Canonical causes a ruckus

[ihrsetrdr]

gNewSense is based off ubuntu but has all the proprietary software stripped out.

This is why I will likely never use gNewSense or Debian. It is my choice whether to install non-free / non-open software on other distros. Other distros have those packages available in the base repository, so I can choose to install them if I want to.

Also, AFAIK, Ubuntu does NOT default install proprietary drivers. It asks you (there's that choice thing again) if you want them before installing. The kernel does not have proprietary blobs, either. There are modules that are proprietary, but if that module isn't loaded, then it isn't doing anything with your kernel.

Actually, Debian's philosophy is dead set against the inclusion of proprietary, non-free, non-open source software(see Debian Social Contract). Debian does provide infrastructure for non-free packages.

 

[rumbl3]

Man i would LOVE LOVE!!!!!! STEAM on linux at least working excellent instead of just medium to good.

If they did that and got stuff like hl2 type games going on them more nativeish. I'd sell my soul to them

 

[TalRW]

Actually, Debian's philosophy is dead set against the inclusion of proprietary, non-free, non-open source software(see Debian Social Contract). Debian does provide infrastructure for non-free packages.

Not exactly. This is straight from the free software foundation's website (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html)

Debian

Debian's Social Contract does say that all software in the main distribution will be free software. Unfortunately, that's not always true in practice. Debian has repeatedly made tacit or explicit exceptions for specific pieces of nonfree software, such as the blobs included in or accompanying Linux. We're still hopeful that there won't be such exceptions in the future, but we can't turn a blind eye to the situation as it stands today.

Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. According to the project, this software is “not part of the Debian system.” We understand that's important for organizational reasons, but users would be hard-pressed to make a distinction. The nonfree repositories are often featured as prominently as the main ones throughout Debian's web site, documentation, and other materials.

 

[BenF]

i would be all for closed source software to be available. if i had itunes on linux, that would be one less reason for me to use windows. as of right now, the only time i use windows is to play games, itunes and for work. i am still a bit surprised that apple hasn't released a *nix version of itunes. i would imagine that there has some be some blog post somewhere about why itunes isn't on linux.

This is the exact same reason I don't use linux. I like to game quite a bit and if I'm not gaming I'm usually working on listening to music. Unfortunately I have quite a good size library of music purchased from itunes that does not work on linux. if I was able to use the closed source software on linux I'd switch right away.

 

[MRD]

Newer stuff bought on itunes works fine. The old stuff with DRM has to be ripped and burned first.

 

[ihrsetrdr]

Not exactly. This is straight from the free software foundation's website (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html)

Debian may help users access some non-free software, but such is not included in Debian. Rather, it is the users choice.

Works that do not meet our free software standards

We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists).

Not an ideal situation, from FSF's purist perspective, Debian continually struggles to strike an acceptable balance between ideology and usability.

 

[curtis1552]

IMO, if it work it works. I like free software, because, well, it's free.
I like open-source software because you can look at the code (though not me, i'm sure someone has) and be fairly sure that it doesn't include malware/spyware/viruses. You never know what you get with closed source.

But, if linux is able to have full support for those programs it'll be that much closer to being easier for the general populace to use. Thus improving market share, thus increasing the possibility for manufacturer support, and thus making it work better.

So, open or closed source, binary or source, free or purchased, IMO the more apps available the better for linux. (and for paid apps, you can look to cedega and... well, i'm sure there are more paid apps) All they'd have to do is make a few mods to the 'mac' version of a program, and have it precompiled for x64 and x86. I'm not saying it'd be perfect, and might include dupicate dependencies, but it'd be available, and that's what realy matters.

 

[MRD]

Free software is not the opposite of purchased software. free does not refer to price, it refers to freedom. In other languages, they use the word for free as in speech, not for free as in beer, e.g. libre. Free software is always open source, but the reverse may not be true (but usually is).

It is a common mistake that derives from the ambiguity of English.

 

[TalRW]

@Curtis exactly what MRD said above me. When I say "Free" I refer to libre not gratis.

 

[fasteroc]

So long as it's a choice I see no issue. I don't like itunes, even on windows I use foobar2000 but Photoshop would help Linux gain a huge amount of market share and would get me 1 step closer to ditching my windows VM.

 

[curtis1552]

I do understand the difference (gratis vs. free vs. libre vs. open vs. closed vs. blah vs. blah) the issue was with ambiguity.

I was meaning more that if the software is available, in any form, and it works well, I will probably use it. I'm much more likely to use software that I don't have to pay for though.

Side note; I'm watching RevolutionOS right now. Decent documentary and it's semi-relevant to this thread.

 

[Zerix01]

Newer stuff bought on itunes works fine. The old stuff with DRM has to be ripped and burned first.

http://www.macworld.com/article/145135/2009/12/itunes_misconceptions.html

So, if you purchased any iTunes Plus tracks between 2007 and early 2009, or any tracks after the DRM-free transition, your music has no restrictions on usage. If you own any FairPlay-encumbered music, however, the DRM remains. You can, however, upgrade your music to DRM-free by clicking the iTunes Plus link on the iTunes Store. From there you can choose to upgrade individual albums, individually purchased tracks, or your entire library. Besides removing the DRM, the updated tracks also double the bit rate from 128 Kbps to 256 Kbps.

Although burning and ripping a CD would work, you end up loosing more than just the DRM going from a compressed audio file -> wave with data loss -> back to compressed audio file causing more data loss.

 

[petteyg359]

http://www.macworld.com/article/145135/2009/12/itunes_misconceptions.html

Although burning and ripping a CD would work, you end up loosing more than just the DRM going from a compressed audio file -> wave with data loss -> back to compressed audio file causing more data loss.

The linked article seems to neglect to mention the apparent cost of "upgrading" to Plus. In the little picture above that paragraph, I see something like $233 and some cents. They won't "remove" any DRM, they'll just resell you the music you've already bought, from what I see.