I am a long time computer user and fairly new to the world of Linux and right-off-the-bat I discovered two worlds withing Linux distros.
World #1
The Fee Software Foundation (started by Richard Stallman and creator of the GNU Project) recommends only a handful of distros that actually support the movement of providing 100% free software (free as in freedom and NOT free beer). Free meaning a distro that does not contain any binary "blobs" and non-free software.
See:
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
http://www.gnu.org/distros/
http://www.fsf.org/resources/
World #2
All other distros that include binary blobs and non-free software supposedly to make certain functions on the GNU/Linux distro work (to my understanding).
Review of both worlds
Although I can see the reasoning behind both worlds, I'm not sure if this is a deciding factor when choosing a Linux distro. Sure the 100% free movement may work in theory but if Linux is still behind in the desktop functionality world I'd like to be able to load a distro that can actually compete (somewhat) with windows. Any thoughts on this please?
My criteria when choosing a distro is that I prefer it to be USA based (if possible - for English based communications). This led me to discover Ultimate-Edition.
Thank you
Although I support this movement, I'm confused as to what problems I may face by installing such distros as gNewSense or Trisquel in that I may limit the functionality of my system as my abi