You make some fair criticisms of Linux. I disagree about the community. You
cannot generalise. There are over 400 distributions and the community is the
entire scope from do it yourself distros such as Linux From Scratch and
Gentoo, to more complicated ones like Arch and Slackware that work great
once you get them set up, to bleeding edge ones like Fedora and to some
extent Ubuntu, to easy to use ones such as PCLinuxOS, to enterprise distros
such as openSuSE and CentOS. You cannot generalise. It runs the whole gamut.
Some distributions attract a certain type of user and that can mean that
users who do not fit into that stereotype feel not welcome. There are people
who see it as their lot in life to "educate" users about the benefits of
GNU/Linux and if you dare call it anything else then Heaven help you. But
aside from the few squeaky wheels Linux in general is welcoming and diverse.
Linux can be for the poor. It works great on old hardware. You can get free
or cheap CDs mailed to you and once installed then you can turn off updates
altogether. All of the software is free as well.
The alternative in many poor countries is to turn to piracy (which I get
given who you are stealing from, rich corporate types who do not care about
the poor). However, piracy as attractive as you can make it sound is still
wrong. So Linux is a good choice. It is free and it works great.
In order to make Linux available to the poor you do not need to break the
law. Mint could still include licensed software and display the licenses and
a refusal would mean that you would not have access to licensed software. It
does not have to be intrusive. Adobe releases Flash under license. To not
display the license is wrong. You should not use it if you don't agree to
the license. MP3 is owned by a German company. If you don't agree to abide
by their license there are alternatives. You can use Ogg. Poverty is not an
excuse for being unethical. Neither is convenience. You don't break the law
just because to make it easy for users.
I like Ubuntu's approach. It makes the licensed software available and even
bundles it together. It places the responsibility on the user where it
belongs. It is an extra step, but not a hard or onerous one. If you want
codecs in Windows then you must download them and agree to licenses. That is
just to be expected and a small price to pay for getting use of something
from someone else.
Where I could fault Ubuntu is they could do more by making it available on
the Live CD for users like you. There is much fluff on the Live CD that
could be removed to make room for Flash and codecs. I would point to Mono
which could be removed and save much disk space. I would also add Evolution
which is much more than most people need. They could also make a DVD version
available for people with limited access to the internet. Is anybody
listening?
Roy
On 8 July 2010 05:37, Frederick Bvalani <fredbvalani@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Roy,
>
> NB: THIS MAY SOUND LIKE A RANT BUT IT'S NOT, PLEASE FORGIVE ME IF I HAVE
> SOUNDED OFFENSIVE. I DON'T INTEND TO.
>
> I think the Linux community needs to decide what it wants to be, either be
> a
> closed community of geeks that hate Microsoft or a providers of free OS
> that
> is a viable alternative to Windows, e.t.c. that everybody can use.
>
> For starters Linux is not for the poor. I am in Malawi, Africa where
> internet penetration is very low. It's just recently that there has been
> some sort of revolution in mobile internet. Most people that have internet
> have dial up and internet charges are expensive.
>
> People in my country would really like to use Linux but Linux is only most
> good for those with broadband internet. The first thing that people want to
> be able to do is listen to their mp3s and watch movies on their PC and if
> you have installed a distro like Ubuntu on your machine that is next to
> impossible for most people in my country.
>
> The option of taking your PC to where there is broadband internet to
> install
> the restricted codecs is in itself expensive. I also discovered that it is
> almost impossible to install applications on Linux offline because of
> dependencies.
>
> Distros like Linux Mint do go some way in addressing such challenges. Do
> you
> not want the masses to embrace Linux too (especially those in developing
> countries) ? How do you suggest they do it?
>
> Fred.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Roy <linuxcanuck@gmail.com<linuxcanuck%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Mint users do not agree or even see any concern about licenses. They
> might
> > as well not exist. I find that as disturbing as Mint's lack of position,
> > BTW.
> >
> > I thought that Linux was more principled, but obviously I am wrong. I
> > thought that Linux users cared more than they appear to, so am doubly
> > wrong. Once we stood for something. Freedom is not the same as anarchy.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for the thought, but this one is safely behind us ... for
> > now. ;)
> >
> > Roy
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please email LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com & you will be removed.Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
LINUX_Newbies-digest@yahoogroups.com
LINUX_Newbies-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
LINUX_Newbies-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment