|
|
|
|
|
by mikece
2333 days ago
|
|
I'm not a "Linux community member" but I have never understood why having a popular distro that included non-F/OSS libraries and tools in the distro to make the transition easier for people coming from macOS and Linux was such a bad thing or a reason to fight. If, instead of Ubuntu, something like Mint were the Linux distro option for Lenovo, HP, Dell, etc then new users could do "common user things" like watch Netflix, play a DVD, etc. Those of us a little more hard core already know how to get Fedora, Debian, or Slackware running (and drivers cajoled into working) on the hardware so why not aim for a larger audience? Making Mint a popular choice will be a benefit for Debian (and Ubuntu as long as LMDE isn't the flavor or Mint being offered and supported). |
|
Deontological ethics: non-free software is bad, so making a distro that includes non-free software is bad
Consequentialist ethics: non-free software is bad, so reducing the amount of non-free software that someone uses by giving them a mostly-free distro that includes non-free software is good
There's never going to be agreement because they are using completely different frameworks for judging if an action is good or bad.