What is Digg?85 Comments
- AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -14/+107FINALLY!
- shrewduser, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41ubuntu already contained propriatry drivers, for wifi support, so users could update their system at install time.
nothing has really changed.... - dDuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35Are you a Bynar? It took me more than 15 seconds to configure Ubuntu for 3d acceleration, more like 15 minutes.
- Kerwin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39Ubuntu has the best release names.
- int19h, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26As long as the users can still choose if they want to "go proprietary" at install time, this is great.
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24I personally like this move as it will open up Ubuntu to more and more people. But I also have my reservations about including prop software in Linux. Its a slippery slope.
I think, and I am taking this from other people's suggestions, that no prop software should be installed on a distro by default. But, there should be a installer for single click installs e.g. Automatix which would install such software while educating people of the dangers of prop software. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Canonical isn't GNU, and they didn't sell out.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I could install and use Ubuntu at the level of a standard terminal-scared desktop user without typing a single command in Ubuntu. However, if I want to hack around or change advanced settings I may be forced to (although strictly speaking I could enable the root file manager and browse to the config file). Mostly, though, I just use the terminal because it's the quickest and easiest way to do many tasks.
- Canute, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I think that's only if you compile the kernel with it inside.
- fanboydcs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18With macosx you have the terminal and you can edit plist files with it VERY EASILY. I really think it should be tucked away for power users just like on macosx...
- pauljaroszewski, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15this seems like a logical step to make. canonical's goal from the beginning was to entice as many new linux users as possible. sometimes people forget that your average computer user has no clue what a codec is or how to install it. god forbid any of us linux users have to use proprietary software...i think there are plenty of other things we need to worry about.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I don't think it's a GOOD thing... but as of now, it's turning into a necessity. Everyone should still keep as much pressure on manufacturers as possible to release drivers for their products into open source, but without enough of a following, it's not going to get anywhere. Without ease of use, the linux community isn't going to gain enough push to get drivers released into open source. It's a catch-22, and so our options of dealing with it are limited.
Free and open is always better... but I think that using binary drivers is a compromise that people need to make to get linux some marketshare. Just my opinion... - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+12Yeah, I followed a lot of tutorials on how to get 3D acceleration working, but none of them did anything. I finally got it when I used EasyUbuntu.
- ryodoan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yeah, and for my esoteric Nvidia video card this could be a real boon.
I have a PCI Nvidia Geforce 5500.
5 forum posts, two weeks, and 2 different self help guides later and about 10 hours of work later, my linux doesnt even boot anymore. - Philodox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@hchaudh1
If you want to compete with Microsoft you *need* proprietary dirvers in the distribution. Average joe users don't want to mess around with apt repositories and synaptic just to play games and watch movies. - subgeniusd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@Ratteler
Yeah - end users who just want their ***** to work are "morons". That kind of ***** attitude is largely responsible for our fabulous 3% desktop user volume. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Installing the latest NVidia driver was a nightmare and I work with computers every day. No non-geek is going to manage that on their own, so putting the driver in the release is probably the only solution, sadly.
- kolavar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13There is no need to use the terminal and edit configuration files. Synaptec has a frontend for editing your list of repositories, network-manager lets you adjust your network settings, and gconf works for everything else... what's left?
- urbanight23, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I think this is a good thing, in fact, I could care less about the "free" drivers. I bought the nvidia card, so they already got my money, and they dont charge me for the drivers that I use, so Im not stealing them. As an end user, I could care less whether or not the drivers are open source. Nvidia has a right to protect their IP.
- gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8What's to prevent someone from including malware in their open-source software? It's easier to take the basic steps for malware/spyware prevention than it is to scrutinize every program line by line before you run it. A Linux distribution is going to include millions of lines of code, so I'm sure you haven't analyzed all of it.
The bottom line is, you're going to prevent malware/spyware using the same approach regardless of whether you're dealing with open-source or closed-source software. - Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9FINALLY!!!!
Thank god someone finally sees past their own hippy-ness and realises that we need those drivers to actually run this stuff.
