Are you "a purist" FOSS user?

Naikon

Simply, do you allow non free software on your machine? I draw the line at the kernel level, where I basically dropped the blob nvidia driver because KMS enabled Gallium 3D drivers allow me to play my indie games/quake live at a reasonable frame rate, without the bugs associated with the official drivers. Also, the thought of a non auditable blob tainting my machine does not bode well for my computing peace of mind:pac:

Basically, for me, if the software is user level, I may tolerate it(Flash is the exception here, I simply refuse to use it). However, if the driver is not in the mainline kernel, you can bet I WILL NOT use that particular hardware as a form of protest to lazy ass companies like Broadcom. A wireless card is not a nuke, release the fecking specs already...

Here is an example of why prioritising free drivers over closed ones is important: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/331

Jonathan

Not a purist.

I'll generally favour FOSS, but use proprietary software if its the best tool for the job.

OOo for example just doesn't cut it compared to Office. I'll always use Office on a Windows machine or under Wine for composing a document for circulation. OOo just can't be trusted not to mess up the formatting.

Similar situation as above when it comes to Skype. I'd prefer a FOSS version, but one doesn't exist. Avoiding Skype isn't really an option, so you are left with no
choice but use the binary blob.

Same situation again with graphics and wireless card drivers. Most have FOSS alternatives to the binary blobs, but at too high a price. Nouveau drivers are still unstable in 3D mode, while b43 didn't support 802.11n last time I looked. I'm not looking for super features (I never install any of that control panel software, always driver only), I just want to be able to use my hardware to its full potential.

Naikon

Jonathan wrote: »

Not a purist.

I'll generally favour FOSS, but use proprietary software if its the best tool for the job.

OOo for example just doesn't cut it compared to Office. I'll always use Office on a Windows machine or under Wine for composing a document for circulation. OOo just can't be trusted not to mess up the formatting.

Similar situation as above when it comes to Skype. I'd prefer a FOSS version, but one doesn't exist. Avoiding Skype isn't really an option, so you are left with no
choice but use the binary blob.

Same situation again with graphics and wireless card drivers. Most have FOSS alternatives to the binary blobs, but at too high a price. Nouveau drivers are still unstable in 3D mode, while b43 didn't support 802.11n last time I looked. I'm not looking for super features (I never install any of that control panel software, always driver only), I just want to be able to use my hardware to its full potential.

Pretty rational stance. I mean, I can't pretend the rest of the world uses nothing but floss, it's just I take it where I can. I understand where you are coming from though. CAD applications and stuff like Mathematica aren't going open any time soon. Yeah, I am using Nouveau drivers now, and performance is not great, but it's a start. It will be very interesting to see how Gallium 3D on ATI/Nvidia advances in the coming months. I honestly believe this stack is going somewhere. Interesting stuff.

*On an unrelated note, the reason Nouveau is bad at the moment is the total lack of input from Nvidia. Reverse engineering is not an easy game. No matter how bad ATI cards may be, at least they don't obfuscate the card specifications and release some documentation*

evercloserunion

If I have a choice between a free and a non-free solution, I will generally choose the free one. But if I need a job done and the only software that can do it well is non-free, I'll go with that. I can't really think of anywhere where that's happened though.

OOo for example just doesn't cut it compared to Office. I'll always use Office on a Windows machine or under Wine for composing a document for circulation. OOo just can't be trusted not to mess up the formatting.

I agree with your general approach but I think OOo really has come along leaps and bounds recently. I avoided OOo for years because I do a lot of document work where formatting is very important and I used to have major trouble with that in OOo. But I'm currently using LibreOffice and I have to say I have no problems at all. Documents written in LibreOffice (and go-OOo before it) are displayed perfectly in MS Word for me, and vice versa. No corruption of the format at all.

Naikon

evercloserunion wrote: »

If I have a choice between a free and a non-free solution, I will generally choose the free one. But if I need a job done and the only software that can do it well is non-free, I'll go with that. I can't really think of anywhere where that's happened though.


