it would not be OK for the distribution to do it by default.

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 16, 2006 16:31 UTC (Thu) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link]

> I don't care about the reason. I care about the result

Fedora is a community project. If you don't care the reason given by a community project, expect them not to care you either.

> I feel perfectly free when using Linux

The point is *not* whether *you* feel it free, but instead whether the community building them feel it free *according to their vision*. Using binary blob is not. End of discussion.

> In theory, open source is great since you can fix, but in practice, it's not true for most people

Open source is great because you can fix, and if you are, like most people, too busy or not qualified enough, you can find others to fix. No such freedom in other platforms. The only one who can fix the software you buy is the vendor selling it. If that single entity doesn't think solving your problem is worth their time, bad luck for you.

> My goal is to see linux succeed against MS and being accepted as a real alternative.

There had been alternatives. DR-DOS, OS/2 and Gems come to mind. Now there is just Linux. Don't you understand that each such attempt is very costly, and don't you know that the one thing that keep MS from using the same tactics against Linux is exactly what you are complaining about, i.e., open source?