ESR Advocates Proprietary Software 422
mvdwege writes "Apparently, Eric Raymond has decided that proprietary software is now a good thing, according to The Register. I must say it is rather revealing how easily he is willing to compromise on this particular freedom. Is his earlier vocal proclamation of the importance of freedom (still visible on his homepage) mere posturing? And if so, how about his vocal support of other freedoms?"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' article (Score:5, Insightful)
I think ESR is wrong because most people aren't ever going to notice the 64bit transition, at least nothing like the 16-32 bit horrors of the 1990s. Both Linux (almost flawlessly on RH based distros and fairly useable on Debian ones) and Windows have made it all but unnoticable whether one is using 32 or 64 bit apps for 90+% of users and uses. Only those who need to malloc gigs need concern themselves.
But even ignoring all that we might want to consider compromising enough to capture desktop share. It wouldn't be unprecedented, GNU itself was developed on closed platforms because ALL platforms were closed, and after all the FSF is still wanking with HURD.
It isn't the 64 bit barrier we need to worry about, it is the ability to play multimedia content, which ESR also is concerned about, that is a real problem. We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents. Yes I hate them as much as the next geek (and had the consistency to launch a big "Fuck you" to Tivo over yesterday's patent troll by them) but until we can change the rules of the game we are mostly stuck with them. Yes [I] can go get mplayer and most of [YOU] can get it, but corporate america isn't going to take a lawyer bumrush from the MPAA/Franhaufer/etc over the issue. And newbies are being put through a horrible rite of passage when they try to join us.
Re:Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' artic (Score:2)
Re:Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' artic (Score:4, Informative)
We can't write free software - but we can get multimedia stuff to work, if we pay for the license to do so. You can get your DVDs to work 'out-of-the-box' on Linux - just use Linspire. People who believe in the ideals behind Free Software won't (including me), but for those that are worried about 'losing the desktop', options are available.
If this was the thing holding Linux back from being a massive success, Linspire would be selling millions of copies. That they aren't says something.
(Note: I wish Linspire all the luck in the world, even though I don't use their product.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>We can't write free software - but we can get multimedia stuff to work, if we pay for the license to do so. You can get your DVDs to work 'out-of-the-box' on Linux - just use Linspire. People who believe in the ideals behind Free Software won't (including me), but for those that are worried about 'losing the desktop', options are available.
If this was the thing holding Linux back from being a massive success, L
XP 64 vs XP 32 (Score:5, Funny)
And this is different from regular Windows XP how, exactly?
Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popularity (Score:3, Insightful)
To win what, exactly—popularity? For free software advocates popularity is not a goal. Freedom is a goal, a goal that is not achieved by installing non-free software on one's computer.
Even in the essay discussing the LGPL [gnu.org] (formerly known as the "Library GPL" now known as the "Lesser GPL") one can see the FSF making this point:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popular (Score:3, Insightful)
In that regard, ESR is more of a realist than an idealist. From his opinions in the past, and also talking with him (Talking to him in person is EXTREMELY interesting) and seeing one of his lectures back from a year or so after The Cathedral and The Bazaar, I think he has always been a realist that considers open source to
Re:Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popular (Score:3, Insightful)
To win what, exactly--popularity? For free software advocates popularity is not a goal. Freedom is a goal, a goal that is not achieved by installing non-free software on one's computer.
I don't believe that Eric Raymond has never declared himself a partisan of "Free Software" so I don't know why you, the article submitter or the Slashdot editor are acting as if he did. Eric Raymond was one of several people who created an ALTERNATIVE movement to the Free Software Movement. The Open Source movement was sp
64-bit OSs overrated, overhyped, ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then this writing fails. 64-bit OSs as overrated and overhyped. The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic. A lot of people, including those around here, seem to naively believe the move from 32- to 64-bit will be a similar event. It will not. 64-bit will be meaningful for some servers and some other high end applications, for the rest there will be no appreciable immediate benefit. *IF* Joe User gets all excited about 64-bit in the near term it will probably be due to a successful Micorosoft marketing campaign designed to artificially create an upgrade cycle. Barring this there will be a slow migration to 64-bit as Apple and Microsoft make the 64-bit versions of their OSs the default version, not an optional upgrade. In other words Joe User will get 64-bit when he happens to buy some distant new machine (4-5 years ?). The near term upgrades and build-to-order options will be a minority. I'll do it, I'm a programmer, I want my code to be 32/64-bit clean.
16 to 32 transition (Score:3, Interesting)
Only for DOS/Windows users. For Mac users it was largely a non-event, bar some software incompatibilities. Ditto most flavors of Unix.
Re:That's not quite what he said. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's not quite what he said. (Score:4, Informative)
What is an acronym, and what is an initialism, depends on how you pronounce it.
NAFTA is an acronym, because you don't pronounce it En-Ay-Eff-Tee-Ay. Same for SONAR and SCUBA.
"The ESR" would be pronounced like The Ee-Ess-Ar. Not an acronym. The ESRB, the NAACP, and OSDN are all initialisms.
Acronyms vs Initials (Score:3, Funny)
ESR is not associated with Free Software movement. (Score:5, Interesting)
ESR, Eric S. Raymond, is not associated with "FOSS". FOSS is a term used when one wants to give credit to both the Free Software and Open Source movements without favoring either. ESR is a proponent of the Open Source movement and one of the people who started the Open Source Initiative over a decade after the GNU Project and the Free Software movement had been going.
The Free Software movement advocates exclusively for free software because only free software respects users software freedoms (the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software). The Free Software movement examines these issues in terms of ethics, speaks to all computer users, and takes a far broader view than the Open Source movement which never discusses user's freedoms and examines these issues in terms of a developmental process that is chiefly aimed at businesses.
The OSI has given a remarkably disrespectful view of the differences between the two movements, reducing the difference to "ideological tub-thumping" in their FAQ. The Free Software Foundation has a far more informative and respectful view in an essay on the differences between the two movements [gnu.org].
Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, I think we should buy him an iPod [fundable.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He talks a lot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod This Parent Up !!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod This Parent Up !!
We all use the GNU compiler, GNU tools & the vast body of GNU software. Who is using the OSI compiler, OSI tools and the vast body of OSI software? Nobody - because it doesn't exist. Next time they ask you the difference between what the Free Software Foundation does and what the Open Source Initiative does, mention that.
It takes more than a catchy phrase to cause a revolution - it takes a lifelong dedication to writing the software to launch and to perpetuate a revolution - and that would be GNU.
Re:Mod This Parent Up !!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to look at time and circumstances though. There was a need for RMS to build a whole open source system from scratch. When ESR wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," there were GNU/Linux distros already out there. These days the GNU foundation does alot of advocacy. Most of the user land utilities are pretty stable. The compiler, glibc, classpath and such are actively developed. However, all of those would continue if the FSF were to fold. The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment. It does however, accept copyright for open source projects and provides advocacy and legal aide. The OSI, on the other hand, was born in the midst of a world of Free Software. It's purpose was to question some of the ideals of Free Software, develop its own, more business oriented ones, and advocate them. Would it be benificial if the OSI started sponsering some open source projects? I think so. I've personally given to the FSF, and never to the OSI, and my beliefs are more in line with the OSI. This is partially due to GCC and such. I outright disagree with software as a basic human right. However, with what the FSF advocates, and the state of the world today, I'm not worried about closed source software being outlawed any time soon.
I respect and agree with you, mostly, but (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also fair to say that it's NOT true that if RMS hadn't done what he did that someone else would have. It is not to be taken for granted by anyone that without RMS & FSF, sooner or later we would have ended up in essentially the same place we are today.
I know what it's like to have to get a company's permission to write software on their computers, and to pay them a LOT of money for the 'privilege'. NOT FUN. RMS has changed all of our lives in a way that we can only understand by knowing the history and by sitting back for bit and actually thinking about it.
I can't say that for ESR. All he ever did for me was threaten me for using his US service mark 'open source' on my web site, a service mark he didn't actually have. I find it easy to ignore him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of like math, we say that people either prove or discover something. The proper answer has always been there, but somebody had to get it right.
For example, I was using free software long before I believed in it. It was when I had to learn the true ugliness of closed software that I began to believe in alternatives. Thus, my path to freedom was a bit dif
Re:Mod This Parent Up !!! (Score:5, Informative)
The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment.
This is just blatantly wrong.
What do you call Gnu Flash [gnu.org]? Other projects FSF is directing include Free Bios [fsf.org] and an open 3D Card [sourceforge.net] driver. More projects are listed here [fsf.org]. Just like gcc was needed in the 80s, these are the utilities users need now.
At the risk of being modded for flame bait, I'll also point out that it seems most criticisms of the FSF are based on plain ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When it comes to the GCC, a need was filled long before the OSI existed. Thus, not as much interest in re-inventing the wheel.
If the GP really believes that a player who is first to market, is dedicated/committed, and creates/exploits network effects is in the right, then viva the closed source revolutionaries!
Yes, they can be granted the title of being in the right
or not (Score:3, Informative)
That is becuase they are from the GNU project and not from the FSF - it appears that even RMS proposing to put the gnu prefix before the word linux did not raise awareness of it as much as he wished! A lack of basic awareness of what GNU does and what the FSF does and thinking they are both the same thing renders the argument of the proir post clueless. Both groups share members and
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot's wonderful humor (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Using proprietary software means I've somehow lost my freedom? I'm free to choose whatever software I wish to use to get the job done, proprietary or otherwise. Can someone explain to me what is meant by compromising on freedom by using proprietary software?
Re:Slashdot's wonderful humor (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I should wait for you to get back to me when you learn to write proper English so I can understand you.
Your strawman argument notwithstanding, it's still completely common knowledge that Stallman's goal is to get rid of proprietary software and have everyone using Open Source, because he considers proprietary software to be evil.
I never said Stallman wanted the government to "ban" proprietary software.
Absolutely. I'm glad you're finally catching up.
I've backed up Stallman's position countless times and could continue to do so indefinitely. I've given you an interview and could give you more. Everybody knows Stallman doesn't believe in proprietary software and wants to do away with it. You're obviously in denial. I'd love to be in your sig. It will serve as a constant reminder to you that I completely owned your ass in this debate long ago, to the point that you're now actually arguing that you never had a position in the first place. Please.
Next.
Simple. Who is paying his bills these days? (Score:2)
Like they say on the TV cop shows: Follow the monry and the truth will be revealed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what GP is insinuating, but I'm personally tired of this attitude to the discussion. As explained in many many places, the free software movement is about building free software because (they/I feel) it is the right thing to do. On principle. The priorities are 1) Freedom; 2) Practicality. You can (and apparently do) order them differently and peace be with you. Why do you want to pick a fight with GP?
Re: (Score:2)
Sun funds and staffs OpenOffice.org., wohich serves Sun's corporate interests. Following your logic. anyone who posts so much as a word in favor of OpenOffice must be on Sun's payroll.
ESR has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most salient paragraphs from the fine article:
This is true. This is the nature of the commercial world. And this will kill linux if it isn't addressed.
I already have various "paid for" applications on my linux machine -- I think it's a responsibility to support the linux and open source world -- not everyone can afford to put something out there for nothing.
And, almost the only reason I still maintain Microsoft machines and use them is there are certain critical applications I use still not available on Linux. Why? I've corresponded with some of these vendors and their responses to my gentle request for a Linux version of their applications were surprising.
What I expected was a dismissive "not big enough market" argument. While that was part of the argument the surprise was from a couple where they said they weren't about to give their product away for free -- they just couldn't afford to do it.
Again, they said they weren't about to give their product away for free! So, like it or not, there is a perception out there by vendors/providers that the Linux community not only is a small community and not likely to bring in big money, but they see the Linux community as cheap! Network trailer trash. Open Source crackers.
Really, until the mantra "free" is clarified (and I don't think it is entirely), businesses and providers will only take from the Linux community, not give.
In my discussions with some of these providers I've assured them the Open Source community is willing to pay for product. Maybe we aren't. But if we're not, and continue with the attitude that everything should be free, ESR is right, Linux stands to eventually lose a war regardless of any battles it wins.
It's the nature of the beast.
