Feb 14 2007
08:54 GMT
08:54 GMT
No to non-free drivers; still Yes to closed Launchpad ubuntu
10 hours ago, I was reading Jonathan Carter, because I was intrigued by the title: A big thank you to the Ubuntu Technical Board.
Now it's even on Linux.com: Ubuntu says no to non-free video drivers for Feisty.
Does it means Canonical/Ubuntu is committed to real freedom?
Nope. I am not buying this. This is only dust in the eyes of the gullible.
You can't have any moral stand, and you can't say "non-free drivers, firmwares and binary blobs are evil", when the software platform used in the development, bug management, etc. of the Ubuntu project is closed-source: Launchpad.
Yep. The FAQ still says:
Mark Shuttleworth has still to prove his commitment to the open source. So far, it's still a commitment to big money and hypocrisy.
The GPL'ed Sun Java will be ready before Launchpad is completely open-sourced. Quite a shame, Mr. Shuttleworth!
P.S.: The very much praised tech board has also decided that supporting the PowerPC architecture is not worthing the efforts. "These uses are outside of the core Ubuntu mandate, however, so resources cannot be diverted from our server and desktop efforts just to address their needs." (Eugenia is sad about that: A sad day for the PPC architecture.) Only 6.06 LTS PPC will be still supported through its end-of-life. This is only a narrow-minded view, and also a sign that Canonical is not a reliable provider.
UPDATE: Jesus Christ, it's even worse! Mark Shuttleworth posted a Clarification on Feisty’s proprietary drivers, and he says that everybody got everything wrong!
The day when Mark Shuttleworth will sign a covenant with Microsoft will be a great clarification. After all, why only SUSE?!
[permalink]
Now it's even on Linux.com: Ubuntu says no to non-free video drivers for Feisty.
Does it means Canonical/Ubuntu is committed to real freedom?
Nope. I am not buying this. This is only dust in the eyes of the gullible.
You can't have any moral stand, and you can't say "non-free drivers, firmwares and binary blobs are evil", when the software platform used in the development, bug management, etc. of the Ubuntu project is closed-source: Launchpad.
Yep. The FAQ still says:
- «Our goal is to release all of Launchpad as free software, though it will take some time (potentially, years) before that happens.
We are doing so in a piecemeal approach. Parts of Launchpad have already been released as free software ...
Launchpad is a large, monolithic, web application. We would be happy to release ... however, that code will not run without the distribution management code, which is part of of the service that Canonical provides to other companies that make their own distributions.»
Mark Shuttleworth has still to prove his commitment to the open source. So far, it's still a commitment to big money and hypocrisy.
The GPL'ed Sun Java will be ready before Launchpad is completely open-sourced. Quite a shame, Mr. Shuttleworth!
P.S.: The very much praised tech board has also decided that supporting the PowerPC architecture is not worthing the efforts. "These uses are outside of the core Ubuntu mandate, however, so resources cannot be diverted from our server and desktop efforts just to address their needs." (Eugenia is sad about that: A sad day for the PPC architecture.) Only 6.06 LTS PPC will be still supported through its end-of-life. This is only a narrow-minded view, and also a sign that Canonical is not a reliable provider.
UPDATE: Jesus Christ, it's even worse! Mark Shuttleworth posted a Clarification on Feisty’s proprietary drivers, and he says that everybody got everything wrong! - «Jonathan, I’m afraid you’ve misread the announcement that proprietary video drivers will not be switched on by default in Feisty. ... During the discussion, we re-affirmed the Ubuntu policy of including proprietary drivers where these are required to enable essential hardware functionality.
...
The canonical example has always been wifi drivers, some of which only come in proprietary blobs, but which of course enable huge parts of the free software stack to Just Work. We have always shipped those, and intend to continue to do so.
...
The big discussion has been about whether or not 3D video functionality would be considered essential for Feisty. I and others do believe that 3D is an essential part of the modern desktop experience. However .... Neither Compiz nor Beryl have the requisite stability and compatibility to be a default option in Feisty. It was this which blocked the decision to enable proprietary video drivers by default, not an aversion to their inclusion.»
The day when Mark Shuttleworth will sign a covenant with Microsoft will be a great clarification. After all, why only SUSE?!
[permalink]
Anonymous Coward
@ Feb 14, 2007 (08:28 AM)
Béranger
@ Feb 14, 2007 (09:02 AM)
> excuse me wtf r u doin ?
Blogging.
> but then Debian ships binary drivers as well
No, it doesn't, except for some firmware! (But no binary video drivers.)
> having some working 3D drivers is normal.
:s/normal/optional/gi
> Use Gnewsense, if it makes you feel better.
No, Gnewsense is political activism, and it's "just another *buntu" anyway.
I am actually using "criminal stuff", because I need MP3 and MPEG support, right? But this is either *my* own post-install choice, or it comes with the distro -- it's the case of the "small" distros, whose purpose is _not_ to propagate "an idea" (FOSS), but to make John Doe's life easier.
(NOTE: Slackware comes with MP3 support on the CDs/DVD, if I am not wrong, and i am fine with that ;-)
Blogging.
> but then Debian ships binary drivers as well
No, it doesn't, except for some firmware! (But no binary video drivers.)
> having some working 3D drivers is normal.
:s/normal/optional/gi
> Use Gnewsense, if it makes you feel better.
