Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:03:13 -0800 "Kristian Erik Hermansen" <[hidden email]> wrote: > So, then, it appears that Canonical actually supports a freer distro > that you think. Ubuntu may make some compromises, but users do have > the choice to also use Gobuntu. Do Fedora users have the choice not > to use binary-only firmware? For instance, has the Fedora team > developed a "completely free" distro as Canonical has? I don't think > you can continue to make your previous argument, because Ubuntu users > actually are given a choice, whereas on the other hand, Fedora users > are not :-) I think we have essentially 3 different philosophies. OpenSuSE, Fedora, and Ubuntu exhibit different philosophies. And the 3 sponsoring companies (Novell, Red Hat, and Canonical) reflect their philosophies in the products. Part of the problem with FOSS is that there are some companies who simply don't support it. Video chip vendors have been the worst offenders over the years. You want Flash for you browser, you get the closed source Flash from Adobe. The FOSS flash plugins just don't hack it yet. While some chip companies, such as Intel, do provide current Linux drivers for their video chips, most try to hide their APIs. Currently, the Linux market is not large enough to cause these companies to change. -- -- Jerry Feldman <[hidden email]> Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |