Not promoting proprietary software use in Linuxmint

[menthol]

Hello you all !

I'm new on this forum but I have been in LM for a while, and in free software for way longer.

I am well aware of the wide array of opinions that exist on this topic, from the random Linuxmint user that just got out of Windows to the hardline Parabola fan with custom kernel and hardened compilation.

But this is all just a compromise. Different levels of compromise actually, between ease of use and security+freedom, just like what is done in IT in general. Hence why questions about Photoshop, 3DSMax or other proprietary software would probably be tolerated on LM forums for example.

However, encouraging their use is a whole other level, and I believe should not be accepted. In the install screens of the last few LM versions, I saw Netflix (DRM promoting platform) or Adobe Reader (proprietary, security flaws ridden PDF reader) being promoted.

If they are not sponsors, I'd personally be delighted to see them removed. If they are, maybe look for new sponsors.


What do you think ?

[JerryF]

...
In the install screens of the last few LM versions, I saw Netflix (DRM promoting platform) or Adobe Reader (proprietary, security flaws ridden PDF reader) being promoted.

Hello and welcome to the forums!

Is the install screen you're taking about in Software Manager?

[whm1974]

I don't recall seeing promotions of Netflix and Adobe Reader when I was installing LM 18.3 on my notebook last week. Are you sure they weren't only mentioned they could be used?

[BenTrabetere]

I am guessing you are pointing out sometimes Software Manager includes proprietary software in the Editor's Picks. I just launched SM, and both Sublime Text and the Steam client.

I think featuring the Steam client is fitting and proper - a lot of people are interested in it, and it makes sense to make it readily apparent to folks who just starting with Linux Mint.

I find it a little odd for Sublime Text to be an Editor's Pick since it is Non-Free in both uses of the term - it is proprietary and a license must be purchased in order to continue to use it. I know there is no time limit on the evaluation period, so someone could use it without purchasing a license, but that is different issue altogether. Personally, I think a FOSS editor like Atom would be a better choice, but I am not an Editor.

The only other time I recall Linux Mint promoting proprietary software is at the point in the installation where the option to install the closed source codecs is given. I do not consider "promoting" to be an accurate description in this case. I do not recall Adobe Reader or Netflix at any installation point.

[catweazel]

...proprietary software would probably be tolerated on LM forums for example.

Not everyone is a zealot for free software.

If they are not sponsors, I'd personally be delighted to see them removed. If they are, maybe look for new sponsors.

Let's suppose they are sponsors. Let's remove them, and take the revenue out of your pocket instead. How about that?

Let's not stop there. Advertising is mostly done by commercial organisations so let's ban advertising as well, of course the revenue will either come out of your pocket or LM will wither and die.

[whm1974]

I for one rather use Linux with some proprietary software then not be able to use Linux at. Thanks to Steam and Chrome, I no longer need Windows for anything anymore for over three years now.

[catweazel]

I for one rather use Linux with some proprietary software then not be able to use Linux at. Thanks to Steam and Chrome, I no longer need Windows for anything anymore for over three years now.

This is what gets me about the "it must be free" mentality. If you take away the commercial component for one distro, it dies, so you move on to the next one and start an "it must be free" campaign, it too dies. Pretty soon there'd be no linux OSen left. Economic suicide by a thousand cuts. Of course, my example is at the extreme end of possible outcomes but it isn't implausible. If it wasn't for commercialism (Canonical is a commercial operation), there'd be no Ubuntu base for Mint. So, let's ban the Ubuntu base... oh, wait,, let's stop using Mint... 'nuff said.

You'll notice how the OP would be 'delighted to see them removed'. You'll also notice the absence of the OP volunteering to replace the sources of income for Mint.

[whm1974]

I for one rather use Linux with some proprietary software then not be able to use Linux at. Thanks to Steam and Chrome, I no longer need Windows for anything anymore for over three years now.

This is what gets me about the "it must be free" mentality. If you take away the commercial component for one distro, it dies, so you move on to the next one and start an "it must be free" campaign, it too dies. Pretty soon there'd be no linux OSen left. Economic suicide by a thousand cuts.

If a platform is unable to do the common tasks people reasonably expect a modern platform to perform, why would anyone use it?

[sammiev]

I for one rather use Linux with some proprietary software then not be able to use Linux at. Thanks to Steam and Chrome, I no longer need Windows for anything anymore for over three years now.

This is what gets me about the "it must be free" mentality. If you take away the commercial component for one distro, it dies, so you move on to the next one and start an "it must be free" campaign, it too dies. Pretty soon there'd be no linux OSen left. Economic suicide by a thousand cuts. Of course, my example is at the extreme end of possible outcomes but it isn't implausible. If it wasn't for commercialism (Canonical is a commercial operation), there'd be no Ubuntu base for Mint. So, let's ban the Ubuntu base... oh, wait,, let's stop using Mint... 'nuff said.