No, Gnewsense is political activism, and it's "just another *buntu" anyway.
I am actually using "criminal stuff", because I need MP3 and MPEG support, right? But this is either *my* own post-install choice, or it comes with the distro -- it's the case of the "small" distros, whose purpose is _not_ to propagate "an idea" (FOSS), but to make John Doe's life easier.
(NOTE: Slackware comes with MP3 support on the CDs/DVD, if I am not wrong, and i am fine with that ;-)
zugu
@ Feb 14, 2007 (09:45 AM)
The "excuse me wtf r u doin?" is a meme, so don't take it @ literal value.
When I was referring to the binary drivers that Debian ships with I did not mean "video drivers". Your "No, it doesn't, except for some firmware!" statement has a Romanian equivalent, "industria este sublima, dar inexistenta!".
So if a Debian guy comes to me whining and bitching about how Ubuntu ships with binary drivers, he's a big hypocrite. What are the reasons on behalf of Debian? The Debian OS would not work correctly without the blobs, and there are no open source equivalents, therefore they have to include them in the release. Bullshit! So much for the philosophy!
Ubuntu wants to ship binary drivers because in their opinion the Ubuntu OS would not function correctly without them. Consider the general profile of the Ubuntu user and then tell me they won't want to play Windows games under wine, or won't use beryl or won't want to use any 3D capability their video card has to offer.
What is important for the users is relative to the kind of users one is addressing to.
As for the don't-add-them-by-default,-let-me-add-them-if-I-want-to argument, consider the opposite: binary blobs are added by default, and you remove them if you don't want them. In my opinion, it's the same thing.
Furthermore, Ubuntu does not install the drivers unless the user clearly wants them installed.
What more? I think it's a good deal for everyone, considering the circumstances.
When I was referring to the binary drivers that Debian ships with I did not mean "video drivers". Your "No, it doesn't, except for some firmware!" statement has a Romanian equivalent, "industria este sublima, dar inexistenta!".
So if a Debian guy comes to me whining and bitching about how Ubuntu ships with binary drivers, he's a big hypocrite. What are the reasons on behalf of Debian? The Debian OS would not work correctly without the blobs, and there are no open source equivalents, therefore they have to include them in the release. Bullshit! So much for the philosophy!
Ubuntu wants to ship binary drivers because in their opinion the Ubuntu OS would not function correctly without them. Consider the general profile of the Ubuntu user and then tell me they won't want to play Windows games under wine, or won't use beryl or won't want to use any 3D capability their video card has to offer.
What is important for the users is relative to the kind of users one is addressing to.
As for the don't-add-them-by-default,-let-me-add-them-if-I-want-to argument, consider the opposite: binary blobs are added by default, and you remove them if you don't want them. In my opinion, it's the same thing.
Furthermore, Ubuntu does not install the drivers unless the user clearly wants them installed.
What more? I think it's a good deal for everyone, considering the circumstances.
Béranger
@ Feb 14, 2007 (09:53 AM)
> binary blobs are added by default, and you remove them
> if you don't want them. In my opinion, it's the same thing.
No, it's not.
> if you don't want them. In my opinion, it's the same thing.
No, it's not.
DoK
@ Feb 14, 2007 (12:43 PM)
Ubuntu is different from SuSE, Mandriva and others regarding closed source parts not because others don't have this or the other part but because Ubuntu downloaders will never know they are using proprietry parts and will never know if they are acting in contradiction with the proprietry parts users contracts - Ubuntu downloaders will never see the lisence unless they will accidently search their docs directory.
The only place where Ubuntu user will see a note regarding those proprietry parts is on the original cover of the disc shiped by Cannonical in font <5.
IANAL but even given only the intel wifi firmware there is good reasone to suspect making copies of Ubuntu is in contradiction with the user agreement. Are ubuntu users aware of that?
and did I mention the proprietry firmware is in the kernel package???
Ubuntu didn't do the required minimm so far and is probably going to do even less in the future.
P.S. The last ubuntu I checked was 6.06. I hope but fail to believe it was fixed since.
The only place where Ubuntu user will see a note regarding those proprietry parts is on the original cover of the disc shiped by Cannonical in font <5.
IANAL but even given only the intel wifi firmware there is good reasone to suspect making copies of Ubuntu is in contradiction with the user agreement. Are ubuntu users aware of that?
and did I mention the proprietry firmware is in the kernel package???
Ubuntu didn't do the required minimm so far and is probably going to do even less in the future.
P.S. The last ubuntu I checked was 6.06. I hope but fail to believe it was fixed since.
SLED is full of closed source software, Novell makes a lot of money out of it and nobody complains, but when Ubuntu decides to include closed source drivers, it's suddenly not right?
Yes, I know, there's a difference because Ubuntu is advertised as "free software" but then Debian ships binary drivers as well, and is considered free software, too.
Ubuntu is a mainstream distribution, and most of the intended audience finds 3D support necessary, so yes, having some working 3D drivers is normal.
Including binary drivers in Ubuntu as long as the existing drivers provide decent 3D support, now that would be irrational and would prove Mr. Shuttleworth has no commitment towards the FOSS world.
No PPC? Use Debian. Or some other distro that supports the PPC architecture.
So there, try to hate less, it's bad for your health. Use Gnewsense, if it makes you feel better.