I agree with your general approach but I think OOo really has come along leaps and bounds recently. I avoided OOo for years because I do a lot of document work where formatting is very important and I used to have major trouble with that in OOo. But I'm currently using LibreOffice and I have to say I have no problems at all. Documents written in LibreOffice (and go-OOo before it) are displayed perfectly in MS Word for me, and vice versa. No corruption of the format at all.

Good to hear LibreOffice is coming along. I don't really use Word/OpenOffice unless forced too, but if LibreOffice is improving, good news all round. Especially good when you consider the .doc format is about as open as an off licence after 10pm...

TheReverend

I use whatever is best

Pygmalion

Dunno if I'd call myself purist.

According to portage I have packages installed under the MSttfEULA, the perforce license, MaxMind2 license, MOTIF license and unRAR license, and the RTCW-ET-EULA.
Of these all but the MSttfEULA and RTCW-ET-EULA allow free modification and redistribution, but with some weird quirks (personally I'd only consider unRAR "non-free", though the OSI may disagree).
Also a lot of stuff under "freedist" license which says nothing but "Freely Distributable", and some fortune quotes marked as "fairuse", which I don't see a problem with (freedist should surely fall under the Free category anyway).

So basically I appear to have a clean system apart from some fonts, enemy-territory and perhaps unRAR (in my opinion anyway).
I won't install flash, partially because it's non-free, but mostly because it's a piece of ****.

Of course I have a copy of Windows 7 for if/when I need it for coursework, and I play games on it. Though I'm not too bothered by non-free games, I don't really see the problem with purely recreational software being non-free (Things like DirectX and stuff still annoy me).

Naikon

Pygmalion wrote: »

Dunno if I'd call myself purist.

According to portage I have packages installed under the MSttfEULA, the perforce license, MaxMind2 license, MOTIF license and unRAR license, and the RTCW-ET-EULA.
Of these all but the MSttfEULA and RTCW-ET-EULA allow free modification and redistribution, but with some weird quirks (personally I'd only consider unRAR "non-free", though the OSI may disagree).
Also a lot of stuff under "freedist" license which says nothing but "Freely Distributable", and some fortune quotes marked as "fairuse", which I don't see a problem with (freedist should surely fall under the Free category anyway).

So basically I appear to have a clean system apart from some fonts, enemy-territory and perhaps unRAR (in my opinion anyway).
I won't install flash, partially because it's non-free, but mostly because it's a piece of ****.

Of course I have a copy of Windows 7 for if/when I need it for coursework, and I play games on it. Though I'm not too bothered by non-free games, I don't really see the problem with purely recreational software being non-free (Things like DirectX and stuff still annoy me).

Richard Stallman wants a word with you:eek: Nah, seems fine to me. Besides, RTCW and ET was released under the GPL by Carmack himself at the last Quakecon:pac:
Agree with you on Flash, that ****e never worked to my liking, so I went ahead with totem mediaplayer and the newish Youtube Without Flash Auto greasemonkey
script. No segfaults with that. Much, much better, and the solution does not hog the cpu. Flash still don't have acceptable 64 bit builds of their latest player -_-

*cough* - http://www.quakewiki.net/rtcw-and-enemy-territory-gpl-source-release/

evercloserunion

Naikon wrote: »

*cough* - http://www.quakewiki.net/rtcw-and-enemy-territory-gpl-source-release/

These source releases contain no game data, so a retail copy of Return to Castle Wolfenstein will still be required to access assets from that game, while Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is free, and still available through Splash Damage. In each case the game’s EULAs are still in full effect.

It appears as though things like artwork and sounds etc are still closed source (though, in the case of ET, free of charge).

Johnboy1951

Not a purist, but have a bias ....... do not use any version of Windows ..... do not install WINE .. nor mono ......

I used goOOo and now use Libre. I save files in odt.

If those receiving the files cannot display them properly that is not my concern. If they request it I will send a pdf in place of the odt, but will not send a .doc formatted file.

I use the best drivers for my hardware. A lot of those are proprietary.
If and when OSS drivers become available, and are as good, then I will use those.
I won't compromise performance for the cause ..... but do have a preference.

