Talk about your idea: Should Linux be "pure "?

Talk about your idea: Should Linux be "pure "? -- Linux general technology-Linux technology and application information. For details, refer to the following section. 0: w (5 (Matt Hartley said, many Linux desktop users do not want to admit that they use a lot of closed source code in their daily use. He uses private drivers, voice communication software Skype, and Wine simulating windows applications as an example. For most non-free software loyal believers, if the code is available, use it. He raised the question: does it benefit from embracing closed-source code? Can it create a huge user base or keep it pure so that Linux can only be used by experts?



: 0 wszxc: 0wl; l1 5: ty (: 0w3) (1


When most people think about Linux, they figure sourceoperating an open system core, along with other software, together with a tocreate server and a free software based on the desktop operating system. Image isaccurate-there is no doubt that its open source code (a ndcommunity Cooperation) indicates that L inux has been assisted to become p owerhousethat, which is today. But when will we accept it-whether we like it or not, it is not a closed source application that will eventually have to be made "open" in the world of t hisotherwise? After all, this has happened to foryears, despite Linux purists kicking and screaming throughout the time.
In fact, the closed source code is an interesting thing for Linux world. and in daily life: Most of us never really think about it.


Closed source and Linux-it is not a new concept.


The core Desktop Linux operating system (regardless of ofdistribution) is made up of open source code, which is commonly used by sideby parties and code with little attention-in fact, many L inuxp uristsseem forget: the closed source code software and drivers use w ithdesktop Linux every day, consisting of thousands of people.
From a specific firmware Supplement, a dedicated distribution to ensurewireless compatibility to open source software known as wine, whichallows users run the closed source Windows application, proprietarycode has its occurrence on the Linux Desktop.
In addition, how can we initially build most of the laptops into Windows to get theirwireless connections without ndiswrapper designed for Windows using proprietary wirelessdrivers? The closed source code is, now is a major part of-maybe v erywell forever-, using Li nux on the desktop


Make it a code project.


A recent event once again sparked hostility between the open andclosed sources. the user is NVIDIA's graphics driver that does not provide source code fortheir Based on Linux. However, unlike ATI, I personally havenever a single problem using a closed source NVIDIA driver. Anyissues believes that the emergence of processing is quite rapid adoption of NVIDIA itself.
So why is there a problem?
In the past, Linux developers have been paying attention to havingto "working around" the drivers provided by NVIDIA. Thinkingahead is the basic thinkingahead, and eventually users should choose to install these "binary bubbles," Because real estate developers want to mention them.
Despite their concerns, I would like to point out that NVIDIA has a fairlydecent record with error control and, mysteriously, linuxdevelopers has been able to finish the work of the matter, despite the problem behind the licensing process, currently, NVIDIA drivers are closed.
No matter how frustrated a developer is over NVIDIA's driverlicensing, in fact, the problem is that it provides closed sourcedrivers work, rather than good everyone involved-for some o fyears.
Don't get me wrong. I 'd like to see NVIDIA open the driver asmuch as the next guy. However, we can see that Linux purists require aboycott to be a vendor who does support Linux platform issimply, and the future response has not yet surfaced.
Negative feelings, expressed the above will eventually presentbigger problem, any closed source code software company looking for totake one dip in the Linux development waters. Given that most softwarecompanies use closed source code software and many hardware companies to do thesame, NVIDIA decided to move forward with a large number of color howhardware vendors looking for Linux compatibility options.
This poor thing is that many of them will be held as long as aspossible, due to Linux development, is primarily seen as the royal painin back by the closed source world.


Application consistency, rather than political source code.
No matter how people feel about the Licensing Option ofcompanies, NVIDIA actually has some closed sourceapplications that use Linux today. For some mysterious reasons, it seems that no one is a bad singer. In fact, the software isquite limits the availability of its code. Here is an example of Skype to consider me.


The Skype application provides an excellent VoIP client linuxusers, including other popular platforms. Whether this VoIP software is available from clear Phone live video streams. Therefore, although other comparable open-source alternatives such as ekiga (availablefor Linux and Windows) are prepared for accessto, most people use VoIP clients on theirhomes while holding tightly to Skype on Linux.
Even if comparable open source code Replace the strange name "ekiga" is installed by default with the Linux release version, such as asubuntu, most users expect the VoIP client to reach Skype each time. Many of these individuals do not care how Skype is licensed. All they know is that this is what everyone is using on other platforms.
In addition, Skype can run almost every platform, and you can use thinkof. Ekiga, on the other hand, first created Linux and later forwindows. OS X users are excluded from the cold war.


The understanding is that Skype provides a key factor in its user consciousness consistencyis. To better understand understandwhy, more people will ignore the open source code alternativessuch as ekiga. This ekiga option may provide more "life-and-death choices" thanmost people are looking forward. Ekiga supports SIP, except for other Protocols, while Skype supports its own protocol-phase. Based on usernumbers, it may be because of marketing that Skype users really do not careabout type VoIP protocols are used for their communication.
In the "opening process" of your stay ".
It is important to know you and read this book. It is not anattack for Linux or open source code in any way. Instead of considering the morning clock of this asmore, it woke up software availability and availability on the phone.
I would like to see each other's challenges and raise the possibility that the Linux platformtackled header should be open source software. However, when you live in a world-patented 1977, encrypted DVD, 3D acceleration ready driver module, and a package for closed sourcewindows wireless drivers, you will soon realize that, closed source remainsvery substance-no matter which OS platform you happen to use for each day.

There are also friction. If there is enough perceived value in a closed source, the app is on a certain OS platform and the user will pay for it happily.
Perhaps the biggest example is that users who buy a closed sourcesoftware Linux must have a specific video editingapplication. I. Currently, the discontinued applications are called mainactor provideda, which is a great benefit. Linux users get tired of using kdenlive, just like open-source alternatives with limited tohalf work.
For general users, this is the direction with minimal resistance. It allowedusers at all skill levels to convert bothsane and user friendly in video editing mode. Therefore, even with the open sourcealternatives, because of this Asian pulp paper debut, they either do not have intuitive enoughto to meet their needs for Linux masses, or, on the contrary, are considered as simplybeing too unstable and heavily used.
Is it a threat of closed source code. Today's Linux release?
During packaging, thelinux, the closed source to solve this problem, is on the desktop. One thing to note is that Linux kernelitself will still be pure, on the contrary, the common belief, is it underattack.
This means that no proprietary code will suddenly start to show the development of the atthe Highest Level of kernel, so that linuxas suddenly violates what we know. There has never been a real threat, and Linux is used as weknow.
The most important piece of code makes up for the job system hassafeguards in place to ensure that it does not cross-stream withcode which is not licensed with open source code license. This is not tosay for some distributions that do not take the vanilla kernel and add whatthey see fit. But there is no impact on those who choose not to use the distribution.
However, at the end of the day, the closed source code is left here. As linuxusers, for most of us, this is part of our daily life at some basiclevel. Yes, this is a very large part. The existing universe called toplinux is hard to deny. How we respond to this fact, however, every Linux user will have to play withthemselves.


When most people in IT think of Linux, they picture an open sourceoperating system kernel, along with other software, coming together tocreate the server and desktop OS based on Free software. That image isaccurate? And there's no question that it's open source code (andcommunity cooperation) that has helped Linux to become the powerhousethat it is today. But at what point do we accept that? Whether we like it or not? Closed source applications will eventually have to be let in to thisotherwise "open" world? After all, this has already been happening foryears, despite the Linux purists kicking and screaming the entire time.
In fact, closed source code is used everyday within the Linux world. And here's the funny thing: most of us never really think twice aboutit.
Closed source with Linux? It's not a new concept.


While the core of the desktop Linux operating system (regardless ofdistribution) is powered by open source code, it is commonly used sideby side with code that gets less attention? Indeed, customized Linux puristsseem to forget about: Closed source software and drivers are used withdesktop Linux every single day by thousands of people.
From specific firmware added by select distributions to ensurewireless compatibility to the open source software known as WINE, whichallows users to run closed source Windows applications, proprietarycode has its place on the Linux desktop.
Besides, how wocould most notebooks initially built for Windows get theirwireless connectivity without an NDISWrapper using proprietary wirelessdrivers designed for Windows? Closed source code was, is? And may verywell always be? A major part of using Linux on the desktop.
If the code works, let it be.


One recent event that has again sparked hostility between open andclosed source users was NVIDIA's failure to provide source code fortheir Linux-based graphics drivers. yet unlike ATI, I personally havenever had a single problem using the closed source NVIDIA drivers. anyissues that did arise were handled fairly quickly by NVIDIA itself.
So why is there a problem, again?
In the past, Linux developers have expressed concern over havingto "work around" these NVIDIA provided drivers. to basically thinkingahead to how things will end up shocould a user opt to install these "binary blobs," as developers like to refer to them.
Despite their concern, I wocould point out that NVIDIA has a fairlydecent track record with bug control and, mysteriously, linuxdevelopers have been able to make things work on their end despite this issue with the licensing behind the current closed source NVIDIA driver.
Regardless of any one developer's frustration over NVIDIA driverlicensing, the fact of the matter is that providing closed sourcedrivers has worked rather well for everyone involved? For a number ofyears.
Don't get me wrong, I wowould love to see NVIDIA open up the drivers asmuch as the next guy. however, seeing Linux purists calling out for aboycott against a vendor who is indeed supporting the Linux platform issimply begging for future repercussions yet to surface.
Negative feelings expressed abve will eventually presentbigger problems for any closed source software companies looking totake a dip in the Linux development waters. given that most uses closed source software and has hardware companies do thesame, the reaction to NVIDIA's demo-is going to heavily color howhardware vendors looking into Linux compatibility choose to go forward.
The pathetic thing is that pointer of them will hold out as long aspossible, as Linux developers are largely considered to be a royal painin the backside by the closed source world.
Application consistency, not source code politics.
Regardless of how people feel about the licensing choices ofcompanies like NVIDIA, there are actually a number of closed sourceapplications used with Linux today that for some mysterious reason, noone seems to be bad mouthing despite the fact that the software isquite restrictive with its code availability. skype comes to mind as example me example.


The Skype application provides an outstanding VoIP client for Linuxusers, among other popular platforms. this VoIP software does it all, from clear telephony to live streaming video. so despite ready accessto other comparable open source alternatives such as Ekiga (availablefor both Linux and Windows), most people using a VoIP client in theirhomes on Linux are clinging tightly to Skype.
Even though a comparable open source alternative oddly named "Ekiga" is installed by default with Linux distributions such asUbuntu, most users wanting a VoIP client will reach for Skype everytime. usage of these individuals do not care how Skype is licensed. all they know is that this is what everyone is already using on other platforms.
In addition, Skype can be run on nearly every platform you can thinkof. ekiga, on the other hand, was first created for Linux and later forWindows. OS X users are left out in the cold.


Understanding that Skype provides its users with a sense of consistencyis the key factor. coming to grips with this is to better understandwhy more people will not bother to research open source alternativessuch as Ekiga. the Ekiga option perhaps provides more "choice" thanmost people are looking. ekiga supports SIP, among other protocols, whereas Skype supports its own protocol? Period. Based on usernumbers, possibly due to marketing, Skype users really do not careabout the type of VoIP protocol being used for their communications.
Staying the "open course ."
It is important to realize as you read this that this is not anattack on Linux or on open source in any way. instead consider this asmore of a wake-up call with regard to software usability andavailability.
I wowould love to see each challenge presented to the Linux platformtackled head on by open source software whenever possible. however, when you live in a world of patented MP3s, encrypted DVDs, 3D-accelerated ready driver modules, and a wrapper for closed sourceWindows wireless drivers, you soon realize that closed source remainsvery real? Regardless of which OS platform you happen to use each day.

And there's the rub. If there is enough perceived value in a closed source application on a given OS platform, users will pay for it happily.
Perhaps one of the greatest examples of users buying closed sourcesoftware for Linux wowould have to be one specific video editingapplication. A now discontinued application known as MainActor provideda significant benefit to Linux users tired of being limited tohalf-working open source alternatives like KDENLive.
For the average user, it was the path of least resistance. it allowedusers at all skills levels to edit video in a way that wocould be bothsane and user friendly. so even though there were open versions as this app debuted, they were either not intuitive enoughto meet the needs of the Linux masses, or instead, were seen as simplybeing too unstable for serious use.
Is closed source code a threat to today's Linux distributions?
When wrapping your mind around the issue of closed source in theLinux desktop, one thing to bear in mind is that the Linux kernelitself will remain pure, and contrary to common belief, is not underattack.
This means that no proprietary code will suddenly start showing up atthe highest levels of kernel development, thus suddenly violating Linuxas we know it. There can never truly be a real threat to Linux as weknow.
The most important piece of code that makes up the operating system hassafeguards in place to ensure that it will never cross streams withcode that is not licensed with an open source license. this is not tosay that some distributions do not take the vanilla kernel and add whatthey see fit to it. but that has absolutely no effect on those who choose not to use those distributions.
Yet at the end of the day, closed source code is here to stay. as Linuxusers, for most of us, it is part of our daily lives at some basiclevel. and yes, it is a fairly significant part of the existing parameter toplinux universe? That fact is hard to deny. How we react to this fact, however, is something that each Linux user will have to wrestle withthemselves.