Question:
Why do Linux purists get so upset about non-free drivers?
Baruch F
2011-01-30 05:23:58 UTC
I get the whole open source revolution. No one should have to pay for an operating system right? At least if they don't want to. However, the Linux purists lose me when they refuse to install what they call non-free drivers. As far as I understand it, these are drivers that are issued for free by the manufacturer. I guess they are considered non-free because you had to buy the hardware in order to be able to use the driver, but I thought the whole idea of the open source revolution was for free software. Here it seems that they are complaining about having to pay for hardware which I don't think was ever the issue. Free software. Not free hardware right? I dunno. I am really confused here. Someone help me out.
Six answers:
2011-01-30 05:33:54 UTC
no, it's non-free because you're not free to change them and share them

freedom as in freedom of speech

when they have bits of closed non-free drivers, that means that they've deemed something important enough to not let you share it with others, and that holds back progress as far as we're concerned.



So just because they give you some binaries that can use the device, doesn't mean that they haven't stripped you of the ability to make it better, or at least use it how you want to use it. Stallman has the story of how xerox gave them a new awesome printer, but the drivers were closed source, so they weren't able to fix them how they were able to fix the old printer. They had added a bit that when there was a paper jam, it notified everyone waiting for a job, so they weren't able to do this with the new printer, and thus the printer would stay jammed for hours.



Basically, If every developer died or quit, we want to have the code left behind so that we can alter it and fix it in ways they hadn't foreseen, otherwise, we as might as well not even have it in the first place. It's like if you had the directions for baking a pie, but weren't allowed to change it or give it to others, so then if you didn't have an ingredient, you couldn't make pies because you weren't allowed to alter the chemistry of it with a substitute. We'd rather be able to experiment and share. The baking analogy would be like if you didn't have the right kind of oil, and instead of experimenting with other oils, you just weren't allowed to ever bake again. That's what non-free is like in relation to computers.



So it's not about price, it's about rights.



I've got some software that was being used to upload files to a website, and the website changed it's format, so now I have the option of pulling up my sleeves and figuring out how to make it work again, or I can pay anyone who's familiar with the code (or willing to look at it) a fee to fix it for me. If it were binary blobs then I would just be out of luck, it would actually be illegal for them to help me recode it. Thankfully it's open source and free as in freedom of speech, so anyone including myself can do the work. Once it's done, If i think it's good enough to be distributed, I will do so for free online so that someone in the same situation can use it, and later if the website changes again, they can have their go at it. This would be impossible if the original creators had been so ego-maniacal as to think they should be the only ones that could code a few loops.



A great example is Itunes, every day on the computers & internet Y!A pages, i see, "Why isn't itunes working?" and I always want to be cross and say "Well, that's what you get when you're not allowed to look under the hood, you get crazy wacky code that no one can give a good explanation about, because we're just as in the dark as you." For that example, mac is the only one that knows why it does things the way it does, and if it's a mistake or purposely there. If it were open/free then we'd be able to see how it's interacting with everything and give a proper answer. Until then, the answer is "ask mac."
ratter_of_the_shire
2011-01-30 10:54:15 UTC
It's free as in speech not as in beer. You can actually sell open-source programs.



Free drivers give you freedom 0 (freedom to use), but not the other 3.



The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1).

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)



From a practical standpoint non-free drivers and programs often have security vulnerabilities (Flash is notorious for this, as well as the Nvidia drivers)



Also from a practical standpoint, if the driver is open source and in the linux kernel tree it will be updated to match changes in the kernel with every release. Non-free drivers are not and you may suddenly find yourself with a piece of hardware that won't work with the newest kernel, or only works with one or two kernel versions, preventing you from using all that new hardware the newer kernels support



.
?
2011-01-30 12:06:14 UTC
There are many answers to this question. Some may be a philosophical perspective, but I would have to say that the main reason would be due to the fact that Proprietary drivers can doing something know as "Tainting the Kernel." Proprietary can also become a potential security risk it there are bugs, and there is no way for anyone to fix it except for the company who supplied it. In other words, it is like trying to fix a car engine with the hood welded shut.



More on Kernel Tainting:

http://linmodems.technion.ac.il/tainted.html
2011-01-30 05:39:20 UTC
"I get the whole open source revolution"



I'm sorry to say, that no you don't get it at all.



It's not about free as in you have to pay nothing. It's about the source code of the software being free for anyone to modify and use.



With proprietary software, like Windows you are not allowed to change the software and modify it to your needs. The owner of the software (microsoft) doesn't tell you what the source code is, they keep it a secret. You are not allowed to change the software. You have to keep to their rules or you'll be sued. Basically you don't know what you are installing on your computer because it's being kept a secret.



With open source software you are allowed to work on it to improve it and then give it to other people who can change and improve it too. You are free to do with it what you want.

Everything is open, everyone can join in and work on improving the software. If you know enough about computers you know exactly what you are installing. Everything is open. No secrets, no rules to limit you in your freedom.
Linux Mint 11
2011-01-30 09:09:52 UTC
Linux purists insist on using open source software and nothing else throughout the distro. they are working with



For example:



Instead of using an Nvidia driver the open source Nouveau driver would be used

http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/GalliumHowto



Instead of using Adobe Flash Player the open source Gnash Player would be used

http://www.gnashdev.org/



The downside of using entirely open source software, at least at present, is it can be notoriously unstable with frequent crashes. Furthermore the Nouvea driver does not yet fully support 3D rendering so running Compiz is out unless the proprietary Nvidia driver is used.



Whilst we are here. It would only be right to move on to the sticky subject of Ubuntu and Debian. Ubuntu apart from using the same package management is about as far removed from Debian as it could be as Debian purists that spurn Ubuntu will go at great lengths to point out.

There was a time in the early days the two were although not the same were a lot closer to what they are now



If you are looking for a TRUE Debian based distro. then I thoroughly recommend Linux Mint Debian Edition which is based upon Debian Testing Its easy to install and easy to use plus it comes with much of the software you are likely to need preinstalled but even with this some software compromises are made



Linux Mint Debian Edition Download

http://www.linuxmint.com/edition.php?id=66



Linux Mint Debian Edition User Guide

http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php



You download the ISO. image Linux Mint Debian Edition then you need to create a Bootable LiveCD for installation

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BurningIsoHowto



Linux Mint Debian Edition can also be run direct from the LiveCD from Boot without touching your Hard Drive





LUg.
hawklord
2011-01-30 05:41:12 UTC
you have it slightly wrong,



free = free in the fullest sense of the word, in all usage,

free to use it, bin it, give it away, modify the code, totally free



non-free = proprietary, still free - as in you do not have to pay for it,

but -- the code is closed source and may have a license agreement,



an example would be flash - flash that comes pre-bundled with linux is free,

the one you download from adobe is non-free as you need to agree to a license



another is vlc - there is the open source edition (ose) which is available from the respective repositories,

there is also the non-free version available from oracle



mp3 is a non-free codec, on the version of linux i use this is not available by default, because it is a closed source microsoft format,

i need to enable the plf repositories (all non-free, restricted software) to allow access to the mp3 (and other closed source) codecs



its the same with drivers, mainly gpu (vid card), nvidia and ati release open source and closed source versions,



personally i want my computer to run and perform how i want, so i use proprietary, closed source software as well as open source,



its all still free of cost, its just some are not free to modify


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...