Re: possible solution for "open source"-"closed source"-problem?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: possible solution for "open source"-"closed source"-problem?
- From: Oleg Verych <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:51:15 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com>
On 2006-11-22, Johann Horwath wrote:
> Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
> From: "Johann Horwath" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Newsgroups: gmane.linux.debian.devel.project
> Subject: possible solution for "open source"-"closed source"-problem?
> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:17:17 +0100
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.1 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_95,MDO_DATING2 autolearn=no version=3.0.3
> couldn't this be a solution for the big problem open/closed-source:
> the system should be basically only be open-source.
I didn't read further.
> if there is a hardware, that can only be run with closed-source-drivers, the
> user should be informed. afterwards there should be a possibility to choose
> what should be done (ignore hardware/install open-source-software/install
> closed-source-software), and if the user chooses closed-source-software then
> he/she should accept an accordingly(license-)info (after the information the
> user should know, what's going on and that there could be some future
> problems like licensing-fees or similar).
> if the user accepts the license there should be an easy
> install/download-possibility of those closed-source-software, so that the
> user feels, he/she has a fine system. :-)
> so the system (debian) is out of problems generally (imo), the user knows
> what could be problematic, the choice of closed-source-software is his/her
> responsibility, debian cannot be blamed, but the user can have a system that
> runs even flash, ati...-specialities... if he/she likes.
> the worst way, imo, is, to mix up open and closed-source.
> the best way is, imo, to clearly seperate everything and to let the end-user
> choose, what he/she would like to have on his/her own responsibility.
> now as i'm here, i have - for a long time now - another debian-wish (it's
> generally linux, but i feel debian is the leading distro):
> "linux" tries to find everything by itself (hardware-recognition, driver
> install...). the user is not noticed until the install is ready. and then
> this poor one (and here i think of those not so experinced - like me :-( )
> is often left alone with finding a (mostly difficult) way, to get special
> things to run (i remember the days, when my cd-recorder was only recognized
> as cd-player and i didn't find a way to alter this...).
> i would love an installation-process (and a hardware-recognition after
> installing) where i - the user - was informed about many (every?) thing.
> maybe there could be a list of all hardware that was detected, what
> categories this hardware is belonging to and what software is and could be
> installed to get it running. in this list, i - the user - should have the
> possibility to change things: maybe i have a dvd-ram-recorder and the system
> "found only a dvd-recorder" or similar. then i should be able to tell the
> system the better/the right categorie, so that the right software could be
> this should be done in a similar way with adding users (what are the groups
> for,...) and with installing firewalls.
> and for each "category" there should be a list of possible
> software-packages, and i - the user - could take the ones, which fits best.
> maybe the installatin process would last a little bit longer, but the system
> would then be clear and transparent for everybody! everyone would know,
> what's running and why on his/her computer. this would be (will be??) a
> relieve in my life and i think for debian (linux) too.
> is this only a (my) dream?
> hans horwath
> p.s.: i don't know, if i'm here right with my lines, but it seemed the best
> way to me.
> if not, please tell me where i should mail to go instead.