towsonu2003 at gmail.com
Sat Nov 25 23:22:02 GMT 2006
Jan Claeys wrote:
> Op zaterdag 25-11-2006 om 16:56 uur [tijdzone +0000], schreef Colin
>> The reason I ask is: why would you have moral objections to one but
>> not the other?
> About possible reasons for wanting one but not the other, an example:
> what if 2D graphics work with the open source driver (and you don't need
> 3D), but WiFi requires a binary driver? Some people want to be as pure
> as practical, but not more pure than that... ;-)
I myself prefer to use a nice little limit to using proprietary drivers:
use them if the computer is not usable without them.
example: if I boot my computer and the open source graphic driver
renders it useless, I go on to the closed source driver. But I don't
setup the closed source driver just for desktop bling's sake. the
keyword: usability... I'm not gonna use the desktop bling as long as the
open source drivers don't provide it (though I really would like to use
anyone booting to Linux will want to see a nicely working system.
anything more should be left to the user's choice of philosophy. that
is: set up the working drivers for them, and let them choose if they
want more at the expense of their (and, well, our) freedom...
Honestly though, in a perfect world (utopia), I would rather prefer to
see the hardware manufacturers *loose* /their/ freedom not to give
hardware specs or to provide us with closed source drivers.
Ubuntu Code of Conduct: be considerate, respectful, collaborative...
More information about the ubuntu-devel