I don't know a single person that, after getting ubuntu, doesnt go and get the nvidia/ATI drivers themselves. Why cause that extra issues? And things go wrong with the install cuz they don't know what they're doing, etc, etc...
I don't see any problem with shipping the CD with both the closed and (*****) open drivers and letting the user choose. - nemoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If you're concerned about choice then perhaps Ubuntu isn't the distro for you.
Ubuntu goes out of it's way to make choices for the user so that it is easier to use, if you want to make your own choices on all the software you install you might want to try debian or gentoo. - ray901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ hchaudh1
"I personally like this move as it will open up Ubuntu to more and more people. But I also have my reservations about including prop software in Linux."
Why? The way I see it I bought the hardware and the software that runs it (drivers are free). For example: I have an NVidia graphics card and I run Linux. Why should I not be able to use the NVidia drivers for that card. Why shouldn't Ubuntu provide me with an easy method for installing those drivers?
I paid good money for my (proprietary) hardware, I expect to be able to use the software that runs it - else I would have forgone the hardware. - mccoma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5why would they have more pressure? Ubuntu will be shipping their drivers as they want them shipped, they already have access to the market if Ubuntu goes big. Like a lot of places in life, changing someone's behavior after the fact is nye on to impossible.
- karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I was meaning to say "automarix or easyubuntu" I did indeed need Ubuntu and their wonderful documentation.
- cduquette, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10I think this is a step in the wrong direction. As stated many times including proprietary drivers in a distro by default lets hardware makers know they've won. Companies aren't going to see any point to releasing open source drivers. A security hole in a driver could compromise security on a kernel level, which is very bad. Also, because the kernel API constantly changes, if a hardware maker decides to stop supporting a piece of hardware these people are out of luck.
- randomc0de, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Read my post again. Most users don't need to perform a code audit. One person they trust needs to perform a code audit and oh, now several million people know it's safe. Do you understand now?
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3actually no, if you go into the Ubuntu wifi drivers, you'll see that their proprietary wifi drivers have been replaced by a "placeholder file." (e.g. Broadcom's cards) To enable the driver, you need to enable the multiverse repositories, which are not on by default. However, your point is valid, as all you need to do is change a line in sources.list and apt downloads the driver for you
- thanks, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Are you talking as if it were a module? They're saying default support, so I'm pretty sure it's pre-compiled. I believe another distribution was in trouble recently with using binary ati drivers, things like this make the linux community look bad. I agree with the article, we shouldn't forfeit our basic free principles for a short term gain.
- Ramsees79, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12cool, another good reason to use Ubuntu.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@randomc0de: That is not FUD. Most users will not perform a code audit before installing open source software. You, yourself are spreading disinformation.
- CompIsMyRx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nvidia's proprietary drivers are free for download from the website. That means that they can be installed free. They should be able to be packaged free.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@randomc0de:How is that any different than having experts test binaries for malware and reporting back to the community? Places like versiontracker and macupdate have people in the community reporting back on any irregularities in software. That is why you don't see adware/spyware on the mac platform.
- SanjayM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Lukedash:
The nVidia binary "blob" is not a derived work it is in fact the same "blob" that is used in the windows drivers, it does however use a different wrapper in each case. In the case of the linux wrapper (Which as you correctly state is a derivation of the kernel) the wrapper is OPEN SOURCE therefore there is no derivative closed source components to the driver (The blob is not a derivation, rather a standalone development by Nvidia) making it GPL compatible. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5About time, smart move for Ubuntu, i was just bitching about this yesterday
- sensia3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yes, FINALLY!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I absolutely agree with you. If Ubuntu can create a larger market share, then the manufacturers will have much more pressure on them to give us open source drivers.
- JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4'I believe another distribution was in trouble recently with using binary ati drivers'
The wording is ambigious to the point of being worthless when it comes to including modules. I believe the distro you're thinking of is sabayon, which still includes binary drivers. It was basically just one of the kernel devs throwing a fit, rather than any legal matter. As far as I can tell, the matter will pretty much come down to which party has the most cash if this ever does come to court. There's a million ways to get around the wording though, so there's little need to have it come to that. Of course doing so might royally piss off a lot of developers. But, what this pretty much comes down to is exactly that. Most OS developers really can't pick and choose who gets to use their code and who doesn't. As someone who writes under both the lgpl and bsd licences at times, welcome to the real world guys. You throw your code onto the interenet, and people are going to use it as far as is legally possible. - mthoringen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What's to prevent a hardware manufacturer from secretly including malware with their closed-source drivers?
