ogg is second only to flac in sound quality and it comes first if you consider the quality/size ratio, IMO.bark_bark_bark wrote:The only thing I have to say about ogg, is that it sucks compared to more common formats.
Regards.
musher0
Free Software Puppy
Regards.
musher0
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
There's very few wireless cards that work with "Free" drivers--basically, many of the Atheros chips, Zydas USB stuff (now part of Atheros), and some wireless-G Broadcom hardware. And my own Atheros wireless doesn't work right with ath5k. (I forget if some of the Prism chips would work.)
In fact, there are several ethernet cards that need firmware, like my RTL8169.
mp3 support is technically available in Free software (lame, mad, mpg123 now that it's LGPL), but some argue that the patents mean that a Free distro shouldn't package it; Debian says that decoders count as free now that they have a lawyer to advise them (IIRC).
In fact, there are several ethernet cards that need firmware, like my RTL8169.
mp3 support is technically available in Free software (lame, mad, mpg123 now that it's LGPL), but some argue that the patents mean that a Free distro shouldn't package it; Debian says that decoders count as free now that they have a lawyer to advise them (IIRC).
For connectivity in free-software installations use ndiswrapper and assign the Windows-Driver to be firmware for the card. CD and DVD drives contain maker-proprietary firmware, as do all CPUs. Since free software attaches to those with no political complaints it should to net cards, too. I would, myself, not being a purist, use any freely available driver that would run the card and consider it part of the card. Purists, though, should be able to remain conscientiously pure through using ndiswrapper to insulate their systems from their cards' proprietary chipsets and drivers.
For a fully restriction-free software Puppy, and have it be a Puppy (r), BarryK would have to build a restriction-free-software building environment, like Woof, but containing only politically correct free software. Using that official free-software Puppy-builder environment builders could build as they do from Woof. and then modifiers and users could add from repositories as with all puppies. Each could decide for himself, or herself, how pure he or she wants his or her project or derivative to remain, and each user can decide if, and how much, to compromise for what he or she wants, or may be forced by his or her hardware. For example, if his or her computer has Radeon or Nvidia graphics, which cannot be changed without changing computers.
Thus, the request should be put to BK to add to all his other projects putting together an 'All Restriction Free' [ARF]? variant of Woof. I suppose we should put it to him in a prayer, since he is the God of our Puppy Linux Environment.
After having played around with the available variants of all free software linuxes I can see there is a need for a Puppy variety there. A free-software linux that, while it may be restricted by the restrictions of the free software available, would work within that restriction. I mean work as a small and live distro, smoothly and efficiently, and usably, as Puppies do.
For a fully restriction-free software Puppy, and have it be a Puppy (r), BarryK would have to build a restriction-free-software building environment, like Woof, but containing only politically correct free software. Using that official free-software Puppy-builder environment builders could build as they do from Woof. and then modifiers and users could add from repositories as with all puppies. Each could decide for himself, or herself, how pure he or she wants his or her project or derivative to remain, and each user can decide if, and how much, to compromise for what he or she wants, or may be forced by his or her hardware. For example, if his or her computer has Radeon or Nvidia graphics, which cannot be changed without changing computers.
Thus, the request should be put to BK to add to all his other projects putting together an 'All Restriction Free' [ARF]? variant of Woof. I suppose we should put it to him in a prayer, since he is the God of our Puppy Linux Environment.
After having played around with the available variants of all free software linuxes I can see there is a need for a Puppy variety there. A free-software linux that, while it may be restricted by the restrictions of the free software available, would work within that restriction. I mean work as a small and live distro, smoothly and efficiently, and usably, as Puppies do.
Nope. ndiswrapper uses proprietary drivers. List of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines: ndiswrapper, ndisgtkCLAM01 wrote:For connectivity in free-software installations use ndiswrapper and assign the Windows-Driver to be firmware for the card. CD and DVD drives contain maker-proprietary firmware, as do all CPUs. Since free software attaches to those with no political complaints it should to net cards, too. I would, myself, not being a purist, use any freely available driver that would run the card and consider it part of the card. Purists, though, should be able to remain conscientiously pure through using ndiswrapper to insulate their systems from their cards' proprietary chipsets and drivers.
By the same token, loading replacement microcode on an old CPU is verboten, as is anything where the OS loads firmware/code that is not derived by compilation from publicly available Free/Libre source code.
I've looked at the restrictions associated with the FSF's version of "Free", and it is truly a mess. In fact, it tramples on free speech (examples to be found in the connochaetos forums).
The FSF's take seems to be somewhere between "If you don't agree with our guidelines, we don't care what you think" and "If you're not a purist, you're a traitor!"
"hmmmm.......", as Patriot used to say.
The Puritans have taken over the Free Software Religion.
Thanks for the corrections and information, ibidem. Convening a seance I find the spirits advising me to stay pagan. And consulting my crystal ball, I see Puppy avoiding the crusaders and dodging their religious wars...
The Puritans have taken over the Free Software Religion.
Thanks for the corrections and information, ibidem. Convening a seance I find the spirits advising me to stay pagan. And consulting my crystal ball, I see Puppy avoiding the crusaders and dodging their religious wars...
I think it would be a great idea to be able to identify hardware that could be supported by a "completely free" version of Puppy.
It must be possible.
And it would be a buzz to kick off a new version of youtube using only free codecs. Ok, it would be a small start, but as they say "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow". Also, I feel that freedom from proprietary codecs is another way to move us towards privacy and security (if such a thing can ever exist...)
It must be possible.
And it would be a buzz to kick off a new version of youtube using only free codecs. Ok, it would be a small start, but as they say "Mighty oaks from little acorns grow". Also, I feel that freedom from proprietary codecs is another way to move us towards privacy and security (if such a thing can ever exist...)
MP3 playback doesn't require proprietary software to be played back, the only problem is that it's patented, (in the U.S. at least) so the Free Software to play it back is patent infringing. I'd assume that the MP3 decoder in Puppy is free (as in freedom).bark_bark_bark wrote:If puppy only had free software, it would be a disaster playing my music (as they are in .mp3 and I want it that way). I also couldn't connect to the interent without a 100ft+ long ethernet cord.
Not running as root is the cause of my inferiority complex.
The distro I use, Trisquel, is based in Spain, where software patents are illegal, so the developers don't have to worry about getting sued for patent infringement.Ibidem wrote: mp3 support is technically available in Free software (lame, mad, mpg123 now that it's LGPL), but some argue that the patents mean that a Free distro shouldn't package it; Debian says that decoders count as free now that they have a lawyer to advise them (IIRC).
Not running as root is the cause of my inferiority complex.
No one is forced to adhere to their guidelines. Even my computer is not fully free. There is the nonfree BIOS and CPU microcode.CLAM01 wrote: The FSF's take seems to be somewhere between "If you don't agree with our guidelines, we don't care what you think" and "If you're not a purist, you're a traitor!"
The problem is, if you can't look at the source code of the BIOS and CPU microcode, you don't really know if there are any malicious "features" in them.
Not running as root is the cause of my inferiority complex.