As anyone who has read other posts on this blog will know I feel quite strongly about software freedom. I try to use exclusively free software as far as I possibly can. However, unfortunately I do still use some propreitary software, for various reasons.
Nonetheless, I wish to strive to become better in this respect. Recently, I took a look at the 100% free software distribution gnewsense. Thing is, I’m still rather undecided about whether non-free firmware is a problem (topic for a future blogpost maybe) and gnewsense breaks the network cards on both my pcs, rendering it useless for me, until I buy new network cards of course 
(It also means that I have no compiz, due to graphics card firmware, and the fact that glx has been stripped out (this annoys me, no truly free 3D acceleration yet :S), but I can live without this. The internet, I basically can not).
And, there is also the fact that my belief in the importance of free software has been wavering a bit (I know it is important, I’ve just been wondering how important - I’ll elaborate more in athoer blog post). But, I decided I was at a point where I wanted to try to remove all the tradiotional non-free software. By this I mean software that is regared by everyone by non-free, is not GPL’d etc. In fact most distributions have this content in a separate repository.
On Ubuntu (which I use on my main PC), this software is put into the multiverse. I decided today that I would cut myself off from this repository completely. It should be no harm for me, as I do not use any of these apps, flash and java were installed, but only for other people (gnash and icedtea ftw). However, the thing that is really annoying me is that by disabling multiverse, it is not only non-free software that I can not download, it is also perfectly free software with some sort of legal problem (patents, DMCA). The two groups of software are not the same thing for me (being a freedom lover and patent and DMCA hater), so it is a great inconvenience if the two are just lumped together!!!!!!
I want to be able to have all free software enabled (including that with patent issues etc.) but no non-free software. With ubuntu, I can’t do this - all I can do is pick debs out of multiverse by hand! For this reason, I’m thinking of switching to a distro that does not lump non-free and possibly troublesome together, the obvious choice, I think would be Debian (Sid, I think). Already, I had realised I would be comfortable with debian (I use it on another machine), but given that ubuntu is considered more user friendly and will do anything Debian will do, I had no incentive to switch. Now I do!
I wonder if I can update my current hardy installation to Sid. Its probably not advisable, but given that I have a fallback Kubuntu partion, I might just give it a go, for the hell of it.
Another thing I was wondering, is that I do decide to go freedom crazy (and hate non-free firmware). Then what distro would I choose? Not gnewsense I don’t think, because that doesn’t ship the free software that ubuntu lumps in multiverse. Annoyingly, there doesn’t seem to be a freefree distro based on pure debian. Maybe gnewsense could be tweaked to be based on debian (project for the summer holdiays maybe).
Okay, I just spoke to the gnewsense guys, and it would probably be easier to create a “free multiverse repo”. So, I might not switch to Debian afterall. Then again I might. And everything could change if I manage to buy a new ethernet card. Watch this space 
Self referencial note: This blog is almost like a conversation with myself. I either leave too long before writing or am still making up my mind whilst I’m writing. The latter is definitely better though.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Lloyd Sewell
The idea being that although every person has fundamental rights (to life, liberty and property), those rights are enforced not by one single monopolistic* organisation, but by the free market. That is, if someone violates your rights you can hire a company to recoup damages off him. Also, people who do immoral things will become known for doing so (increasingly easy in the age of the internet) so people will not “do business with them”**. This concept is called anarcho-captitalism (an-cap for short) or the laissez-faire market.
**********************************************************
What happens - to those who cannot afford to employ a companyt to
re-coup their rights
Very sorry old sport, but your article does not bode well for either your high education or your current level of rights.
**********************************************************
April 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Ben Webb
Well, yeah, that is one of the major things that stops me embracing anarcho-capatilism fully. However, even if you do have a governemnt to protect peoples rights, it must be as small as possible to avoid infringing on peoples rights itself (a lot of libertarians actually believe a small and very limited governement may be necessary).
Nevertheless, there are reasons why an-cap can still work. A lot of it is based around the idea of voluntaryism - people donating time and money to help poorer people (a law charity for the poor perhaps) because they want to. In fact, I think there would be a lot more of this than there is now, because people would not already be lumbered with taxes.
Very sorry old sport, but your article does not bode well for either your high education or your current level of rights.
I’m sorry, I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that believing in anarcho-capitalism will affect my education, or that my views are surprising for someone who is educated? Are you trying to suggest my rights will be restricted as a result?
Also, who are you, do I know you, and how did you find my blog. I’m not trying to be nosey, just genuinely interested.
April 29, 2008 at 11:52 pm
ydb1
I’d suggest to further look into the idea of anarcho-capitalism that two books by Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty (http://www.amazon.com/New-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0945466471/) and The Ethics of Liberty (http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/) would make good reading.
I’ve been hovering between anarcho-capitalist and minarchist (small-government libertarian) for a few years in terms of my political philosophy; the biggest caveat, in my opinion, with anarcho-capitalism is that the private arbitration and security firms that would arise would probably not adopt a law code like the ones Rothbard proposes in The Ethics of Liberty; rather, the value-scales of consumers may lead them to adopt less consistent and less libertarian codes. However, that is comparing the ideal of government to the practicalities of the market, which isn’t a fair comparison, as the practicalities of government are much worse.
(This is Wikiacc, btw.)
April 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Ben Webb
Hi there Wikiacc,
Thanks for the links to books, I’ll see if I can get hold of them (preferably from a library, I’m a stingy person), although I probably won’t have chance to read either of them until after my upcoming exams.
As for anarcho-capitalist vs. minarchist, I’m not really sure either. Like I say, I’ve only recently come across the idea that a truly free society without governement may be possible. I’m not sure if it’d be vaible, but I am certainly intrigued by the idea.
Also, as I say there is a bit of a conflict in my mind. I’ve always believed that freedom is one of the most important things, but the right to a good life is also important. Hence why I’ve always considered myself a liberalist. The question for me is whether charity and ethical use of spending power would be sufficient to prevent exploitation and poverty. Like you say, it probably would deal with these just as well as a government, but In my mind, I’m not exactly sure.