"It was reported this week that Novell has banned all proprietary software from their Linux offerings. To me, this would be a bit like McDonalds announcing it will adopt an Atkins-only menu, selling only healthy, low-carb salads, and dropping fries, shakes, and the Big Mac as we know it. It might be a noble thing for McDonalds to only sell healthy items, but they would likely see a big decrease in customers. Most consumers want more balance in their menu choices, not less. Limiting choice, especially the most popular ones, is usually a bad idea."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-26
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2006-01-14
Member since:2005-07-07
So, the picture in the article didn't suggested that it was Carmony?
Or the title saying "Linspire.com Comunity Forum..."?
Or the three mentions of Carmony's name in the same position of the page?
Or, are you suggesting that Thom should have written that the article was Written by Carmony in the OSNews summary?
Member since:2006-01-14
You are missing the point.
None of the things that you mention are visible on this site. The only things on this site are the icon, the big ass title reading "Novell" right beside it and a description of the article which makes no reference to Kevin or to Linspire.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I see the connection you are making. You are just wrong. Without a doubt, either the title should mention Linspire, or the icon should be a Novell icon (or maybe a McDonalds logo, but definitely not a Linspire logo with that title).
Member since:2005-06-29
The page title is:
Linspire.com Community Forums :: View topic - Novell Goes on the Atkins Diet
That appears at the top of your web browser.
Kevin Carmony's picture is blatant. His name is printed next to his picture. His name is off to the left of his picture in his user profile. And his name is a part of the picture too.
Look closer... The news is more about Linspire as it's an editorial by the CEO of Linspire, not to mention that he mistakenly changed the fact from "Novell bans proprietary linux modules" to "Novell bans proprietary software." To call this Novell news would be to say what he's saying is somehow correct and not simple editorialization and a probable attack on a competitor.
Member since:
2005-06-29
It's actually more comparable to cutting the Big Mac because Kraft sues them for copying a salad dressing they'd had for years.
Of course, since the Big Mac doesn't use an existing salad dressing, alone, in an illegal manner this isn't a concern.
Besides that, what I'd read was that Novell banned proprietary drivers.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6100659.html
TITLEOF: Novell bans proprietary Linux modules
The author of this article makes this statement: By completely removing all proprietary software from their core offerings, Novell is asking all their customers to go on an Atkins-like, proprietary-free diet.
Unfortunately for him his sources contradict the facts he cites against them.
To the above comment, it's under Linspire because Kevin Carmony, the uneducated CEO of that company wrote the article.
Novell sticks up for the software it's making money off while Linspire jabs them for it accusing them of being a low-fat McDonalds.
Member since:
2005-11-05
Member since:
2006-02-04
Member since:2005-11-14
Well, despite Carmony's pitch for his own blend of open source software and proprietary binaries, along with the echoes of the yes-men on his company's forum, Novell's move may be the wisest in the long term, strategically. Consider binary kernel modules which are less and less tolerated amongst kernel developers: either you can keep walking the tightrope and let Nvidia and friends dictate the quality of your product, or you can refuse to play their "intellectual property" games. And, to take Nvidia as a specific example, if they don't want to properly participate in the Linux arena, I'm sure most of Novell's customers wouldn't miss them and their products (apart from those using AMD, and even then AMD may well be promoting other, hopefully more accessible technologies in future). So by playing hard, who loses? Probably not Novell nor the Linux community.
Member since:2005-07-06
... Might I ask, why are you calling the Linux kernel developers OSS zealots?
Linux is their -own- making and is released, source and distribution, as long as you abide to the GPL license.
Now, please explain why can't the Linux developers enforce their -own- license? Would you have asked the same from Microsoft/IBM/(insert proprietary software company name here)?
Member since:2005-07-09
Not so bad being a zealot, MS shills just try and turn it into a dirty word, like the gop in the us adding a negative connotation to, "liberal", through meaningless repetition and inflection. Term doesn't bother me, I wear the hat and think it's a good thing for a developer to be a little over zealous and deeply believe in their product.
Member since:2005-07-06
The bottom line is, however, who brings in the cash? the OSS developers or your products.
Hmm, interesting, and to think that I floated the idea of Novell creating a FreeBSD based distribution rather than using Linux - completely avoiding the whole GPL jihad thats happening right now.
Member since:2006-07-28
Hmm, interesting, and to think that I floated the idea of Novell creating a FreeBSD based distribution rather than using Linux - completely avoiding the whole GPL jihad thats happening right now.
It's becoming more apparent that for a desktop system that would be the way to go. Go to the staff blog and read Eugenia's open letter to various parties involved to see that they conveniently skirted the issue regarding "legality" of binary drivers.
Member since:2005-07-06
It's becoming more apparent that for a desktop system that would be the way to go. Go to the staff blog and read Eugenia's open letter to various parties involved to see that they conveniently skirted the issue regarding "legality" of binary drivers.
And for the server, FreeBSD would still be ideal; Novell BSD; work to improve the locking, threading etc. It isn't as though FreeBSD is behind Linux.
And another benefit? the fact that its not GPL based, you might actually find, for some strange reason, that Microsoft won't actually care if Mono is running on FreeBSD - the fact that there is rotor on FreeBSD shows that they don't mind implementations on other platforms, its just the GPL issue they don't like.
Member since:2005-07-13
And for the server, FreeBSD would still be ideal; Novell BSD; work to improve the locking, threading etc. It isn't as though FreeBSD is behind Linux.
I'm sure Apple would appreciate that too. They could leverage Novell's work and close it off in OS X. Or Novell could simply close off the source to protect their investment, but then what do you have?
And another benefit? the fact that its not GPL based, you might actually find, for some strange reason, that Microsoft won't actually care if Mono is running on FreeBSD - the fact that there is rotor on FreeBSD shows that they don't mind implementations on other platforms, its just the GPL issue they don't like.
And why doesn't MS like the GPL? Because they can't leverage it themselves under their own licensing, and because it's the one license that has managed to create a multi-billion dollar collaborative effort between companies like IBM and HP, among others, not to mention a ton of developers all willing to work for free. It's not the free software issue that concerns them, it's the united approach of the GPL that does. Makes it harder to divide and conquor.
It's idealistic to think that going BSD at a commercial level would encourage the same degree of collaboration and co-operation we have in the linux community today. Certainly the GPL gets clouded in disparate philosophies and agendas, but in the big picture it is a neutral ground. Without it, we'd simply wind up with a bunch of vendors working on their own implementations of BSD, and Microsoft would be able to knock them off one by one, after they've purloined any useful code that those vendors may have been foolish enough to publish the source for. THAT's why MS fears the GPL, and portrays it as some sort of communistic ideal. It's the business model they're scared of, not the philosophy.
Member since:
2005-07-09
That first step is the hardest, you have to admit you have a problem with proprietary drivers, then comes withdrawl, then it will get better, all part of the process. With enough support we can all make it through together. Sadly many of us like our brothers at linspire seem to be still at the denial stage.
Member since:2006-07-17
Member since:2006-04-28
And enough of them are quite capable of making these devices not work on Windows, i'm sure they'll cope just as well with linux...
"Oh, it was working after you sorted it out but then it stopped, so i ran a system restore and i've just gone back to my old wired modem for now" *sound of my forced smile cracking*
Member since:
2006-01-25
Novell didn't ban anything from being installed on their system, ESPECIALLY NOT proprietary software. The equivalent would be if McDonalds stopped trying to push their unhealthy french fries and instead starting pushing healthier food like subs and salads in their commercials and the things with the big pictures on the menu. If you request french fries or look at the smaller list of items without pictures on the menu, they're still readily available. Its the same situation as Novell. They aren't shoving proprietary drivers in the default kernel, but you still can get them for the default kernel, with no compiling or anything else required.
Member since:2005-07-01
They aren't shoving proprietary drivers in the default kernel, but you still can get them for the default kernel, with no compiling or anything else required.
Which begs the question - is it legal? What exactly is or isn't legal with regards to ditributing proprietary drivers for Linux? Ndiswrapper is OK? But the open-source parts of the ATI and Nvidia drivers aren't? Distributing with the kernel is bad but seperately is OK? Does anyone know exactly what the rules are?
Member since:2005-11-14
If you distribute a derivative of Linux you must follow the rules of the GPL v2 license. When you distribute Linux + non-free extensions you're not providing the sources to the entire kernel, so you're in violation of the license.
Novell chose to respect the Linux developers by complying to the the GPL license; others, like Linspire, don't give a **** and talk about McDonalds.
Member since:
2006-02-02
Member since:2006-06-19
In all fairness, it was I who submitted the article and asked for it to be included. When I read it I couldn't stop giigling and I couldn't help but ponder how this guy comes up with such bad analogies. I mean this one beats the hybrid car thingy IMO. If you accept the premise then the points usually follow - even though it was a bit odd this time about the yummy food being bad for you but the healthy food being good for you but you not wanting the good healthy yummy....what was it again. I done lost the premise somewhere. 
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:
2005-10-22
Member since:
2005-07-08
They're no forcing you to go in "Atkins-only" menu. They're forcing themselves to release the recipes and banning all food for which they can't get the recipe.
This article makes the reader think that somehow open source is the "Atkins-only" diet that is good for your body but that nobody wants to eat, and that closed software is the kind of food that everyone wants to eat even if its unhealty. Sorry, but that comparison is completely wront. Open source is not only good for your health (like the Atkins menu), it's also the food that everyone wants to eat (like Big Mac).
Closed software however is the food that nobody wants to eat (in the linux land, not in windows/mac os x/beos). Eating the propietary nvidia/ati modules feels to me like food that nobody wants to eat (like the Atkins menu: hangs, no multi-architecture support, lack of support for older models) and that it's unhealty at the same time (like the Big mac)
Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules and that vendors like Red hat and Suse are getting sued by developers with copyright in the linux kernel, it's not that Novell is the most pro-OSS vendor in the history.
Edited 2006-08-03 23:45
Member since:2006-07-28
Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules and that vendors like Red hat and Suse are getting sued by developers with copyright in the linux kernel, it's not that Novell is the most pro-OSS vendor in the history.
How come your the only one privy to this news flash?
Member since:2005-11-14
Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules and that vendors like Red hat and Suse are getting sued by developers with copyright in the linux kernel, it's not that Novell is the most pro-OSS vendor in the history.
You're free to install proprietary modules. You're not breaking the GPL, unless you distribute Linux and don't make the full sources available. As you can tell distributing software and installing it are two different issues.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2006-04-28
Sorry, did you just suggest that the Atkins diet is good for your health?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4814314.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4568944.stm
Besides, it's a low carb diet, they can continue to sell you the big mac but omit the bun and salad.
That aside, wouldn't it be fun to see someone take a lawsuit to Linspire for all of their questionable practices involving proprietary software both linked with the kernel and reverse engineered to provide windows media playback all in one easy package?
Kevin, please, head out into the real world away from the safety of your Ego strokers, Novell are just playing the game and sticking to the rules as any large organisation must when handling such legal issues.
Member since:2005-07-02
Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules
It's not. It's illegal to distribute a Linux kernel that contains proprietary modules, but it's certainly not illegal to combine them yourself on your own computer. It's even legal to distribute them on the same medium, as long as they're not pre-linked.
By definition, copyright violations require redistribution, and the GPL specifies that mere aggregation is not sufficient to be considered a derivative.
Member since:
2006-07-28
Member since:2005-08-15
ROFL, I see no reason why microsoft would win since... their way of installing drivers still is a bit more tedious than...clicking on an icon...
I'm kinda getting sick of all these comments about: installing drivers is difficult. If you can install windows drivers, linux drivers are a breeze, it's the distro that has to compile them, you don't have to do it yourself you know, ah well perhaps you don't.
Member since:2005-06-29
This is ridiculous. The GPL is available to be read online and it specifically says no to derivative works which do not allow the freedoms provided by the GPL. That means, no closed source Linux drivers because since they require the Linux kernel, and their structure is often at least partially based on its interfaces, they are derivative works.
It's not zealoutry, it's respect for the law and the wishes of the authors. If you want to call the people developing Linux zealouts, fine, but I don't think you'll make much of an impression on anyone that way 
.
Obviously you, and some others, didn't even read the article. The author makes the unfortunate mistake of calling linux modules all proprietary software for Linux. The point of the article was based on a false premise.
Member since:2006-07-28
That means, no closed source Linux drivers because since they require the Linux kernel, and their structure is often at least partially based on its interfaces, they are derivative works.
There are closed source drivers.
If you want to call the people developing Linux zealouts, fine, but I don't think you'll make much of an impression on anyone that way .
Who is anyone? The 0.0000001% that believe that you are more "free" because you get source code but can't have binary drivers?
Member since:2006-02-15
The license doesn't specifically say "no to derivative works which do not allow the freedoms provided by the GPL." But that doesn't make any difference to your assertion about closed source Linux drivers, since that assertion relies on the untested assumption that a binary driver is a derivative work.
There is very little case law on this subject, but what there is suggests, and Linus himself agrees, that a wrapper around a driver that was written independently of Linux does not make that driver a "derived" work.
The case law that does exist points out that compiling code against a set of headers that describe an interface does not make that code a derivative of the system that provides the interface.
Member since:
2005-12-15
I can see both sides to this. Though, aren't we talking about just what is shipped with the product and not necessarily what can be later integrated? From what I read Novell have even provided the mechanism to download and install them quite easily.
I can understand their point, if not from a philosophical GPL point of view, but from a practical point of view. Novell offer support for their product and hardly can be expected to support licensed third party products simply because it's included. To me, drivers are a product.
I'd suspect Microsoft certainly wouldn't support an nVidia card along with their drivers. That really belongs to nVidia to handle.
That being said, one of the biggest issues people seem to have with "Linux" is that things don't work out of the box. I haven't tried the tool to download and install so it could be extremely simple, but I'd think that people would geniunely expect something as fundamental as a video card to work out of the box.
I'm seeing this as a double edged sword of sorts.
Member since:
2006-01-27
"It was reported this week that Novell has banned all proprietary software from their Linux offerings."
Please let's stop propagating false-hoods.
FTFA this week:
Instead, Novell software automatically gives customers the "option to download drivers," a method that "also gives the responsibility for drivers to the vendors, which is where it belongs," Dyroff said.
How is that a ban when the users are given the option to circumvent it? This is more of a choice for the end-user, and compliance to the GPL on Novell's part. It is starting to look like anti-Novel FUD, now with Lindows jumping on the bandwagon.
Also we should consider the implications or blindly trusting binary closed source drivers, given recent security concerns over usb and wireless binary drivers. Without the source code the maintainers can only trust that the origional authors applied equal or better auditing/QA that is used within their OS/Distro.
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11404
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11189
Edited 2006-08-04 00:49
Member since:
2006-03-08
Perhaps I should speak by personal experience why I agree with Kevin.
It has taken me over 4 years to switch from windows to linux. It started with an intense hate of windows and (eventually)a love for the linux operating system. I loved how it managed permissions and the lack of spyware/adware/exploits. Every time I booted into windows I felt like I was unwillingly becoming a participant in a hacker's playground.
My first linux switch was horrible. Mandrake 8. I couldn't get mp3's to work, flash to work, nothing to work. I just wasn't familiar with the package management system or filesystem. Even audio cd's wouldn't play. I couldn't find software online to play with, and when I did, I couldn't install it. I could've played with it endlessly - really, I wanted to learn - but I'd like to have a functioning computer while I learn linux.
That was the key. I needed my computer to "just work" so that I didn't have to forfeit all my usually computer freedoms just to learn an operating system, and if I have to dual boot, what's the point of installing linux in the first place? I couldn't learn to use it, unless when I booted into it I gave up all my usual freedoms.
I finally was able to switch with Fedora Core 3, because it's yum online package manager made it easy to install software again. That wasn't completely easy, but I learned enough to have a functional computer... thanks to small bits of experience from years of endless tinkering.
My ability to switch was hindered only by my (in)ability to install proprietary packages. I wanted to learn linux - believe me, I wanted to learn linux. I wanted to learn the filesystem, the configuration, how X worked, how everything worked - but all of that took a backseat when I couldn't use my computer because of missing proprietary software. No music, no flash, and no 3D accel, with no idea of how to make it work. I had a great operating system with no apparent functionality. If I would have been given the option to have a linux distro with all that software preinstalled four years ago, I would have more experience with linux today than I do.
I'm a happy linux user, now that I finally got all that crap installed - I started learning to use linux for once, and I'm now using it to learn c++ and mono.
What it comes down to, is there's only one choice: the proprietary choice. If you want flash, you gotta have adobe's flash plugin. If you want 3D accel on your nvidia card, you must have nvidia's driver. You want to play videos? Unless the world decides to re-encode every video ever made in Theora, you might as well get the proprietary codecs for that too. If you don't like it, write your own software that's compatible with it - but stop removing my damn choice just because it "offends you".
I can't, for the life of me, understand while removing this choice is somehow going to help the OSS philosophy. It makes it look like OSS is more of a religion than a philosophy. In order to spread OSS, when you install your operating system, it must come pre-crippled! Even having the choice of having a functional operating system out-of-the-box is offensive. Grow up.
If you don't like it, make OSS software that's compatible with all the proprietary junk out there, or shutup. I'm sick of all these religious OSS fanatics thinking having the choice of proprietary software preinstalled is somehow going to doom the linux operating system. Grow up, it isn't going to happen. I'm using linux now specifically because of my ability to run proprietary codecs/drivers. Yes, I could install them after the operating system installs, but that's not going to convert many new users, who would like a functioning operating system straight from installation.
Edited 2006-08-04 02:11
Member since:2005-06-29
If you don't like it, make OSS software that's compatible with all the proprietary junk out there, or shutup.
proprietary - used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right
(from m-w.com)
I can't, for the life of me, understand while removing this choice is somehow going to help the OSS philosophy.
I'm not sure which OSS philosophy you're talking about, but the one I'm familiar with stands for Open Source Software, and as you're talking about closed source modules etc, it seems quite easy to see why that would be against OSS philosophy. If you mean it's not going to help adoption of Linux, you may be correct; however, not everyone wants to give up their freedom over convenience. Just because the goals of the "zealots" are different than your own doesn't make them wrong.
It makes it look like OSS is more of a religion than a philosophy.
And why can't it be? Definition 4 (again from m-w) of religion says "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" and surely there are worse things that believe in than necessary freedom of software. Religious tolerance is a good thing.
I wanted to learn linux - believe me, I wanted to learn linux....I'm sick of all these religious OSS fanatics thinking...
I really wanted to learn atheism, but I'm sick of all those fanatics saying there is no God. I don't see the appeal of joining something you don't believe in.
Grow up, it isn't going to happen.
If there's something immature in fighting for what you believe in, there are sure a lot of immature people in the world (I can name at least two).
I'm using linux now specifically because of my ability to run proprietary codecs/drivers.
Not specifically. Windows also has the ability to run proprietary codecs/drivers, as does Mac, and probably others.
There are (at least) two reasons to use Linux: because it does what you want, or because you agree with the OSS philosophy over the proprietary one to the point where you can make do. I'm not sure you fall into either category, so why make yourself unhappy with Linux?
Use the right tool for the job.