Re:ESR has a point (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, it's just perplexing to me that Apple doesn't provide an iTunes app for Linux, presumably binary for the DRM. They make money off the users using it, not from the app itself.
Anyway, the people who pay for many of the apps like Photoshop are businesses, it's irrevelant if it is on MS or Photoshop, they still will pay to remain compliant. Are you sure you weren't being thrown a curveball, since another very public side of Linux is the one IBM is displaying?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GPLv3 is not a stupid move. Face it, there are (at least) three distinct classes of computer users whose interests are now in full conflict due to DRM: consumers, software developers, and content sellers. GPLv3 brings this conflict out into the open and provides some practical leverage for software developers against content creators, sorely needed in these days where the content creators have so much more money to purchase fa
Re:ESR has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
A linux version with closed source, just like the companies mac / windows / what have you version.
or
A linux version with source, but A) you have to pay for it and B) you're not allowed to distribute/share source or even more restrictive the source is under an NDA.
both of which are the most likely commercial releases of a linux product. I think the only release that would be welcomed with open arms (no pun intended) would be a release that while paid for, still releases the source code and rights to use and distribute it. Unfortunately, to a comercial company, even if the initial software is paid for, that's still very much like giving their product away for free.
What honestly needs to happen is that FOSS and the general Linux distributions (the one's looking to make headway in the home market) need to become seperate causes. FOSS has a goal and a noble goal at that to have all free and open software, but most comercial vendors don't see that as viable, and the FOSS tie in with Linux is keeping many from even trying linux. So in the end, you can't even begin to get companies to see the benefits because you can't get them to take that first step.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> the source code and rights to use and distribute it.
And just why would the source have to include redistribution rights? Commercial 'open source' software is a perfectly reasonable thing once you get past the mental blocks put up by a generation of commercial==closed thinking. Binaries are a technical artifact caused by compilers having a speed advantage over scr
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't have too, but the FOSS comunity (or at least the vocal ones) would demand it, and anything less would be derided as half assed. Further more, you still have to account for the fact that many companies have competition and sometimes a big trick to do something that's hidden away because you don't have the source is their upper hand for the moment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yes, I know that is the current reality. I'm arguing that we as a society have zero reason to permit it. You should not be able to have both a trade secret and a copyright on the same thing. If you manage to obtain the secret formula for Coke you can publish it because they opted to ke
Misconceptions in the commercial community (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a lot of FUD among the commercial vendors, much of it probably being spread by a certain behemoth vendor and allies. Yes, many less clueful ones still think a Linux port has to be free, as if the GPL would taint their code or something. Others do subscribe to the belief that Linux users are either Free Software zealots who wouldn't pay regardless or are all a bunch of poor starving students. Some of us are hard nosed realists who refuse to be fooled again by being subject to the whims of vendors to the greatest extent possible. Some of us realize the Free stuff usually works a hell of a lot better than the piles of steaming crap vendors want to exchange a pile of cash for.
We just have to educate them. I will pay for software under very limited circumstances. If there is NO Free Software that can do the work I'll pay. If it isn't important (games) I'll pay. If it is going to process content I create it MUST write that in an open format, I won't be locked to a single vendor's whims. So I wouldn't buy Photoshop, even if Hell froze over and they ported it, unless I had an absolute requirement that The GIMP couldn't satisfy but since it writes many open formats I would buy it if I had to. Games are't a problem though. I really hated to see Loki go out, I did buy stuff from them.
At work we do the same thing. We have bought software before and will almost certainly buy it in the future. Just because I prefer Free Software doesn't mean we can refuse to computerize an operation just because there isn't a Free program available and we certainly don't have the man hours available to write an accounting system from scratch. That is just an example, yes there are some free offerings but none are anywhere ready yet. None can yet handle vital functions like payroll.
I think Linux users sometimes forget .... (Score:4, Insightful)
This "battle" goes on all the time, regardless of the platform being coded for, but Linux is rather unique in the fact that it gives sort of a centralized "scapegoat face" to the issue.
As just one example (from the Windows world), I was at work several weeks ago, and ran into a need to convert a really oddball image file format to something more typical like GIF or JPG. I located a shareware product selling for about $40 that was perfect.... but before paying out the money, I did a little more searching. Just as I was about to give up, I found a free product some guy wrote to solve the same problem at his work.
