0:w(5( Matt Hartley称，许多Linux桌面用户不愿意承认，他们在日常使用中用到了大量闭源代码。他以私有驱动程序，语音通讯软件Skype，和模拟windows应用程序的Wine为例。对于多数非自由软件忠实信徒来说，如果代码可用，那就用吧。他提出了这么一个问题：拥抱闭源代码是否有更多益处，它能创造庞大的用户基数；或者保持纯洁，让Linux代只供专家使用？
:0wszxc :0wl;l1 5:ty( :0w3)(1
当大多数人在它认为Linux的，他们图片sourceoperating一个开放的系统核心，连同其他软件，走到一起tocreate服务器和桌面操作系统的基础上的免费软件。形象isaccurate -有毫无疑问的，它的开放源代码（ a ndcommunity合作）表示，已协助的L inux成为p owerhousethat，这是今天。但在什么时候做，我们接受-无论我们喜欢与否，不是封闭源应用将最终都必须让在以t hisotherwise“开放”的世界？毕竟，这已发生foryears ，尽管Linux的purists踢和尖叫，整个时间。
事实上，在封闭的源代码是用于日常内部的Linux world.and在这里的有趣的事：我们大多数人从来就没有真正三思aboutit 。
封闭源与Linux -它不是一个新概念。
而核心的桌面Linux操作系统（不论ofdistribution ）是由开放源代码，这是常用的sideby方与代码得到较少的注意-事实上，许多L inuxp uristsseem忘记：封闭源码软件及司机使用w ithdesktop Linux的每一天，由成千上万的人。
从具体的固件补充，由专责的分布，以ensurewireless兼容性向开放源码软件被称为酒， whichallows用户运行封闭源Windows应用程序， proprietarycode有其发生的Linux桌面。
此外，如何将大部分的笔记本电脑初步建成为Windows获得theirwireless连接无一ndiswrapper使用专有wirelessdrivers为Windows设计的呢？封闭源代码是，现在是-可能v erywell永远-的一个主要部分，使用Li nux在桌面上
如果代码工程，让它成为。
最近的一个事件，再次引发了之间的敌意，公开andclosed来源，用户是NVIDIA的不提供源代码fortheir基于Linux的图形驱动程序。然而，不像ATI的，我个人havenever了一个单一的问题，使用封闭源NVIDIA驱动程序。 anyissues认为，出现处理相当迅速采用NVIDIA本身。
那么，为何有问题，再次呢？
在过去， Linux开发者表示关注havingto “工作围绕着”这些NVIDIA公司提供的驱动程序。基本thinkingahead如何的东西，最终会应用户选择安装这些“二元冒出的气泡， ”由于地产发展商想提及他们。
尽管他们的关注，我想指出， NVIDIA已一fairlydecent记录与错误控制和，神秘， linuxdevelopers已经能够把事情的工作就结束，尽管这个问题与发牌的背后，目前封闭源NVIDIA的驱动程序。
不论任何一个发展商的挫折感超过NVIDIA的driverlicensing ，事实上，问题是提供封闭sourcedrivers工作，而不是良好的每个人都参与-对于一些o fyears。
不要误会我的意思，我很想看到的NVIDIA打开了司机asmuch作为下一个家伙。不过，看到的Linux purists要求为aboycott对供应商谁是确实支持Linux平台issimply行乞，为今后的反响尚未浮出水面。
负面的感受，表达了上述最终将presentbigger的问题，任何封闭源码软件公司寻找totake一浸在Linux开发水域。鉴于大部分softwarecompanies使用封闭源码软件和许多硬件公司做thesame ，反应NVIDIA的决定是要大量彩色howhardware供应商寻找到Linux的兼容性选择向前迈进。
这个可怜的是，他们中的许多将举行指出，只要aspossible ，由于Linux开发，主要是被视为皇家painin背面由封闭源的世界。
应用的一致性，而不是政治的源代码。
不管人们如何感受发牌的选择ofcompanies一样， NVIDIA的，其实是有一些封闭sourceapplications使用Linux的今天，对于一些神秘的原因，似乎没有人是坏唱衰尽管事实上，该软件isquite限制其代码的可用性。 Skype的来考虑aprime的例子。
Skype应用程序提供了一个优秀的VoIP客户端linuxusers ，其中包括其他受欢迎的平台。这VoIP软件是否所有，从清晰的电话直播视频流。因此，虽然准备accessto其他可比的开放源代码替代品，如ekiga （ availablefor Linux和Windows ） ，大多数人使用的VoIP客户端在theirhomes在Linux上是死抱着紧紧到Skype 。
即使可比的开放源代码替代奇怪的名为“ ekiga ”是默认安装与Linux发行版，例如asubuntu ，大多数用户希望的VoIP客户端将达到Skype的每次。许多这些个人不关心如何Skype是领有牌照。所有他们知道的是，这是什么大家都已经在使用在其他平台上。
此外， Skype同样能够运行的几乎每一个平台，您可以thinkof 。 ekiga ，另一方面，首次创造了Linux和稍后forwindows 。 OS X用户被排除在冷战。
的理解是， Skype公司提供其用户意识consistencyis的关键因素。来掌握，这是为了更好地understandwhy更多的人将不会理会的研究开放源代码alternativessuch作为ekiga 。该ekiga选项，或许提供了更多的“生死抉择” thanmost人民正期待。 ekiga支持SIP的，除其他外议定书，而Skype的支持自己的议定书-期。基于对usernumbers ，可能是由于市场营销， Skype的用户真的不careabout类型的VoIP协议被用于他们的通信。
在下榻的“开放的过程中” 。
这是重要的是要认识你阅读这本，这是不anattack对Linux或开放源代码以任何方式。而不是考虑这个asmore的暮鼓晨钟，唤醒了电话方面的软件可用性andavailability 。
我很想看到彼此的挑战，提出了到Linux platformtackled头就由开放源码软件的可能时。然而，当您生活在一个世界专利于1977年，加密的DVD ，三维加速准备驱动模块，和一个包装为封闭sourcewindows无线司机，你很快认识到，封闭源remainsvery实质-不管哪一个O S平台您碰巧使用每种白天。
也有摩擦。如果有足够的知觉价值在一个封闭的来源，应用就某一OS平台，用户将支付它愉快。
也许是一个最大的例子，用户买封闭sourcesoftware为Linux ，便须一特定的视频editingapplication 。一，现在停售的应用称为mainactor provideda很大益处， Linux用户厌倦了有限tohalf工作的开放源代码替代品一样， kdenlive 。
对于一般的用户，这是阻力最小的方向。它allowedusers在所有技能水平，以在编辑视频的方式将bothsane和用户友好。因此，即使有开放sourcealternatives ，因为这亚洲浆纸亮相，他们要么没有直观的enoughto满足他们的需要Linux的群众，或相反，被视为simplybeing太不稳定，严重使用。
是封闭源代码的威胁，今天的Linux发行？
包装时，您的想法变通解决此问题的封闭源thelinux在桌面上，一件事，须紧记的是， Linux的kernelitself仍将纯，相反，共同的信念，是不是underattack 。
这意味着，没有专有代码会突然开始显示了atthe最高级别的内核发展，从而突然linuxas违反我们所知道的。有可从来没有真正得到了真正的威胁，以Linux作为weknow 。
最重要的一块代码，弥补了作业系统hassafeguards到位，以确保它不会跨溪流withcode这是不许可与开放源代码许可。这不是tosay一些分布不采取香草内核和添加whatthey见适合。但绝对没有影响，对那些谁选择不使用这些分布。
然而，在这一天结束，封闭的源代码是在这里留下来。作为linuxusers ，对我们大多数人，这是我们日常生活的一部分，在一些basiclevel 。是的，这是一个相当大的一部分，现有的desktoplinux宇宙-这一事实是难以否认的。我们如何作出反应这个事实，不过，是每一个Linux用户将不得不角力withthemselves 。
When most people in IT think of Linux, they picture an open sourceoperating system kernel, along with other software, coming together tocreate the server and desktop OS based on Free software. That image isaccurate - and there’s no question that it’s open source code (andcommunity cooperation) that has helped Linux to become the powerhousethat it is today. But at what point do we accept that - whether we like it or not -closed source applications will eventually have to be let in to thisotherwise "open" world? After all, this has already been happening foryears, despite the Linux purists kicking and screaming the entire time.
In fact, closed source code is used everyday within the Linux world.And here’s the funny thing: most of us never really think twice aboutit.
Closed source with Linux - it's not a new concept.
While the core of the desktop Linux operating system (regardless ofdistribution) is powered by open source code, it is commonly used sideby side with code that gets less attention - indeed, many Linux puristsseem to forget about: Closed source software and drivers are used withdesktop Linux every single day by thousands of people.
From specific firmware added by select distributions to ensurewireless compatibility to the open source software known as WINE, whichallows users to run closed source Windows applications, proprietarycode has its place on the Linux desktop.
Besides, how would most notebooks initially built for Windows get theirwireless connectivity without an NDISWrapper using proprietary wirelessdrivers designed for Windows? Closed source code was, is - and may verywell always be - a major part of using Linux on the desktop.
If the code works, let it be.
One recent event that has again sparked hostility between open andclosed source users was NVIDIA's failure to provide source code fortheir Linux-based graphics drivers. Yet unlike ATI, I personally havenever had a single problem using the closed source NVIDIA drivers. Anyissues that did arise were handled fairly quickly by NVIDIA itself.
So why is there a problem, again?
In the past, Linux developers have expressed concern over havingto "work around" these NVIDIA provided drivers. To basically thinkingahead to how things will end up should a user opt to install these"binary blobs," as developers like to refer to them.
Despite their concern, I would point out that NVIDIA has a fairlydecent track record with bug control and, mysteriously, Linuxdevelopers have been able to make things work on their end despite this issue with the licensing behind the current closed source NVIDIA driver.
Regardless of any one developer's frustration over NVIDIA driverlicensing, the fact of the matter is that providing closed sourcedrivers has worked rather well for everyone involved - for a number ofyears.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see NVIDIA open up the drivers asmuch as the next guy. However, seeing Linux purists calling out for aboycott against a vendor who is indeed supporting the Linux platform issimply begging for future repercussions yet to surface.
Negative feelings expressed above will eventually presentbigger problems for any closed source software companies looking totake a dip in the Linux development waters. Given that most softwarecompanies use closed source software and many hardware companies do thesame, the reaction to NVIDIA's decision is going to heavily color howhardware vendors looking into Linux compatibility choose to go forward.
The pathetic thing is that many of them will hold out as long aspossible, as Linux developers are largely considered to be a royal painin the backside by the closed source world.
Application consistency, not source code politics.
Regardless of how people feel about the licensing choices ofcompanies like NVIDIA, there are actually a number of closed sourceapplications used with Linux today that for some mysterious reason, noone seems to be bad mouthing despite the fact that the software isquite restrictive with its code availability. Skype comes to mind as aprime example.
The Skype application provides an outstanding VoIP client for Linuxusers, among other popular platforms. This VoIP software does it all,from clear telephony to live streaming video. So despite ready accessto other comparable open source alternatives such as Ekiga (availablefor both Linux and Windows), most people using a VoIP client in theirhomes on Linux are clinging tightly to Skype.
Even though a comparable open source alternative oddly named"Ekiga" is installed by default with Linux distributions such asUbuntu, most users wanting a VoIP client will reach for Skype everytime. Many of these individuals do not care how Skype is licensed. All they know is that this is what everyone is already using on other platforms.
In addition, Skype can be run on nearly every platform you can thinkof. Ekiga, on the other hand, was first created for Linux and later forWindows. OS X users are left out in the cold.
Understanding that Skype provides its users with a sense of consistencyis the key factor. Coming to grips with this is to better understandwhy more people will not bother to research open source alternativessuch as Ekiga. The Ekiga option perhaps provides more "choice" thanmost people are looking for. Ekiga supports SIP, among other protocols,whereas Skype supports its own protocol - period. Based on usernumbers, possibly due to marketing, Skype users really do not careabout the type of VoIP protocol being used for their communications.
Staying the "open course."
It is important to realize as you read this that this is not anattack on Linux or on open source in any way. Instead consider this asmore of a wake-up call with regard to software usability andavailability.
I would love to see each challenge presented to the Linux platformtackled head on by open source software whenever possible. However,when you live in a world of patented MP3s, encrypted DVDs,3D-accelerated ready driver modules, and a wrapper for closed sourceWindows wireless drivers, you soon realize that closed source remainsvery real - regardless of which OS platform you happen to use each day.
And there's the rub. If there is enough perceived value in a closed source application on a given OS platform, users will pay for it happily.
Perhaps one of the greatest examples of users buying closed sourcesoftware for Linux would have to be one specific video editingapplication. A now discontinued application known as MainActor provideda significant benefit to Linux users tired of being limited tohalf-working open source alternatives like KDENLive.
For the average user, it was the path of least resistance. It allowedusers at all skills levels to edit video in a way that would be bothsane and user friendly. So even though there were open sourcealternatives as this app debuted, they were either not intuitive enoughto meet the needs of the Linux masses, or instead, were seen as simplybeing too unstable for serious use.
Is closed source code a threat to today's Linux distributions?
When wrapping your mind around the issue of closed source in theLinux desktop, one thing to bear in mind is that the Linux kernelitself will remain pure, and contrary to common belief, is not underattack.
This means that no proprietary code will suddenly start showing up atthe highest levels of kernel development, thus suddenly violating Linuxas we know it. There can never truly be a real threat to Linux as weknow it.
The most important piece of code that makes up the operating system hassafeguards in place to ensure that it will never cross streams withcode that is not licensed with an open source license. This is not tosay that some distributions do not take the vanilla kernel and add whatthey see fit to it. But that has absolutely no effect on those who choose not to use those distributions.
Yet at the end of the day, closed source code is here to stay. As Linuxusers, for most of us, it is part of our daily lives at some basiclevel. And yes, it is a fairly significant part of the existing desktopLinux universe - that fact is hard to deny. How we react to this fact,however, is something that each Linux user will have to wrestle withthemselves.
