andre wrote:Hi everyone, I'm Andre, from Portugal.
I've been a Linux user for some 5 or 6 years. I used Ubuntu until 10.04, then it messed up my netbook, so I switched to PCLinuxOS and I loved KDE (I was a Gnome fanboy). Earlier this year I missed the Ubuntu repos, so I switched to Kubuntu. Last Saturday I found out Mageia (KDE) and replaced Kubuntu on my Desktop so I could test it, but didn't have the time to test it. Yesterday, I was at work (I run my mother's herbal shop) and Kubuntu started behaving strangely in my AAOne netbook (with all the shop's documents, contacts, etc. in it), and I thought I would lose it. Thankfully I still had the Mageia 1 ISO with me, so I quickly backed up and created a live usb, just before X stopped working.
Home is in it's own partition, so I installed quickly and didn't even need my backups. It even recognized my GPRS modem (Kubuntu wouldn't work unless I installed Gnome Network Manager).
The only complaint so far is having to enable the tainted repos to enable Broadcom wireless (there should be an option during installation to enable the tainted repos and install the most common restricted stuff, like in the ubuntu family).
Anyway, here I am! I hope Mageia will grow and be the best distro, the best community or, hopefully, both.
Hi Andre, welcome to the forum.
You raise an interesting point that bears discussion - and perhaps even a re-evaluation of policy.
I am all for using completely free software whenever and wherever possible. However, in the case of hardware recognition, sometimes it simply is not practical to use entirely free software because many binary packages containing firmware still exist and adequate replacements or alternatives are not available. I am all for making completely free alternatives available, and when they are, and they work acceptably well, they should be the default. But in cases where not providing non-free binary blobs would cause difficulty, in such cases, pragmatism makes much more sense. I don't mind segregating non-free from free, and providing free as the first option, but non-free ought to be automatic when it cannot be configured at the present time in any other way.
Are we the only two that feel this way, or merely the only two willing to speak up?
Debian had some good debates about these topics in 2009 and concluded to do what I am proposing: to make non-free available, even on a CD or DVD, offer free as the first choice when it's available, but include non-free (even as default) when it isn't.
In Richard Stallman's view, doing this "taints" the software, in his opinion. When his team is able to figure out a way to keep up with hardware firmware changes, his view can pervade - and it's certainly a worthwhile goal to shoot for. But dogmatically sticking to it, in my opinion, is counter productive, and it keeps many otherwise willing people away from trying the software because they have to gather too much from multiple sources, and many of them therefore consider it "broken". I therefore propose to aim toward Stallman's goal of all free software, but use a practical, pragmatic approach: go free when it's there, use what's necessary when it's not in order to provide the broadest hardware support possible.