Now, realistically, who knows if the shareware author was even aware that someone else made a free product that competes with his? But if he did, don't you think he'd probably be at least a little bit annoyed, disappointed, or upset that somebody just cut into his potential revenue stream?
Now, take this to a corporate level
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles [gnu.org] explaining what you mean by free. Further, even if you do want to do write these articles, the executives at the companies you are writing will not read them. You even have an interest in the topic, have you read them?
The bottom line is that most business executives do not want to put themselves on the line to come up with a creative product strategy, and even those that do hav
"Open Source" is not clearer than "Free Software" (Score:3, Insightful)
So instead, we have confusion over what "open source" means. That term is no more clear and comes with its own long essay on what the term means (a 10-part definition, last I looked, which is longer than the definition of free software). At least with the FSF you get respectful descriptions of how things are complete with references and quotes
I didn't get the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some things will never be Free, some things will always be free... they should at least work together though. It's insane in this age that applications are still written only to work on one platform and virtually impossible to move between them.
Id like to see for example KDE applications on windows and
Re:ESR has a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah. The question is not "Why doesn't Linux work with my iPod?", it's "Why don't iPods work with my choice of operating system?"
While digital personal music players are certainly here to stay, the iPod itself is a fad, a trend, which in 30 years will be as meaningful as the original Sony Walkman is today. For the Free Software community to compromise its core principles for compatibility with a fad would be foolish.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or alternatively and preferably, until these ingrates have all been implemented around and driven out of business. Yes, I would far rather live in a world where the people who seek only to accumulate wealth and power (at the expense of all else) end up losing. And that's the only reason why these 'providers' act in this manner.
Nobody has a 'right' to end
Uhhh, duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
No, I do agree with RMS on that part. Closed software is ALWAYS bad. Sometimes I'm willing to compromise principles a bit and use it anyway but it is always bad. I would have a lot fewer problems with it though if when I bought a program a got the source. At least I wouldn't be totally tied to the whims of the vendor. If a bug were biting me hard enough I could fix it, when I upgraded the OS/hardware I could fix things myself if the vendor either w
Re:Uhhh, duh. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Free and non-free don't treat users the same way. (Score:2)
Re:Free and non-free don't treat users the same wa (Score:5, Insightful)
-Rick
Effect on the users is more important. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't mind paying for free software, in fact I've done so for individual programs as well as entire free operating systems. But I refuse to believe that the effect on users is unimportant or that one can't run a business by distributing and building upon free software. Plenty of large and small businesses (including my own) would prove me wrong by their mere ongoing existence. I would rather do busin
Re: (Score:2)
"Inspect and modify" has meaning only if you are a programmer or can employ a programmer. That excludes the home market and huge chunks of other markets.
Um.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's only half of it. You also have to include "as long as my choice does not restrict the freedom of others". Without that clause simply "choice" would lead to less freedom than more freedom. I think the majority of FSF advocates have no problem with a person using proprietary software as long as it doesn't restrict their own freedoms. For example having proprietary software forced upon you, like certain kinds of DRM. But as long as there remains a choice between Free and Non-Free there shouldn't be an issue.
Freedom is not "choice". (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice can be a scam that can railroad you out of something more important, such as your software freedom.
For some time, web users who wanted a (then) modern GUI web browser had Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape Navigator to choose from. You only need two alternatives to have "choice" but here one had three to pick from.
None of these choices respect a user's software freedom because all of those programs are proprietary.
Re: (Score:2)
You [openhardware.de] think [opencores.org] so? [duskglow.com]
Everybody Loves Eric Raymond! (Score:5, Funny)
Not the target audience (Score:5, Insightful)
Raymond, a champion of all things open, said it is vital to the future uptake of Linux that the community compromise to win the new generation of non-technical users aged younger than 30. This group is more interested in having Linux "just work" on their iPod or MP3 player and "don't care about our notions of doctrinal purity",
Indeed they don't. So?
It seems that ESR has started believing that "overthrowing Windows" is the end goal of Linux. It's not, it's having a completely open and Free Unix system. That group he talks about, they'll just use Windows or whatever, and be happy. I don't see how that matters for Linux' direction.
Re:Not the target audience (Score:5, Insightful)
Proprietary software isn't a threat to Free Software, but proprietary standards are, because then Free Software users begin to be excluded from the rest of the population. Open standards are an issue of fairness and equality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"the end goal of GNU is to have a Free Unix-like operating system"
You mean like the BSDs?
[insert mandatory joke about reinventing the wheel, but this time with an ew feature heretofor unthought of - SQUARE SIDES!]
GNUpod, gtkpod etc. (Score:5, Informative)
* GNUpod [gnu.org] and gtkpod [gtkpod.org]
* iPod Shuffle Database Builder [sourceforge.net]
And then there's another one with a funky name I cannot remember.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and the funky naming of major applications is a whole 'nother issue that has an impact on consumer acceptance of Linux. Given that most users of computer systems will give up on something if they can't figure it out in half a minute, making said user waste any of that precious thirty seconds trying to figure out that his browser is called "Konqueror" is silly, and most of the other standard Linux apps have equally off-the-wall names.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GNUpod, gtkpod etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
* GNUpod and gtkpod
* iPod Shuffle Database Builder
And then there's another one with a funky name I cannot remember.
I think your post, and the majority of other posts on this thread, serve to illustrate the fundamental disconnect that's in play here.
From GNUpod's home page [gnu.org]: GNUpod is a collection of Perl-Scripts which allow you to use your iPod... If you really think this is what your typical person (you know, the type who have better things to do in the evening than sit around hacking Linux kernel modules) wants, then I don't think I can explain it to you.
gtkpod [gtkpod.org] is much closer to what these "normals" would want. But it looks like there are still problems with iPod Mini support; you need a separate program to handle podcasts; there's no support for DRM'ed AAC (one of ESR's exact points, I believe); you have to use a different program to rip CDs to mp3/aac/whatever, and then manually import them.
Plus if you go to the troubleshooting links, you'll find "solutions" that talk about manually editing
Frankly, I think ESR's thoughts on this are spot-on; and most of the posts here today are serving to prove his point, although the posters don't realize it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've plugged my ipod on a fresh install of kubuntu 6.06 and it worked out of the box. I don't see where the problem is.
craps (Score:3)
This is the usual media crap we see these days popping up everyplace. And we also should tell everywhere that it's not true, iPods are easy (try Amarok or choose your poison), mp3/ogg/every other music format is easy, wmp is easy (think next realplayer version, think mplayer, etc.).
Whenever I try to pitch Linux to anyone under 30, the question I get is: 'Will it work with my iPod?
While this is not a question anybody should be surprised about, I'm still happy that where I live is apprarently not like where he lives
at the end of 2008. After that the operating system gets locked in for the next 30 years
I don't think we (linux or not) need such close-minded people. This smells more rotten than anything else.
Comprimise is Good (Score:4, Interesting)
At the same time, it will win software manufacturer support and more people will realize that they can make software for Linux that is proprietary. While the Linux community has always said this, some software manufacturers are still scared due to the militant ideal of keeping EVERYTHING free. I too think everything should be free but I don't think it's going to be possible without making concessions. Allow some through the door to get others involved and then once critical mass has been achieved, people will start creating their own options.
Can't win that way (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should *we* become what *they* want? If Linux is good for them, they will use it. If not, they won't. Big humongous liver-flavored deal. I don't care if businesses adopt Linux or not. I just care that I have the freedom to use Linux on hardware I purchase, and have the freedom to work on the software I want without danger of a slap-happy patent lawsuit.
If we go down the path of sa
Proprietary FUD (Score:2)
pulling your FUD PUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
2003 is on the phone for ESR (Score:4, Insightful)
There are certain vague caveats: there are some theoretical issues with valid patents related to MP3. But the holder doesn't seem to want to cause problems, unlike the holders of invalid patents on practically everything else. Getting the latest and best support for Windows Media files requires using a freely-available but proprietary codec as a plugin to the player program.
The actual issue, so far as I can tell, is that people conflate the iTunes Music Store with iPods, and so they ask ESR about iPods (which are easy) when they mean to ask about the iTunes Music Store (which is difficult).
He's trying to solve the problem the wrong way.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In my opinion, the real solution is for us to start designing our own hardware.
www.opencores.org [opencores.org] is a repository of open source hardware designs.
www.opencollector.org [opencollector.org] is another.
The Open Graphics Project [opengraphics.org] is about to release real open hardware. They're focusing on graphics right now, but they have aspirations toward other kinds of hardware.
Rather than giving up control of the software just to get the hardware, take control of the hardware!
(BTW, I'm much less concerned about proprietary apps than closed-source drivers. Drivers are a major source of potential system instability. They need to be open source. Applications are isolated to their own process spaces and can't crash the system when they crash. I think a closed-source iTunes for Linux would be wonderful!)
Not Just The Under 30 Crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
If you cringed while reading that last sentence, if you felt a burst of bile rise up into your throat, then you're gonna *love* the future, because more and more people who feel precisely that way are joining the ranks of the Penguin every day. As the article says, "This group is more interested in having Linux 'just work'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
WPA is still a nightmare (even in Ubuntu). It is not trivial to install nvidia/ati drivers (especially ati), which are essential for useful 3D acceleration. The whole access rights stuff is hard to grasp at first (ESPECIALLY with Samba, which is also horrible to configure BTW). GUIs are not as responsive as in OSX or Windows (I suspect the font rendering to play a large role in this). Configuring X is *still* awful (and necessary for setting trivial stuff like the physical screen size for
Pah... easy (Score:2)
Raymond warned that Linux risks getting locked out of new hardware platforms for the next 30 years unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP.
Easy one... just install gtkpod for the first, XMMS/Amarok for the second, and shoot yourself if you still need the third :)
Eric seems to have forgotten something... (Score:3)
The thing about FOSS is that it's not one company or even a collective of companies that have rules to follow where if you don't you get kicked out, but that it is individuals who only have their own rules to follow or break.
The only rule is to not use, or at least do not distribute Proporiety Software code, unless permission is given.
But this doesn't stop finding other ways too do things. And its findiong other ways to do things that can be motivational to the programming wise consumers.
Its never really been about this license vs. that license, but rather about human choice, consumer choice.
Its wrong to assume all consumers here are programming ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah! So it *is* about the license. Some licenses are designed to protect choice. Others are designed to remove them.
Choose wisely.
Win the Corporate World First (Score:2)
Not quite, but still ESR says worrisome things (Score:3, Interesting)
ESR, as much as I have my misgivings about him, didn't quite say that proprietary software was a "good thing". All he said was that in today's changing landscape of computing, GNU/Linux risks being left behind if it cannot achieve a compromise with proprietary software and systems. In other words, far from saying that proprietary software is a good thing, he is saying that compromise with proprietary software is a necessary evil in ensuring that GNU/Linux does not become irrelevant. A valid point, but I must ask ESR how far he is willing to take compromise. His mention of iPods and the like seems to indicate that he's willing to go far enough as to compromise on the issue of DRM, which remains a deeply contentious issue for the entire Free Software/Open Source community. I for one believe that compromising on the issue of DRM to the level required by the media conglomerates would mean that the Free Software/Open Source community will become shackled and closed, no different from the proprietary software systems that F/OSS has been so touted as an alternative. Compromise is a very dangerous game... Frankly, I don't believe that F/OSS should be playing to the twenty-something-iPod generation demographic if the goal really is to dominate the desktop. What we need to do is convince the corporate IT procurement departments that GNU/Linux is a viable alternative to Windows. That's how the IBM PC became the de facto standard. If GNU/Linux can own the corporate desktop, owning the home desktop will be a lot easier. Using different systems at home and at work is extremely painful, and once more businesses start using GNU/Linux workstations, this will drive GNU/Linux home desktops.
Followers vs Leaders (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice how linux took off inspite of not being "enterprise UNIX" like SCO, or "for the data center" like Sun, or "pro corporate commecrial software" like Microsoft. This is because contrary to popular belief, (ESR and) the corporate world does not lead, but follows. And who do they follow: individuals exercising their liberty to act in their own best interest. And how do you guarantee liberty in the information age, by having the minimal amount of restrictions on what people can copy by not using proprietary software whenever possible.
