ESR Says Linux Followers Should Compromise

jpheasant writes "Eric Raymond argues time is running out to win over the iPod generation. To get there, he says the Linux community will need to make 'compromises.' For starters: 'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'" From the article: "I mean that we need to be prepared to go to the rights holders for these proprietary codecs and say, we'll give you money, give us a license; and this is something that the Linux community has a huge antipathy to doing because we've got all this idealism about open source. And in the long run, I think that's true, I view comprising with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open."

That's ridiculous

[maynard]

There's absolutely no need to 'compromise' on including proprietary binary kernel modules to perform DRM. If the media companies want Linux users to be able to read their chosen formats, they can release the source GPL'd and Linus will include it in the tree, or not, based on his own quirky ideas of code cleanliness. Linus has made it clear he'll accept DRM support code. So, there is no issue here as far as "compromising" with the media companies.

Before anyone bitches about refusing to release the code for security reasons, I'll simply state: "security through obscurity is neither" blah blah blah.

On my bullshit soapbox, here's what I say: open source DRM is fine by me as long as it's limited to restricting specific media filetypes. In the end, \*I\* must control \*my\* computer. Which means that I still get to boot Linux, remove or never install the DRM module at will, and continue using and running free software and media without content restrictions.

IOW: My computer Sony! How about I not download and buy your music/films and you keep your filthy hands off my computer? Deal?

   

with what money

[jeeperscats]

What money are we supposed to use to pay these people for a license to use their codecs? How is a distro like debian supposed to raise money to buy a license without charging money for the distro? Free as in speech is great but many of us also like the free beer part. If we want to keep linux free in every way it will be very hard to start licensing software for inclusion in distros.

Why should I care about the iPod generation?

[njdj]

I'm a developer. I develop for Linux (actually for the GNU/Linux environment; I'm not a kernel developer) because I value programming freedom. I don't care a rat's ass for "market share". Why would I? I get the same amount of money, $0.00, for my apps whether they're used by one person or 10 million people.

The phrase "the iPod generation" means to me a bunch of kids who are pure consumers. They produce nothing I want. I despise their sheep-like following of fashion, I despise their inability to think for themselves, and I despise their taste in music. To consider giving up any part of my programming freedom to please these people is absurd.

Re:again, he's right

[garcia]

None of your comments have anything to do with GNU/Linux [I say GNU because many things like cameras are dealt with in the userspace].

Thanks for proving why *I* don't recommend Linux to regular old computer users. Without the software base out there, shit just doesn't magically work and that's what people expect.

Even after 10 years running Linux, I had to fuck around for three days reading up on stuff to figure out what the hell was broken. I have a feeling that 99% of people out there don't give a enough of a fuck to do that. Believe me, even after 10 years, I was certainly ready to throw in the towel ;)

Re:again, he's right

[tomstdenis]

Hint: Stop buying monopolyware.

My GFX, TV, Sound and Network cards all work in Linux. I educated myself and bought specific stuff [that you can order from any wholesaler] and have been smooth sailing for years.

Oh right, you have to know two things about computers. Shit sorry. I forgot it's hip to be a techno-ignorant-opiniated bastard. if you're going to embrace technology it may pay off to know a thing or two about it. Otherwise, you're at the whim of whatever your corporate masters decide.

No HD in Vista32. BUY BUY BUY Buy new hardware, more more more, buy a new OS, just to play a movie!

I dunno about you, but I don't like the feeling of being owned. I mean it's bad enough I'm legally the property of Canada ... hehehe.

Tom

Killer Apps

[Peter Trepan]

Obviously, the iPod generation doesn't mind laying down a few hundred dollars for the latest and greatest technology. The way to win them over to Linux is not to play catch-up, or even to offer a free alternative to something that already exists. Linux will have to offer some killer app that can't be had on Windows or OS X.

I'm not sure what that would be, but there's an angle: FOSS developers are free to develop applications that don't have a business model, and paid developers are not.

Re:why?

[Abcd1234]

ESR said it himself: "I view comprising (sic) with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open." (emphasis mine) In the end, this is about stopping the software vendors and media conglomerates from tying up the PC with DRM, patents, and so forth.

Or, at least, that's the theory. :)

Re:again, he's right

[twistedcubic]

This does not solidify ESR's claim, unless his claim is for everyone to buy a Mac. And even then, you don't get to play Windows Media clips, without effort, which is what you're against. Indeed, as I change the context of your quote: "If Windows is capable of doing these things, and Mac OS X isn't, then the average user is going to assume that Mac OS X is crippled in that regard." Indeed.

Re:Would they accept recitals of klingon poetry?

[isolationism]

I can't remember the last time I watched a DVD on my computer, so I'll focus on one of those "proprietary" CODECs that I do care about.

Preamble: just because I can and because someone always feels the need to point this out, it may as well be me this time: 'OGG' isn't a format, it's a file extension. You probably mean Ogg Vorbis (as opposed to Ogg Theora, FLAC, etc.).

The very same Ogg Vorbis is a sore point with me. I agree with a number of the salient benefits with the format:

• Free as in Speech
• Free as in beer
• Supported by major software players on all platforms
• Better sounding files than mp3 (especially at lower bitrates)
• Faster encodes (way, way faster than LAME)
• Perfect gapless playback with no tricks or hacks or guessing

So why the hell is it that at least 95% of portable mp3 players don't support Ogg Vorbis? I went out of my way to buy a model that specifically did support it (by Samsung) and the compatibility is lousy: Vorbis files cause the player to choke and often crash for no reason; mp3s and other formats play just fine. Other vendors (including the big boys like Apple) don't care enough to even bother; the only other vendor I know besides Samsung that has tried to support ogg is iRiver, and only on a select few of their devices at that.

Well, the justification just isn't there. They figure most people don't use Ogg Vorbis, they use mp3 or some other even trashier DRM format, so they'll support the masses -- who cares about the geeky The article as stated is short on good grammar and spelling but states the facts plainly: Until Linux grows up and supports these basic operations Out Of The Box like playing an mp3 without having to go out of their way to "taint" their distro with non-free software /licences (or whatever else), Linux is going to stay in the nerd niche, and it's not going to be as slick an experience as that which the big businesses are willing to dump millions into making it work like people expect.

Re:again, he's right

[pionzypher]

You may not care about Joe Blow. But someone obviously does. Why else keep improving KDE and Gnome? Why implement a HAL? Most of us here are comfortable in a terminal and fluxbox. The Linux movement isn't just about providing an environment for geeks and elitists to hack around in. Nor is it meant to be simply a kick ass alternative server OS. It's about furthering the idea of open standards and open formats. Isn't the desktop OS the most lacking in this department? Sure they've got SMB working, but what about video drivers from ATI/NVIDIA? I'm positive that there are quite a number of people here who still dual boot into windows for particular games whether it's because of driver issues or simply because winex doesn't run the game to their satisfaction.

To push these companies to start to support linux better, they need to see a userbase that makes it worth the effort and money. To get the userbase, linux may have to make concessions. Is that so wrong?

Re:What does ESR do, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me started.

I've listened to that pompous windbag speak a couple times. He thinks he's singlehandedly responsible for Linux, Open Source and GNU software. At our local LUG, he gave a talk and kept on interjecting how much money he made. Then he kept on telling us how he ushered in the Linux era. It's funny to compare him to other "geek heroes" such as Woz, maddog, or Linus Torvalds. Those folks were friendly and seemed genuinely interested in people. Wozniak, for example, spent a couple hours after his talk to share stories with his audience. He signed autographs, posed for photographs, etc.. He came across as an uncle visiting family. Torvalds and maddog were just awesomely friendly and kidded around, telling jokes. ESR? He actually pointed me to his "rates" for speaking and reminded me a couple times that he makes lots of money just to talk. Windbag.

Re:Since when

[WilliamSChips]

Um, what code has ESR written in the last 5 years? At least Perens made Technocrat, what has ESR done period other than stupid libertarian ranting?

Re:again, he's right

[shadowbearer]

While I understand and respect your point, I've had similar experiences with windows - ie, having to beat my head repeatedly against the wall for days trying to figure out why something isn't working right. Granted fewer problems with XP, but there are still some that took some time. Like the printer driver for my HP Business Inkjet 2200 that installed fine on the last XP install I did a few years back, but after a hard drive crash and a reinstall of XP the driver simply would not install correctly (same driver file, turned out to be an obscure conflict with a windows update, took nearly a week)

  I do tech support on the side and most of the problems I fix - for windows users - (and I'm going to leave out viruses, trojans, and the like as that isn't what we're talking about) are more or less simple fixes for me but nearly impossible for them.

  Operating systems aren't perfect, whether Windows, MacOSX, or Linux. Users can expect automagical perfect functionality, but there is no operating system which provides it. Not one; and there will likely never, ever be one. That's why geeks like us keep getting those telephone calls...

  Linux has come a long ways - and will continue to evolve; personally I feel it's evolving much, much faster than windows is. If one considers, oh, Redhat 5x to be about the equivalent of win3.1 - I started with RH 5.1 and that's how it felt to me - and looks at the timeframe from then until now with such incredible dists as Ubuntu*, the future looks bright indeed...

Cheers,
SB
  * Another experience: I have a cheapass usb 802b wireless device I bought on clearance at Radio Shack some years ago - drivers under windows were never stable at all and even when they worked the throughput sucked; but a few months back whilst going thru some of my old stuff I found it and decided to give it a try on the same laptop, but this time under Ubuntu. Works like a charm, 100% stable, only thing I had to do was call up the wireless lan config and tell it to use dhcp. Bing! and running as fast as my other, newer 802b, which works well under both OS's. Sure, it's a driver issue. But it *worked* using a FOSS driver. Shocked me somewhat, and it's nice to be able to use that old laptop everywhere :-)

Re:That's ridiculous

[Rich0]

CPUID isn't really trusted computing - if you have a program that checks the CPUID it is easy enough to bypass - just edit the executable and patch out the part that checks it. Or if you want to be really fancy run it in a VM and give it a bogus CPUID.

The idea of TPM is to prevent these sorts of attacks. The software will ask the TPM for its ID, and the hash of the boot sector. The TPM will reply with an SSL-signed response - so you can't tamper with it. You can only forge it if you have an SSL cert signed by somebody trusted by whoever is looking for your machine state. The software then asks the boot program for the hash of the OS kernel, and the OS kernel for the hash of the program itself. If any of those hashes aren't found in some online database, then some media vendor is going to refuse to send data to you. Potentially your ISP won't let you connect.

The problem with TPM is that you end up with a chip with an embedded private key that you don't know. That means that this chip can report on what is happening at a low level, and the only thing you can possibly do is just block it from working. Of course, no working chip, no internet for you (or DRM-ed media, or whatever).

Now, if the owner of the computer got a copy of the TPM keys installed within, it would be a great tool. I could tell my fileserver to disallow connections from hacked clients, for example. My kids PCs wouldn't run binaries that weren't signed by me. If somehow something did run my router would block it from all network communications. If I hold the keys to the kingdom (the TPM keys) then all this fancy hardware works for ME, and that is great. However, if I don't hold these keys then my hardware works for whoever does hold them.