Thursday, March 10, 2011

On Ubuntu and Free Software

I've tried Ubuntu off and on since they first released. It's what I've recommended to friends as a first Linux distro and I'm writing this on a (borrowed) laptop running Ubuntu.

But for my own systems, I run Debian. One of the reasons I've stuck with Debian is I've found the project is most consistent with what I think free software should be and what it doesn't have to be. I'm ok waiting an extra six months (or 18 months) for a feature to be implemented in a free, unencumbered way. I'm ok not using features which require me to surrender rights or privileges to someone else. Until the last year or so, I thought Ubuntu shared that belief.

Benjamin Mako Hill wrote an essay for the Free Software Foundation about the arguments for "free software" versus "open source", where the latter argues that it is better because of the quality of code. For me, free software is better because it's free, not because of features or quality.

On quality and features, Ubuntu often makes a better desktop. On being free, Canonical keeps moving itself farther and farther away, as Novell and (especially) RedHat have done. Releasing code under GPL isn't enough.

I get why people use Ubuntu. For a long time, I've tried to like it - but too many problems, too many conflicts. And now, Canonical is trying to redefine what "free" means.

I get it. I get why people run OSX. Or Windows. I get why people choose lots of things I wouldn't. Sure, opinions vary. But I think people have to reconsider why they're running GNU/Linux, and if Ubuntu still meets those standards.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by Lachlan @ 11:39 PM 0 comments