Kevin Carmony Responds to Criticism 300
sharkscott writes to tell us that LXer's Don Parris took a few minutes to get Kevin Carmony's response to the large amount of criticism he has been taking over offering non-free software in Linspire. From the article: "Essentially, Carmony's position is that, in ten years of holding out, the FOSS community has made relatively few gains, in terms of convincing vendors to release libre codecs and drivers. In other words, the strategy doesn't seem to be working. Additionally, while some will be patient, most users would prefer to have something - anything - that works in the meanwhile."
Continuing Discussion (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that Mr. Paris pointed out to me that Robertson stepped down as CEO. Carmony is running the show now. (Just in case you pay as little attention to Linspire as I do.)
My point still holds, though. There's nothing "wrong" with what Linspire is doing with the Freespire project. They're giving away free binaries (which they don't have to give you) along with all the source code they owe you. In exchange, you may or may not become a Click and Run [wikipedia.org] customer. I don't see an issue here. And no, I don't think that Linspire is really expecting a huge outpouring of volunteer programmers, either.
On another topic (since I can't make fun of poor Mr. Robertson's Linspire work anymore), has anyone noticed the latest from AJAX Launch [ajaxlaunch.com]? It seems that they have added an Excel "Demo" (a pretty bit of XUL that looks like a real spreadsheet), a media player that seems no more sophisticated than the one in sharkscott's link in the summary (if I wanted your website to make noise... grrr...), and a RealPlayer video of the "AJAX Desktop" of the Future.
Are you amazed yet? Ecstatic? Hopping up and down in excitement? Holding your breath in bated anticipation?
No, neither am I.
If... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linspire realizes this, so they're doing all they can to make it easy as they can for new Linux users to use Linux and do what they want. People shouldn't be giving them flack for this.
The OSS team needs to realise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Continuing Discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
All they required was that changes to *their* code be returned to the public. Anything that the licensee creates separately is his own.
Even though the licenses of the software you mentioned permit this, bear in mind that this is not characteristic of Free software, something that GNU and the FSF are very dedicated to. Since GNU/linux is the most popular implementation of their system, naturally you're going to have a large user base that prescribes to the philosphy behind Free software. Even if you don't like hearing complaints from them, it's bound to happen. :)
And more power to them! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe how many times I have been stymied when configuring Linux because it didn't support my major-vendor video card. The "Open Source" version of certain drivers don't work. I tried an OSS implementation of some Nvidia drivers and it could barely spit out any video at all, much less allow me to use the advanced options on the card. I know the OSS developers tried hard, and I appreciate that. However, it just didn't work.
At times like these, I don't really care about politics or philosophy. I'm just trying to get the computer working, and if I get stuck because of OSS, I'll just abandon the project.
I suppose this is the reason why I haven't been a serious user of any Linux Desktop software for years. I use Linux as a server all the time, on dozens of different machines. It works great as a Server.
Why the strategy isn't working... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) To date, the market share represented by open-source operating systems is very small.
2) The users and distributors of opensource operating systems have not presented a united front when it comes to the inclusion of propriety drivers and code. In fact, it seems the vast majority of distributors and users are more than willing to settle for closed, propriety drivers (even when they are crap!)
3) American corporate culture reflexively resists voluntarily releasing information of any kind. It is always easier to say no. Some Taiwanese vendors, for example, have been found by some opensource projects to be rather cooperative when it comes to releasing information. Major American corporations by constrast are a guaranteed stonewall.
Closed source sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
We believe that the only way the world can successfully advance in the field of computer software is by eventually replacing all closed source systems with open source ones.
Take an example of Apple's recent success with Mac OS X. This software, although it contains tons of closed source code, is based on open source code and contains literally hundreds and hundreds of free software packages. Apple would never have succeeded in creating such a feature-rich operating system in the time it took to make it without the availability and use of such open source code.
This is why this Linspire debacle is happening. People know that although the expedient thing to do is to continue using closed source proprietary stuff, the correct thing to do is to get ourselves off that addiction and on to some better software.
Re:If... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does he have some examples? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does he have some examples? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, nvidia "might not" keep the drivers up to date with all the linux kernel side changes that are going on, but they "might not" with windows as well... but they do, so their customers can use their product.
