LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions
User Name
Password
Linux - Distributions This forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on... Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-16-2009, 11:38 PM   #1
newbiesforever
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Distribution: Distro-homeless. Lost.
Posts: 1,875

Rep: Reputation: 62
easypeasy's philosophy


I was reading about the distro "easypeasy," and learned that its philosophy is to freely use proprietary software if it works better than its free software equivalent. What do you think of this? I find it to be perfectly sensible, at least if not taken to an extreme. That could mean buying Microsoft Office and running it in a virtual machine, since I find OpenOffice Calc to be harder to use than Microsoft Excel. But used in moderation, it seems more sensible than the doctrinaire shunning of non-free software that I understand is practiced by Debian and Ubuntu.

(easypeasy has a stupid name, but who cares.)

Last edited by newbiesforever; 11-16-2009 at 11:41 PM.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 03:32 AM   #2
lampamp
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Fedora 11
Posts: 72

Rep: Reputation: 15
I disagree with you
the Idea we are after is completely free distros with free software

i also really hate what ubuntu is doing
adding non-free software and they still call it open-source!

fedora is very strict
debian is also strict
but ubuntu isn't
 
Old 11-17-2009, 03:55 AM   #3
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
Sounds like their philosophy is to use whatever works for the user. Not a bad idea and could enable the distro to act as a gateway to the rest.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 06:36 AM   #4
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by lampamp View Post
I disagree with you
the Idea we are after is completely free distros with free software

i also really hate what ubuntu is doing
adding non-free software and they still call it open-source!

fedora is very strict
debian is also strict
but ubuntu isn't
And I disagree with you!!

The whole idea of computers is to somehow be useful to people. The typical end user could care less about proprietary vs. open source code, and they may also not trust "cost-free"---reasoning that, if they don't pay, they won't get any support. (e.g., being inherently lazy, I buy CrossOver rather than spend time configuring basic WINE.)

We now have too very different business models for operating systems, applications, and support. BOTH are valid, and both are going to be with us for the foreseable future. We can be proactive in promoting our view of how this should evolve, but the traditional model still has some advantages for many people, and most certainly has a right to exist.

One of the best current examples of peaceful co-existence is NVidia graphics drivers. With a few notable exceptions, you can get very good results with their (proprietary) drivers. While their installer is really slick, I also value the fact that I can get several versions from the Arch repos---including the one that works for my card under the latest version of X.

For Arch to offer the NVidia driver--and Flash--and the Intel wireless drivers---etc., etc.---in no way undermines or weakens the global cause that we all try to promote. Arch is simply providing value to the end-user, which is what any rational business model is supposed to do.

The "purist" distros (eg Debian) serve a useful purpose, and have every right to exist, but I find them annoying and don't use them......YMMV.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 06:39 AM   #5
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by lampamp View Post
i also really hate what ubuntu is doing
adding non-free software and they still call it open-source!
I believe this is incorrect. I have never seen or heard Ubuntu even hinting that a proprietary app, driver, etc. was open-source.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 12:07 PM   #6
newbiesforever
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Distribution: Distro-homeless. Lost.
Posts: 1,875

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixellany View Post
And I disagree with you!!

The typical end user could care less about proprietary vs. open source code,
I find that unfortunate, because it means that can't easily be one of Linux's selling points to the typical end user.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 01:03 PM   #7
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,039
Blog Entries: 52

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
lampamp
If you're really concerned about running a totally free distro, see this page:

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

Last edited by brianL; 11-17-2009 at 01:05 PM.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 01:48 PM   #8
pixellany
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Annapolis, MD
Distribution: Arch/XFCE
Posts: 17,802

Rep: Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728Reputation: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbiesforever View Post
I find that unfortunate, because it means that can't easily be one of Linux's selling points to the typical end user.
I did not say "typical Linux user". Linux users are a small minority, and portion of the computer users who even knows what is Linux and OpenSource is only slightly larger. I'll guess that over over 50% of all users don't even know what source code is.
 
Old 11-17-2009, 02:49 PM   #9
newbiesforever
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Distribution: Distro-homeless. Lost.
Posts: 1,875

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixellany View Post
And I disagree with you!!

The whole idea of computers is to somehow be useful to people. ... The "purist" distros (eg Debian) serve a useful purpose, and have every right to exist, but I find them annoying and don't use them......YMMV.
Agreed. Since computers are tools, the software they run is entirely a practical issue, not a moral one, so why be so purist. I like the idea of free software mostly because it works, not because it's righteous.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
User Philosophy jerril General 9 03-01-2006 04:14 PM
User Philosophy jerril General 3 03-01-2006 03:56 PM
philosophy juyce Slackware 5 09-19-2005 11:38 PM
programming philosophy? Thinking Programming 9 09-14-2005 05:42 AM
Programming Philosophy kryptonite0110 Programming 11 05-16-2005 02:09 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration