Posted by: Anonymous
on August 04, 2008 12:34 AM
Well I certainly agree with having the option to install either a totally 100% free kernel OR your standard run of the mill kernel that has some free and some non free components. However, I feel I would probably be someone that purely used the one containing non free components for the simple fact that I need my system to work and I have a hard enough time configuring Linux to run on my box as it is, and thats using the proprietary drivers if they're available.
Were I to buy/build a machine that I knew was entirely supported by OSS then that might be something entirely different, however if I did that I would be limiting myself to hardware that worked with OSS and therefore not exactly being "free".
There is only a certain distance that you can take anything and although I think the option of free OR free/non free is a good idea, I think if it were pushed to the point that only free kernels were available and my system was going to take me even longer to set up I might just drop Linux.
I'm both an I.T. engineer and a developer, plus I have a family, that doesn't leave me much time for setting up my home/home office systems, I use Linux because I love it, enjoy it while I use it and I'm very much for OSS and GPL, however, it should be realised that proprietary and non OSS software has it's place in this world. For example as well as developing in C using the shell I also use Visual Studio to produce Windows programs. It's evil and it costs a fortune but it works well and it makes my life easier when producing software for Windows.