Okay, this weeks drivers might not work with next weeks kernel, but this is a problem with the linux kernel not having the same backwards compatibility as windows. Can hardly blaim nvidia for that.
It's so not as big a deal as everyone keeps making out.
Re:If... (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, the manufacturers don't seem to be suffering. What are you going to use as leverage?
Re:Does he have some examples? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who else but the designers of the hardware to produce drivers (open or otherwise)? They have access to hardware schematics, development plans, and the engineers who designed everything from the fabrication plants to the chips you're writing the drivers for. Do you honestly think you're a good enough programmer to fix a driver for hardware you have no knowledge of? I'm not a programmer hardly at all. It doesn't matter to me if it's open or closed. Either way, I can't fix anything.
Assuming that something won't work because it's closed source is as stupid as the closed source camp claiming FOSS is more susceptible to security vulnerabilities. It's absolute BS. And won't get any help from the vendor? I'd say I'm as likely to not get help from a vendor as it is likely that the FOSS community will label my bug Won't-Fix. God forbid I happen to get some rare bit of critical hardware for which the FOSS "community" consists of one guy who's a complete idiot.
Yes, I understand the FOSS model. Yes, I beleive it is superior. Yes, I believe it is the future. But avoiding closed software because of some nebulous bugaboo makes you seem like Chicken Little in a snowstorm.
Re:If... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And more power to them! (Score:2, Insightful)
So, when do you care? Only when it's convenient?
we don't need their source (Score:3, Insightful)
We want hardware documentation. We can write our own software. Our software will be more stable, portable, and maintainable. Performance could be a win or a lose.
With hardware documentation, we can turn a WinModem into a telephony interface for a PBX. We can support Linux, OpenBSD, GNU HURD, and eCos. We can port the X server to run on the GPU. Lots of neat ideas become possible.
Re:If... (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is exactly what distinguishes between a possible OSS and non-OSS user. It is not price, it is not ease of use, it is not "what my computer plays".
I have a couple of friends who are nowhere near technical computerwise (biologists, humanties, etc). They run Linux for this exact and sole reason (and some of them are pretty happy with good old Debian woody as a matter of fact). They use the computer as a tool that does what they need to do for their daily bread. They do not give a flying f*** about dancing paperclips singing MP3. What they care about is that their daily bread is not being jeopardised by some binary blob taking over the computer.
Similarly, I have friends that extremely technical in the computer sense, high level software developers in fact. They are addicted to bells, whistles, singing paper clips, visual effects and the like. They would not use linux because they cannot get that "special one MP3" to sing on it. That is despite the fact that they get 20-30% less work done as result because of dealing with all the binary blobs taking over the machine.
The singing MP3 is an irrelevant factor in the "To Convert or not Convert" dillema.
People who view the computer as a "tool of the trade" will convert.
People who view it as a "toy" will not until it becomes a "toy". In order for it to become a "toy" it will have to provide facilities to all the direct marketing and MBA graduate low life out there to shag the user. The moment it does it will no longer be OSS and here the circle closes. Frankly, I do not see a point in trying to break this circle as it is kept in motion by economic powers which are selfsustaining in todays world.
No point to bother.
Re:And more power to them! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I tried running proprietary NVidia drivers with a xen-enabled kernel, resulting in total lockups, while the opensource driver worked flawlessly. The proprietary video card drivers are hardly the best example to bring up.
Your mileage may vary.
"I haven't been a serious user of any Linux Desktop software"
Yeah, well, I was surfing around on Microsoft's site and just couldnt find the "download ISO's" link, so I gave up on the project to run anything but Linux as a desktop.
that has already happened (Score:3, Insightful)
By taking the hardline "only OSS" stance at the distro level, we're just pushing installing the non OSS software onto the users. It's just an annoyance that accomplishes nothing.
As far as Linux being locked into unchangeable kernel schemes... maintaining binary compatibility for drivers is something they should be doing anyway. It is something that every other kernel I know of does, and it is just plain annoying that I can't swap out the drivers from one linux install to another because of driver breaks between kernel versions. At the very least, driver compatibility should be guaranteed between minor version numbers.
Re:Continuing Discussion (Score:1, Insightful)
If you ever hear him speak, you'd realise he isn't an idiot.
Linspire suffered at the hands of judgemental geeks for trying to make money out of free software. Given their contributions back to the community, I'd say that their reputation amongst geeks is undeserved.
