RMS, Free software and the Ubuntu CDs

[Daniel Carrera]

On Sat, 2006-01-07 at 13:43 +0200, jean gruneberg wrote:
> > Well, RMS and others could have said the same in 1984. "Having a free
> > system is wishful thinking, get over it. Time to move forward and use
> > Windows/MacOS/Unix"
> > 
> I'm not saying move to windows,

No one said you are. Mario's point is that if had the attitude "it's not
going to change, live with it" then indeed, nothing would change. But
it's because people actually try to do things different that things
improve, and something that seemed impossible in 1984 (a complete, free
operating system) is now a reality.


> The average joe public just wants the computer to work, period.

This is true. It was also true in 1984 when RMS started GNU.

> If we want Linux to move out of the shadows, the system must be fool 
> proof and complete out of the box.

It's a matter of balance. To which degree are we willing to compromise
values of openness that make open source unique in order to achieve
faster up-take? If you ask 10 people you'll likely get 10 different
answers. Different distributions draw the line at different places. For
example, Ubuntu leans strongly towards the pure open source side, but
not as much as Debian. At the opposite extreme, Linspire is one of the
most proprietary Linux distros out there, but probably not as much as
Xandros.

> The notion is noble but ultimately will be Linux's Achilles heel

I wouldn't call it the Achilles heel. It is certainly something that
slows down adoption, but it won't be the demise of GNU/Linux. In
converse, I would ask, what good is having GNU/Linux take over the world
if it becomes just as proprietary/encumbered/anti-user as the very
systems I want to replace? What good is beating the enemy if you become
as bad as them?

Again, it's about balance. I personally lean fairly strongly towards the
openness side, but not completely. One reason I like Ubuntu is that it
draws the line more or less where I would draw it.

I do understand what you say about codecs, btw. My understanding is that
the reason Ubuntu doesn't ship with those isn't that they aren't free
software (w32codecs is a free software package) but that the legality of
doing so is questionable (that's why w32codecs has to be provided by the
Penguin Liberation Front). It's similar to libdvdcss2 and why Ubuntu
doesn't play encrypted DVDs by default. It's not a moral attitude to use
only free software (libdvdcss2 *is* free software) but a legal risk in
doing so (DMCA). FWIW, although I don't watch movies, when I install
Ubuntu the first thing I do is install w32codecs and libdvdcss2, purely
out of principle.

Cheers,
Daniel.
-- 
http://opendocumentfellowship.org
  "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
  unreasonable man tries to adapt the world to himself.
  Therefore all progress depends on unreasonable men."
        -- George Bernard Shaw