On 30/06/07, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30-Jun-07, at 11:46 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
>> > If the "open" option is fully functional and supported, sure, it
>> can
>> > be used in place of the other. But as long as there is a better,
>> > redistributable option, that's the one we should be using to
>> give the
>> > user the best experience possible "out-of-the-box."
>>
>> Ok, but then you're handing a key differentiator to Linux, and people
>> will tell each other that OpenSolaris is irrelevant because it's not
>> really open.
>
> No, it would not be. It's the same problem that GNU/Linux
> distributions face.
>
> It's the same reason that Ubuntu developed a policy that basically
> says that they will ship binary blobs to ensure certain functionality
> work as intended. Ubuntu is wildly successful, yet is smart enough to
> realise that its best to ship a working system out-of-the-box via
> "restricted modules" than it is to make excuses about ivory tower
> ideas and philosophy.
>
> Users expect things to just work, and excuses about philosophy,
> freedom, etc. just don't fly.
While I agree generally with your point, there's a difference between
free-like-booze and freely redistributible.
Agreed.
If the end-user can't freely distribute the CD, it's worthless. Other
Indeed; and I do think freely redistributable should be a requirement.
I'm certain that if the Solaris Express Community Edition image were
freely redistributable, we'd see more users. I think that is
definitely one of the reasons why Belenix, etc. are so popular (that
and Belenix just plain kicks ***!).
than that, I think that functionality comes first, and a "Freediana"
distro can be built around that base that strips closed-source stuff
out of it with very little difficulty. And this is coming from
someone that can't stand closed-source. It bugs me, hence Project
Emancipation.
Yes, and for that project many people are very grateful. Your work
will allow others to begin porting to additional architectures. The
i18n / libc situation is a perfect example of a scenario where a
closed source equivalent must be used until it can be replaced.
> There are *many* GNU/Linux distributions that care more about users
> than idealism and ivory tower goals that some distributions focus on.
and they do quite well among certain subsets of the user base, such
as debian, which still has users that swear by it. For both
ideological and technical reasons.
Yes, but they only do well among a very small group. Debian was
relegated to niche status for a long time for many reasons, one of
which I believe was their unwillingness to deal with the binary driver
issue. Ubuntu seems to have found the happy medium (compromise).
My posts in no way should be taken as discouraging replacing closed
items with open ones; quite the opposite. Rather, they should be taken
as "using the right tool for the right job until a better one becomes
available."
--
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it. " --Donald Knuth
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