You'll notice how the OP would be 'delighted to see them removed'. You'll also notice the absence of the OP volunteering to replace the sources of income for Mint.

I truly enjoy your post and opinions. Hope your around for another 50 years.

[catweazel]

I truly enjoy your post and opinions.

Hope your around for another 50 years.

Oh good grief! I hope not. I've already lost far more marbles than I collected when I was a children's marbles champion.

[Hoser Rob]

I was never a FOSS nut but when they announced that the HTML5 standard would have embedded DRM that argument became even sillier. Because you simply cannot make a web browser that is useable for the average person without some closed code in it.

Even Firefox has closed code now, and being FOSS was the only real selling point they had left. But they didn't have much choice.

[thx-1138]

...some of the responses & supposed arguments above make me think that Stallman was actually MORE than right...

Internalizing & normalizing the defeats from the 'real world's competition' doesn't make someone a 'realist', while the 'others' are 'silly idealists'.
Most likely it makes you a...fatalist: that's what the world is, and it will never change...
Lots of things are not 'ideal' and it's highly unlikely they will change for the better in the near future: poverty, hunger, wars, you-name-it.
You still try your best - you don't just think 'oh, well, whatever...sure it would be nice, but...as long as i get my job done'...

...A fight was LOST with the HTML5 standard - there's absolutely nothing cool with that.
Tomorrow it might be something to do with UEFI, processors, Management Engines - whatever.
Accept the defeats 'as they come' due to 'current day' convenience, and it won't take long until you eventually end up in Microsoft / Apple etc. vendor lock-down land...

Personally, i *try* avoiding closed-src apps as the plague. They will always be only be a 'last ditch' resort if i absolutely can't get the job done by other means. And even then, i still might re-evaluate their actual 'usefulness' and just opt to not use them at all. I find that to be a pretty 'realistic' compromise.
And i don't find silly those who use eg. Skype for example: i just don't see them helping themselves and the rest of the world in the not-so-longer term. I doubt i could be called a 'nut' or a 'zealot' for such.

That said, and back to the original poster's question, i haven't seen Mint 'encouraging' proprietary apps.
In regards to what sponsors they have or have not: NOT my product, hence NOT my business, simple as that.
It's not up to me to judge how others out there earn their living - at least when they're not exploiting 'weaker' people than them. Furthermore, whoever possibly dislikes their sponsors, he/she still has at least 2 choices:
1) use another product...and/or 2) fork it, and come up with Parabola GNU/Linuxmint-Libre...

[JosephM]

This argument probably isn't for me since I'm not a free software evangelist I'll use whatever tool works best, weather that means open source or proprietary. I use Linux because I prefer it.

The reason you probably see Sublime Text in the editors picks is because I would bet over half the new code in every Mint release is written with it. It's heavily used by the Mint dev team because it's an excellent tool and does the job well. I don't see the issue with promoting something like that.

[whm1974]

I'm really glad I don't have to use Windows anymore. Having some proprietary software allows me and others to to be pure Linux users.

[jglen490]

Purity is strictly voluntary, even in Linux.

I can install and run my HP printer straight up in Linux Mint or in Kubuntu, and most of the other Linux/BSD distros I've tried. But I use the HP printer software because it gives me more insight into my printer.

So having greater insight or control over a piece of hardware or over a document sometimes can mean using that commercial (free or at cost) tool that gives me what I need. I frankly don't care if a "purist" becomes livid, if it makes my Linux platform more usable especially considering that the same Linux platform is > 95% FOSS anyway. I'm happy that some commercial companies are happy to provide a way to use their product (especially hardware), and I'm happy to spend my money on the tangible part and get the bytes for free.

[thx-1138]

"my", "I", "don't care"...
Point taken

[jglen490]

And that's because NONE of us can speak for the entire Linux universe, only our own experience and preference.

[jglen490]

"my", "I", "don't care"...
Point taken

And I got your rather pointed implication

[Hoser Rob]

...some of the responses & supposed arguments above make me think that Stallman was actually MORE than right... ...

Of course you do. People who believe dumb illogical things, when presented with logical arguments, always believe the dumb idea MORE. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm not that dumb.

[whm1974]

Purity is strictly voluntary, even in Linux.

I can install and run my HP printer straight up in Linux Mint or in Kubuntu, and most of the other Linux/BSD distros I've tried. But I use the HP printer software because it gives me more insight into my printer.

So having greater insight or control over a piece of hardware or over a document sometimes can mean using that commercial (free or at cost) tool that gives me what I need. I frankly don't care if a "purist" becomes livid, if it makes my Linux platform more usable especially considering that the same Linux platform is > 95% FOSS anyway. I'm happy that some commercial companies are happy to provide a way to use their product (especially hardware), and I'm happy to spend my money on the tangible part and get the bytes for free.

I highly doubt that at this stage most Linux users are purists anyway. We have to use some proprietary software to do certain things, that is just the way it is(for now).