Linspire does not violate the GPL, so all's good. If, like me, you don't want to use their stuff, then don't bother.
Re:If... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the distro is free, how are they supposed to pay for the licence? Their only choice is to put the rpms, tarballs etc on non-US mirrors, and ask you to get them yourself and pay your own fees if you live in the US.
If it's a paid distro, they generally include mp3, dvd payback and many other codecs on the DVD, paid for out of the purchase price.
By the way, I hope your 'other' operating system isn't windows. That only comes with a crippled mp3 codec and the wma/wmv codecs - linux comes with ogg vorbis, along with other free codecs. If you want divx/xvid, dvd playback, a good quality mp3 codec, realplayer codecs, quicktime (sorenson et al), aac, ac3 etc etc, you need to download them yourself on either operating system.
I've no idea what codecs macs come with out of the box, but I'm betting it's primarily aac and quicktime.
Re:If... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some stuff is currently not doable using only open source software.
More stuff is not doable because it hasn't been invented yet, either in open or closed source software.
I've worked on both free and proprietary systems, and the fact of the matter is that I'm much more productive in doing things that have never been done before on free systems than on proprietary ones. By a factor of about 3, when compared to any platform made by Microsoft.
If "the user" wants to see real innovation in software (and high-tech in general) in the prime of his life, instead of his kids', then he's going to have to learn that what's good for developers is good for him, and what's bad for developers is bad for him.
Re:If... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is, look at what you pay for the software. Not just in monetary terms.
Nvidia doesn't need to put a backdoor in their driver for the cost of it to be too high, because the known cost, without that, is still the users freedom. Their freedom to study how their system works. Their freedom to change how it works, or hire someone to change it for them. The freedom to run WHATEVER OS on it you choose. Sure, they're releasing linux drivers, for now. How's that help you if you want to run BSD? Or Plan9, or BeOS, or anything else? It doesn't. It may not even work when the next kernel comes out.
At the most basic level, it takes away the customers ability to control the hardware they've bought and paid for, even if it doesn't have any unwanted features.
There are plenty of practical problems that go along with that, statistically speaking. More bugs, yes, but more importantly a helplessness against the bugs. If your video driver is buggy and crashing your system, or worse, there are many people out there with the expertise to help debug it - but if that driver is blobware they can't help you. You're reduced to complete dependence on the vendor - who probably doesn't even think of you as a customer. Their customers are other big companies - you are a commodity to them. If you don't want to be that, you have to insist on keeping your freedom.
Now, as to what you were talking about, of course bugs and malware can be inserted in free code - but not nearly as easily, and of course bugs and malware can be detect in unfree blobs - but not near as easily. If that's your only concern, you're an 'open source' person, and that's fine, you still don't want blobware.
But the issues here are much deeper than the practical - the philosophical is much more important, the practicalities are ultimately reflections of the philosophies we live by, consciously or unconsciously. If you don't mind being a commodity that big corporations buy and sell - an 'eyeball' to the media companies and advertisers, for instance, rather than a customer, then I guess you won't mind having no control of the computer hardware you use either. You'll be happy with the blobware running your computer on behalf of its maker, and all their real customers that they sell you to. It'll get you clippy, and hassle-free hollywood movies, and endless britney spears videos, so why should you care if it means your computer really belongs to MS and is for sale to the highest bidders?
That's the issue here, at the core. Everything else follows from it, even the practicalities, because they're a simple consequence of the fact that freedom works. But even if it didn't work so well, some of us would still insist on keeping it.
Re:I've been impressed of late with Linspire (Score:3, Insightful)
It's comments like these that got me started on my intense dislike for some portions of the F/OSS community. I dared to post that Windows has gotten fairly stable, and is actually a reasonable operating system. Not a safe thing to say.
I don't personally know much about Linspire, but I do know that this community has to get rid of whatever's attracting so many people with this offensive elitist attitude. The very existance of the word "luser" makes me feel bad for the perversion of the principles behind free software.
Re:Does he have some examples? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why can't we all just get along? (Score:3, Insightful)
People should be made aware of the choice they're making -- maybe when the next proprietary format comes along, people will actually question it's viability before it becomes an essential part of the computing platform. A lot of the problems this industry is seeing are based on people getting locked-in to a format/software/platform, only because they didn't understand that this was even a possibility (or that there may have been better choices and that they can demand freeness and interoperability from their suppliers).
