[SATLUG] Why Ubuntu is the best distribution for wifi-enabled computers

[Thomas Cameron]

On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 21:56 -0500, Sean Carolan wrote:
> Ubuntu includes the madwifi binary drivers for Atheros based wifi
> chipsets.  This may not seem like a big deal, but it's huge for people
> whose only convenient way to connect to the internet is via wifi.
> Yes, you could download a driver .rpm or .deb on another box (or from
> within Windows on the same machine), copy to a USB stick, load them on
> your box and try to configure it by hand . . .
> 
> But what if you're a newb, and you don't know that you need
> madwifi-kmdl and madwifi-hal-kmdl as well as madwifi?  Now you have to
> either reboot or walk over to that other computer to download another
> package, put it on the usb stick, etc.  And if you can get this far,
> how do you choose from the 50 different drivers that have been
> compiled for the last 5 kernel revisions on 32 and 64 bit
> architectures?  A Linux power user could figure this out with the
> uname command, but he shouldn't *have* to.
> 
> Ubuntu handles the situation well by including binary drivers but
> giving the end user the option to use them or not.  It's as easy as
> clicking on the "restricted drivers" menu option and checking a box.
> 
> Why doesn't Red Hat (or Fedora) do this?  Are there any other "free as
> in beer" distributions that include wifi and graphics drivers this
> way?
> 
> Disclaimer:  I use Ubuntu on my work laptop, and CentOS 5 on my home
> workstation.

The reason that Red Hat does not include binary only drivers is that it
is a violation of the license to do so.  Red Hat, having morals and a
respect for the law (not to mention deep pockets - ripe for a law suit)
will not package binary only drivers in clear violation of the law.
Canonical is a company based in South Africa.  Hard for the binary only
driver vendors to sue them, and very little chance of success.  

Additionally, Fedora includes *only* Free/Open Source Software.  There
is no IP encumbered software in Fedora.  Ubuntu only embraces free
software when it is convenient, then they flout the law when it is not.
Easy for you as the end user, but morally and ethically wrong.  I am
proud to be part of the Fedora community and I am proud that I do not
espouse the attitude "free software except when it's inconvenient."

Ubuntu the best distro?  I think not.  Canonical the best Linux company?
Hardly.

Thomas