Member since:2006-03-08
proprietary - used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right
I understand that, but I argued that if there aren't compatible alternatives, then stop denying the only working choice. An example I gave earlier was adobe Flash. There is a OSS product called Gnash that allows you to play some flash movies, but it's buggy and still incomplete. They don't have the exclusive right to playing flash movies, just the exclusive right to the software they created. The same can be said for virtually all the software I mentioned earlier.
I like linux because it runs the software I want, and perhaps more interestingly, it doesn't run the software I hate. I believe that Gnome has built a much more functional desktop than Microsoft ever has(and I've played with the Vista beta too, for that matter).
If there's something immature in fighting for what you believe in, there are sure a lot of immature people in the world (I can name at least two).
Immaturity isn't determined by whether you fight for your beliefs, but rather what specifically you fight for. Fighting to end poverty in Darfur wouldn't be immature, but going on strike at work because your lunch break is 55 minutes instead of 60 would be. My argument is that this would be a minor nuisance except for the zealots who want to deny others a choice. The only thing that including proprietary software in a particular distribution(of your choice, naturally) is going to do is bring in more users.
It took me 4 years of slowly playing with linux to switch because while I had to learn linux, I had a non-functional computer. I couldn't use it for my daily tasks, so as soon as I really wanted to do something, I had to reinstall windows.
There are (at least) two reasons to use Linux: because it does what you want, or because you agree with the OSS philosophy over the proprietary one to the point where you can make do. I'm not sure you fall into either category, so why make yourself unhappy with Linux?
Well it does what I want with the help of proprietary software. Example: Rhythmbox is my favorite music program(all the windows programs are either too bloated or too minimalistic). However no matter how great Rhythmbox is, it's totally worthless without the proprietary codecs that drive the player. It may be simple, efficient, easy to search, well organized, not bloated - all the right things. But without proprietary software, it's utterly useless. I don't keep my entirecollection in ogg, nore when I download music do I giveup if they don't provide an ogg based format.
Linux, combined with proprietary components, works better for me than MacOS or Windows. Linux makes me happy. I'd go nuts if I didn't have Deskbar in windows. Typing in $PATH programs is so much more efficient than browsing through a massive disorganized menu in windows. The system update is so far less annoying(for the record, I'm using ubuntu at the moment). You don't have to activate your copy(unless you use xandros 4, but again, that's a chocie). You don't have to fear that your computer, or rather the makers of the operating system are somehow working against you on their crusade to make sure you're using their operating system the way they want you to. I love the freedom and flexibility that the linux desktop provides.
But it's totally irrelevant without proprietary software/codecs.
Most people make it sound like it's a piece of cake just to install the software afterwards. Granted, anyone who's done it a bunch of times before, will find it pretty easy, it's sheerly impossible for the new user. Even if they figure out the package management system, most distro's don't even include the proprietary software they need to function in their repositories. Some distro's don't/didn't even have repositories! Depending on your distro, some packages must be installed manually with great stress to get their computer to function.
I couldn't learn linux efficiently because it required(by law apparently, according to other people in the comments) having a crippled computer environment to learn in. For a lot of software there's only one option the proprietary option. It's required for watching dvd's, playing music in anything but ogg, watching videos in anything but theora(which is 99.99% of what's out there), browsing the web(several websites are unfortunately crippled without flash), and playing 3D games(unless 1-2 fps adds to your experience somehow?).
Member since:2006-06-19
Man it sounds like you are hooked on that windows crack.
If I required ADwarePlugin to view my site would you criticise me for requiring it or criticise your operating system for not providing it?
If it is totally irrelevant without proprietary then why on earth use it. XP is your friend in that case.
As far as mp3 playback you should check out fluendo. It may not be GPL but it is free. Xine has plenty of format support also.
Member since:2006-03-08
If I required ADwarePlugin to view my site would you criticise me for requiring it or criticise your operating system for not providing it?
That's a very stupid analogy. Going by that idea, we should remove gif support from firefox because a lot of gifs are advertisements too. flash is used for far more things than advertisements.
