"For example the freedom to help your neighbour."
My inlaws use Mac. And I have helped them with various questions they have asked. Am I missing
"Those who cannot code Free Software should not get in the way of those coding Free Software.
And in my view being a champion for installing non-free software on a free system does mean
"getting in the way.""
I'm sorry but that seems like fascism to me, where someone dictates what can and can't be
done. If I choose to use proprietary piece of software because the free alternative does not
cut the mustard, that does not mean that I'm "getting in the way of those who write free
software". I'm not REQUIRED to use free software. They (free software developers) are not
entitled to have me (or anyone else for that matter) as their user. Just because some people
choose the proprietary alternative does not mean that they are "getting in the way".
"That's a bit of an overstatement. I think it was perfectly possible to have photography as a
hobby before computers even existed. "
And no-one wants to go back to those times. We have come to expect certain things from the
tools we are provided. Would you be A-OK going back to 66Mhz Pentium as your main computer?
"I see no harm in reverting some of the practices that demand the use of proprietary software
to a more basic form, especially since it's just a
I do see the harm. And no, I'm not willing to switch to inferior tools just because they are
"free". Hobby is something you enjoy doing. And if some proprietqary tools gives better
results and is more pleasant to use, why exactly should I NOT use it? You should understand
the fact that my hobby is not "using Aperture" (or some other piece of software), the hobby is
"It's a start. You could fill in the other 90% with technology that has been around for a long
Such as? Darkrooms? Thanks but no thanks.
"I don't feel you see it that way, but I'm trying to explain why some (like me) are opposed to
the advocacy of adding "mostly harmless" non-free software to an otherwise free system."
And that mentality makes sure that millions of people will keep on using systems that are 100%
proprietary. That mentality makes sure that loads of new users who try out Linux will after
few days of usage think "this thing sucks!". Go ahead and tell them about the nirvana of
freedom, but to them, it does not matter.
"GNU/Linux *does* exist in a bubble."
No, it doesn't. Sure, it might do so for the hard-core free-software crowd, but 99% of the
people are not part of that crowd.
"And any software that threatens to upset that should be rejected."
feel free to do just that, just don't start dictating to others what they can and can't do.
"The difference between people running (for example) Ubuntu with all proprietary "additions"
and OSX or ms windows is negligable."
We are talking about something like people running Ubuntu with NVIDIA-drives and Flash, as
opposed to people running proprietary OS filled with proprietary software.
"These users might just as well keep running their old proprietary os."
And since Linux with nothing but free software does not meet their needs, that is exactly what
they will do.
"And, no; since it is not what we want, we shouldn't even begin adding proprietary software to
a free system. "
Who is this "we" you talk about? Do you speak for the entire community?
The point I was making is that we should just lace Linux with proprietary software and be done
with it. Point is that if we can't sell Linux to users because we want to stick to just free
software, and therefore can't provide the users with equal or better experience than what they
can get on those proprietary OS'es, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. We will drive
millions of people to proprietary software.
And before you say "but letting them run proprietary software on Linux does the exact same
thing!". Well, there are differences. If we let those users run those apps on Linux, we expose
them to the free software ecosystem, since everything else around them will be free software.
And they just might notice that some free alternative does the job of that proprietary app
just fine, easing them in to replacing that app with free alternative. If we shun those people
and drive them to Windows and Macs, we lose that opportunity, while further strengthening
those two platforms. Where is the benefit? IS the only benefit that some free software
greybeards can feel good inside knowing that no-one is running proprietary software on Linux?