Re:Followers vs Leaders (Score:4, Insightful)
After that, they just started making it more and more like the unix systems that they used at work and eventually it became an enterprise useable system (for the most part).
It was a hobby project (Linus admits that himself) that people thought was neat, so they kept tacking things onto it. They didn't do it because it was "Free". They did it because it was sort of kind of like what they were used to using, so they took steps to make it more like the commercial programs that they were using.
The license allowed them to do it, but it was not the driving motivation. If it wasn't for the fact that people thought the project itself was neat or useful, it would never have gotten anywhere at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, allowing proprietary drivers iPod support? (Score:3)
Apple doesn't do such a thing because the Linux desktop market is too small to merit the effort of doing so. Even if the Linux desktop market were quite a bit larger, Apple still would probably resist because they don't want to lend support to a rival desktop environment. They only did it with Windows because that market is so gigantic that the revenue and dominance temptations for iPod outweighed the cost to their propietary OS and hardware platform.
conceed a few scrimmages to win the battle (Score:3, Insightful)
Free and freedom are excellent goals to strive for in the computing realm, but it needs to be balanced with usability and stability. i'm not always able to retrograde to 10 year old technology, sometimes i need current technology, and i can't wait for a reverse engineered driver/hack to make it work with my system. ESR is correct, ipods, cameras, phones, pda, these are the trappings of the modern computing experience, and if you can't get it to work right with one OS, you'll use an OS that items will work with.
sometimes it's better to conceed the small fights, like binary drivers, and worry about the bigger battles, like market share. you vote with your wallet by saying "i have your product, i've spent my money and i want to use it with linux. if you can't make it work with linux i'm taking it back". refunding money is taking money out of their pocket, and most manufacturers don't ever want to do this. and invariably they will communicate with you on some level, because you are a customer, and they have an obligation.
remember a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and if your a paying customer, you the bird in the hand that they don't want to see fly away...
threatening/posturing that you will not buy a product because it doesn't run on linux is a wasted effort. you haven't spent any money, so your not a customer. if you're not a customer, they're not gonna listen to you, 'cause manufacturers listen to their installed customer base not their potential customer base. i'd gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today is a piss poor way to convince manufacturers to work strongly with OSS.
Ironic much? (Score:3, Interesting)
RTFA, he's not advocating closed-source... (Score:3, Informative)
GJC
He's right on some things... (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to believe that Linux has got to the point where "the mainstream" have *heard* of it, but still not necessarily to the point where they're actually *using* it. I also don't believe that being truly mainstream would be good for Linux, however I don't advocate RMS' brand of cultic insularity, either.
The stuff about 64 bit architecture is wacky, IMHO. Vista could cause problems for the adoption of Linux, but that won't necessarily have anything to do with 64 bit architecture. Something tells me that Eric has possibly been spending too much time with his corporate friends lately, and forgotten about what the real world are doing, if he thinks *everyone* has gone 64 bit.
Although I'm not running Linux right now, (I've just had to do a large re-install) when I do I don't give a damn about whether drivers are binary or not, and neither does anyone else with a brain, as far as I'm concerned. Most of us primarily care about being able to use our hardware. I'll agree with anyone who says that hardware specs should be published so that OSS drivers can be written, but unfortunately that isn't how capitalism (or at least contemporary capitalism) works, and hardware manufacturers generally adhere to capitalist economics.
If by being locked out of "the desktop" for 30 years, Eric means a scenario where casual computer laypeople can use Linux to the same degree they can Windows, then I think he needs to change "30 years" to "never", at least other than specialised applications. Last I saw, Linux at its' core was still command line oriented, systems like Ubuntu notwithstanding. I don't consider that a bad thing...but it isn't a characteristic that lends Linux to being used by novices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. ESR has a very valid point - when you are a tiny blip on the radar screen you have to make yourself work with the mainstream, not vice versa; unless you forever want to be a footnote in the industry. Being compatible with key mainstream stuff like iPods (really compatible where you can go seamlessly from one OS to another and have it work out of the box as easily as the mainstream apps (not just be able to kl