Member since:2006-06-19
It wasn't an analogy dude. If I require something to view my website would you criticise me for requiring it or your operating system for not providing it?
GO ahead and criticise the operating system for something they cannot control. Criticise them for my (bad) actions and blame them for not being able to provide something I do not wish to give them. Sheesh!
Member since:
2006-06-19
Member since:
2006-06-19
Member since:
2006-08-04
very very uneducated, and this is proof.
A president of another distro says something stupid, that is not even within the correct lines of what was said from Novell themselves.
Plus as it was stated above, it is to RESPECT GPL and it was not banned, just not packaged.
Member since:
2006-06-19
look
http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=424873
now we all work for microsoft
Of course, I have also seen where they claimed that ubuntu paid people to spread fud about other distros and to preach ubuntu so I guess it is all to be expected.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I have to agree with Novell; after much navel glazing, as one does, it is the only sure way that Novell can assure that the default installation of Novell is stable out of the box; they have the full source for the kernel, the full source for all the components, they can adequately test all the parts and fix things up rather than being held to ransom by developers at a said company unwilling to address faults in their drivers. Ati being the prime example of this; unwillingness to work with Sun, Novell, Red Hat - basically anyone who is outside the 'Windows sphere of influence'.
With the rapid improvement of Novells desktop offering, I just hope that soon we'll have Adobe pull its lips off Microsofts pucker, and actually port their products to it; there is a huge demand! I mean, if they said to me, "CS3 Premium to be released on Linux/GTK" - I would be the first one to line up and place my order.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-08-04
Sorry, but this is just not true:
Novell is NOT removing "all proprietary software from their Linux offerings".
In fact, they only removed proprietary kernel-modules.
They did this because a lot of kernel developers feel that proprietary kernel-modules taint their copyright.
Novell is still delivering proprietary software with some of their SUSE Linux products, such as Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 (Flash player, RealPlayer, Adobe Reader, Citrix Client etc) and Suse Linux Enterprise Server.
Member since:
2005-07-22
First of all, it is not illegal to bind closed source software to the Linux kernel, it is illegal (due to the GPL license) to distribute it with open source. Noone can force you not to download and install it later.
So what Novell is doing is just that. Not allowing in their distribution any closed source software that is a kernel module and additionaly they are not hosting those modules any more on their servers. That is all. You can however go to the NVidia site lets say, download the module and install it yourself.
Member since:
2006-02-05
i agree with kevin carmony.
i EXPECT my linux box to work, if i have to fight to get my nVidia graphics and system drivers installed then i will ditch linux.
"gives customers the option to download drivers,"
^ not good enough, half the reason i hate WinXP is that i have to spend the first 2 hours AFTER install making the damn thing usable, why would i want to go through this with SUSE too?
i am a big SUSE fan, having used 9.1 - 10.1, but between the KDE thing and this anti-proprietry stance i begin to feel they are making too many choices for me that i don't necessarily like.
Member since:2005-07-14
"gives customers the option to download drivers,"
^ not good enough,
Then go talk to nVidia to come up with a Linux-friendlier license for their drivers. Or buy a graphics card, which has such drivers. Life is full of compromises. Most of my machines have integrated Intel graphics cards, which run just fine in X.Org. The one which has not an Intel, has a Radeon 7500. Runs fine as well.
I'm sure Novell, RedHat, Ubuntu and all the other distros, as well as X.Org would _love_ to distribute 3D capable nVidia drivers. However, nVidia made their decisions on how to distribute their drivers and only they can change it.
Member since:2005-07-07
i EXPECT my linux box to work, if i have to fight to get my nVidia graphics and system drivers installed then i will ditch linux.
If you consider clicking a link "fighting to get your nvidia drivers installed" then I can't imagine how you could deal with any other OS. Novell basically decided not to ship the drivers or have them on their servers, instead the package manager downloads them from Nvidia. So what exactly is your problem?