- Mirag3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2agreed, i think this is a great move. From experience, I know that one of the biggest problems people new to linux have is getting their graphics drivers to work. With all the hype about XGL a lot of people want to try, but then they hear that they only have 2D graphics support and need to install ATI/Nvidia drivers. Even simpler, what if you want to watch a movie or even just use an OpenGL screensaver? Unfortunately, this seems to be one of the most tricky and time consuming installation procedures in Linux (I spent so much time in Fedora and Kubuntu building the graphics drivers because you used to have to patch the frickin kernel). If the pros build the support in, it will save everybody a lot of hassle and the gurus a lot of time telling people how to install them. Also, its not like they don't already put proprietary software - all you have to do is enable the multiverse repository in apt and it installs free but closed source software.
- MikeBasinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4One solution is to give official support to EasyUbuntu, maybe let it run on install. People then can choose if they want it or not.
- aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Right, so nobody here understands what proprietary means then? Proprietary products are not well documented for interoperability. We use the term proprietary and non-proprietary hardware correct? Do you see any open source hardware out there? No. Documentation and interoperability is what determines whether something is proprietary or not.
- karamba_kid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I haven't used edgy yet, but when I was setting up dapper it took me only a few minutes to setup proprietary drivers (nvidia-glx, flash, quicktime,wmv etc..) with following the offical documents on restricted formats I didn't need automatrix or ubuntu.
- speel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3About ***** time.
- FKnight, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It let's the hardware makers know they've won? What I don't get is why distribution purists insists that there needs to be a war between Linux distributions and the hardware makers. The hardware makers want to sell hardware -- they don't care what OS you're using. They have a business to protect, and it's up to them how they decide to release drivers. Instead of working against the hardware vendors, people should be doing what is happening with Ubuntu and actually work with the hardware makers.
The hardware makers are not the enemy of open source software. If the distribution purists forget that software needs hardware to run, they will destroy open source software themselves. - Filter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think if you want the options that Debian has then you should use Debian. Debian is a great distribution of Linux and there is no real reason not to use it if it caters to your needs. I think Ubuntu wants to cater to the needs of people that don't want to be confused with the type of options that Debian provides and I think that's one of the reasons that Ubuntu is so popular.
- UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I don't know a single person that, after getting ubuntu, doesnt go and get the nvidia/ATI drivers themselves. "
Well guess what. Now you do. - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the point is to have all the drivers installed out of the box. Imo it's bloat, Ubuntu should really have an option to select the stuff you want to install during the install like Debian itself does.
- jas168, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I empathize with your concern, but to be totally honest, most of the applications that require tweaking of text files a.) are open source software that could easily provide a front-end (if not already) or b.) assumes you know what you are doing to the point where it's actually easier.
If I had the option to set up Apache in Windows or Linux with a pre-made editor, I wouldn't touch it.
For now, just have faith... Linux coders don't try to make things hard, but some linux versions of software are lacking in that area due to independence from a GUI API. - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree that nothing *categorically* has changed about Ubuntu adding in proprietary drivers, but the controversy surrounds whether or not adding graphics drivers is a *necessary* addition. The argument before was that wireless drivers were necessary because users couldn't go online to do updates (and possible download a free driver) without the proprietary driver.
So are graphics drivers necessary in the same sense? I don't think this is an easy black or white issue, and anyone who says it *is* is full of *****. On the one hand, graphics drivers are not necessary for a user to run their computer with normal day-to-day operations, on the other hand, graphics drivers *are* necessary for users to actually *use* their hardware (i.e. the graphics card) that they bought with their money.
It's a very very tricky issue, and not something to be politicized and divide the linux community over. I think whichever way you stand on the issue, you have to at least be somewhat understanding of the other side's opinion. -
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is