Getting along doesn't mean keeping your mouth shut.
Re:Groklaw (Score:1, Insightful)
Why don't you address the point of the post? Is Groklaw deleting postings by those who disagree with the prevailing sentiment, or is it not? Is it deleting posts that have critical content or not? If it is, what is the justification?
The typical response to a post that goes against the prevailing sentiment, here or on Groklaw, is a reply that accuses the poster of being a shill, a troll, or an astroturfer. Are you comfortable with a policy that allows criticism to be suppressed merely by ad hominem attacks on the source?
It sounds as if you are, in which case, why should anyone on the other side listen to you? (FOSS commie?)
Cry me a river (Score:3, Insightful)
"So I posted anonymously as I usually do"
Why not stop moaning about it and create an account (free) and post from that? PJ's had SCO astroturfers hitting her sight and has had 'friends' of SCO posting her personal details to the internet at the same time she was getting death threats.
So she might be a little oversensitive. Get over it.
Lost credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Since when does the "Open Source camp" prefer non-copyleft licenses? What kind of drivel is this?
And why is no one screaming and pulling their hair over the fact that Dell ships their RH Enterprise-equipped machines with closed-source nVidia drivers?
I teach my Open Source Technology students that OS is a continuum, and that everyone falls somewhere along that continuum. ESR embraces the business side of OSS, while RMS (firmly!) embraces the libre side...everyone involved in OSS has some philosophical bent. If PJ has a problem with Linspire, she has every right to rant about it. But since she doesn't speak for the OSS movement, we have every right to ignore her (or pick up the pieces we agree with and discard the rest).
The beauty of OSS is that there's room for everyone. Don't like what Linspire is doing? No worries, come up with your own distro that ships with OSS versions of whatever it is about Linspire that rubs you the wrong way.
Re:If... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it is still a long way to, specially when it comes to installing programs. If the program you want is on the repositories, it's a breeze (and I'd like windowd to have something like that)... if it isn't, well, I still haven't been able to install anything without reading a guide on how to do it, and even then, I couldn't install most of the things I tried (actually, the only two things I tried that I could install were the X2 demo, and Houdini Apprentice), and always command line was needed.
I don't really know how linspire works, but I'll probably give it a try once they release freespire (and I get back my second computer, that is...
I understand why some people might not like linspire, since it's not as "free" as other distros... but I do believe that a part of freedom is the actual freedom to choose to use or not those freedoms (did that make any sense?... not native english speaker here..
Hope that all made sense, wrote it in little pieces here and therewhile waiting for different stuff to render in final cut pro...
Not all software is open source, live with it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what? I play Neverwinter Nights and myth2, on my linux/bsd boxes! So shoot me because the source is not open. Its open source fundamentalism, at its worst. If you want to put out a good product, you have to come to the realization that not all drivers or software is free, and unless you want to write your own driver for every single bit of 19.99$ hardware out there, or 29.99$ game or productivity tool, its a lot easier to package binaries.
Re:Why can't we all just get along? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's as unrealistic as people telling you that not only should you be aware where each item of your clothes are made, but all of the components that went into it. The t-shirt you're wearing now... where was it sewn? Where was the cotton grown that went into it? Who was the cotton wholesaler? Where was it dyed? Where did the dye come from? Who made the thread that holds it together? Who made the tag? Who made the ink for the logo on it? Who made the cardboard box that it was shipped in? Who made the oil that powered the ship that shipped it over here from China? Who made the ship that it came in? Who was the trucking company that got it from the ship to the wholesaler? Who was the wholesaler?
C'mon... it's a nice thought, but there are so many hours int he day, and in this day and age, most people are worried about how they're going to be able to buy their next meal, not the licensing of their computer's software.
Re:Posts getting deleted (Score:1, Insightful)
In any case, this wasn't about being anonymous. Many registered users were having their posts deleted and from what other people have said here, you have the bonus of having your entire post history deleted. Hardly an incentive there.
It was discrimination based on whether or not you agreed with her. Plain and simple.
But I still choose to frequent the website. Not as often as I used to and I certainly take the information presented with a huge pinch of salt. Oh, and I don't even bother looking at the comments now that I've seen her "community" in action.