In short ...... where there are open standards or suitable drivers I will use them as a preference.
Otherwise I am a realist who likes his hardware to work as well as possible.

regards.

Naikon

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Not a purist, but have a bias ....... do not use any version of Windows ..... do not install WINE .. nor mono ......

I used goOOo and now use Libre. I save files in odt.

If those receiving the files cannot display them properly that is not my concern. If they request it I will send a pdf in place of the odt, but will not send a .doc formatted file.

I use the best drivers for my hardware. A lot of those are proprietary.
If and when OSS drivers become available, and are as good, then I will use those.
I won't compromise performance for the cause ..... but do have a preference.

In short ...... where there are open standards or suitable drivers I will use them as a preference.
Otherwise I am a realist who likes his hardware to work as well as possible.

regards.

WINE is bad. No question about it. Not from a technical perspective, but people forget that wine is a compatability layer where it's basically trying to do the impossible - implement a stable windows API on Unix. No wine program is in a sandbox, which also really concerns me. Regarding hardware, I take stability over performance. Binary drivers are a required evil for most in my eyes. Wish they didn't exist, but what can one man do. I don't think my programming skills are THAT great to start optimising gpu kernel code. Maybe someday:pac:

Now, where did I put that interesting AWK book:p

Galen

I agree with Jonathan; I'm not a purist either.

I'll generally favour FOSS, but use proprietary software if its the best tool for the job.

loldog

I prefer FOSS but will use anything.

.

Eliot Rosewater

I think the poll options are inadequate. I'm not so purist as to say "Non Kernel level drivers/firmware big no no", but I think open source is an issue for me, so I wouldn't be quite "Who gives a ****? Where can I get skype for linux?" either.

I use Linux, first and foremost, because it can do the things I want it to do, and it does these things far better than the other OS on this computer (XP) (and better than Windows in general, which is the main alternative, in my experience).

But I think open source itself is important. Theoretically, I think it's an ethical way for software to be.


And I think it's worthy to ask: what parts of a GNU/Linux OS are good because they're open source? For example, the means of installing software (through apt, say) gives good quality free software without any Freeware/Shareware/Spyware nonsense attached. If you're using Windows and you want, say, a program to record your desktop, the first few Google hits will probably be programs that paste a big watermark on the resultant video and expire in 30 days. Not so with Linux. But that advantage exists because of the open source nature/culture of the OS. So saying "I like Ubuntu because of the software centre" is kind of saying "I like Ubuntu because it's open source".


I also find GNU/Linux to be very "transparent", and I'd say this is because it's open source. Compare installing fonts in XP with what you do in Ubuntu: simply copy your font file into ~/.fonts. Basic functions, like Inkscape finding your fonts, aren't wrapped up in mystery. If I want that kind of "transparency" in an OS it seems to me that I must choose an open source OS.

d'Oracle

Jonathan wrote: »

OOo for example just doesn't cut it compared to Office. I'll always use Office on a Windows machine or under Wine for composing a document for circulation. OOo just can't be trusted not to mess up the formatting.

I presume we are talking about relatively high level formatting here.
I have found that in many cases OOo was better/easier.
So much so that I probably use both in equal amount in work.

On topic.
No, I'm not. I like and support FOSS where I can.
But to be a purist you probably need a lot more knowledge/skills (and time to acquire and implement same) in Linux.

My approach to these things is more practical than idealistic, I suppose. Good software is software that does what I want, or that I can get to do what I want.
Naturally, for equivalent software, I will always choose the one that is free or has the lowest price. Why pay for the same product you can get for free?

Following on from that, Linux has applications to do everything I want at least as well as Windows and Mac. It doesn't run Windows games but the vast majority of those run on my xbox with much better performance.

And lastly, software being open source general means it is better quality by virtue of my "get it to do what I want" criterion, which is why most of the software I use is FOSS, even though I've no ethical or moral objection to commercial software.

I do think the general public could be made more aware of the wealth of free alternatives.