Carla is awesomely short-sighted and wrong
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| grouch Apr 25, 2006 8:09 PM EDT |
>"But it takes a special effort to build something worthwhile. You don't like the direction Linspire is taking? Then put your talent where your mouth is and help make it better. For better or worse, Linspire just may become the face of Linux in the consumer space. No one else is even trying. We need to cheer it on, not tear it down." The direction Linspire chose is to follow MIcrosoft, right down to root-by-default and misinformation against other Linux distributions. Read their own FAQ at http://www.linspire.com and see for yourself. They include such Microsoftish FUD as "Installing Linux software is notoriously difficult. Unless you have the technical expertise to install Linux software, other versions of Linux will lock you into the software that came with your initial installation." I've never even heard of a Linux user complaining of distro lock-in before. As for "[n]o one else is even trying", that's an amazing comment. Xandros http://www.xandros.com/partners/wtb/namerica.html and Mandriva are sufficient examples to counter that, even though Xandros seems to have a few problems with user freedom, too. I see no reason to support or even defend Linspire's "Family Licensing" or "Business Licensing" or any of their other imitations of Microsoft, just to get Linux on store shelves. http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_license.php I see no reason to support Linspire in their promotion of closed, secret software just because they happen to base their distribution on Debian. I would rather help a few understand the dangers of allowing anti-free software control their personal data, voting, medical records, financial data, music, movies and personal computer instead of lulling a great many with the lure of familiarity and convenience under the guise of a distribution that seems to seek exploitation of user ignorance just as MS does. |
| randyennis Apr 26, 2006 5:07 AM EDT |
What exactly are you calling "closed, secret software"? What Linspire has done is provide the proprietary drivers for different hardware, proprietary codecs, etc. to make a desktop experience that "just works" from day one, without asking a user, especially the type of user that Linspire has targeted, to go find, download, and install on their own, as most (more technical) Linus users do. Most of those types of users would not be able to easily figure out how to do much of that. Part of that is because of the fractured, "proprietary" nature of many of the Linux distros -- each one uses some slightly different packaging format or naming convention that makes it really difficult for ISVs to provide a single, workable package in an easy to use format that will just work with any distro. That needs to change, folks. Does Linspire offer proprietary, closed applications for sale on CNR? Yes, they do, but I see nothing wrong with that from a practical aspect. If the software does what you need and you don't mind paying for something you have no real control over, then caveat emptor. I will continue to support FOSS as the ideal, but practicality will win over those ideals when push comes to shove. Linspire has developed and offered FOSS software of their own, and they continue to do so. They aren't perfect, and I don't necessarily agree with every direction they take, but they are offering something of value to the community outside of the "Linux regulars". Remember, you are most likely using that non-free software that PJ and others are complaining about, it just didn't come with your distro. Would I prefer a pure open, free environment? You betcha! But we're just not there yet, and I'm not sure it's even possible... but I'll continue to hope and support the community to that goal... |
| grouch Apr 26, 2006 11:43 PM EDT |
>"What exactly are you calling "closed, secret software"? What Linspire has done is provide the proprietary drivers for different hardware, proprietary codecs, etc. to make a desktop experience that "just works" from day one, without asking a user, especially the type of user that Linspire has targeted, to go find, download, and install on their own, as most (more technical) Linus users do." Looks like you answered yourself, though I think you mean "closed" where you say "proprietary". It's a common mistake to think the opposite of open source software is "proprietary". Even BSD and GPL software are proprietary, since acknowledgement of ownership is a requirement of the licenses. Ownership is not the problem. The problem is that promotion of software which is anti-free, by being closed and secretive, for the sake of immediate convenience or familiarity undermines the basis of open source software. Such closed software is not an added value to GNU/Linux, it is a threat. The objection raised in PJ's article is the promotion of closed, proprietary drivers as a value add. Linspire does not address the problems created by such drivers, they simply want to sell. Linspire uses "community" as part of their market-speak to promote Freespire. This makes it legitimate to ask what community? If they mean the free (libre) and open source software community, why do they not inform their potential customers about the troubles inherent in those closed drivers? The secret nature of those drivers runs exactly counter and is harmful to the FLOSS community. That secrecy, if unopposed, leads to increased requirement for closed, binary blobs and reduced opportunity for FLOSS software benefits to users. Promotion of ease and familiarity by way of such closed, secretive drivers is a short-sighted way to sell boxes but a long-term way of destroying the FLOSS foundation Linspire is based upon. My Linux boxes have "just worked" for a long time, and without any particularly difficult installation problems. Clicking a mouse is pretty simple. Avoiding hardware that isn't simple to set up in Linux is also pretty simple. Because of the damaging, erroding nature of secret, closed drivers and codecs on FLOSS development, developers and open standards, their installation should be accompanied by warnings. They should not be promoted as an increase in value to the end user when in fact they decrease value and freedom. Other distributions seem to manage to provide them without relying on them as promotions. >"Part of that is because of the fractured, "proprietary" nature of many of the Linux distros -- each one uses some slightly different packaging format or naming convention that makes it really difficult for ISVs to provide a single, workable package in an easy to use format that will just work with any distro. That needs to change, folks." I'm glad you put "proprietary" in quotes. Of course FLOSS is proprietary; some one or ones own the copyright on the software. None of the formats are closed and secret, however, in contrast to the subject of the articles being discussed. The problem is with closed, proprietary drivers being hyped as added value on top of free software, not with ISVs producing software for GNU/Linux. Let the hardware manufacturers release specifications or, even better, sample implementations as open source. They continue to profit from making their hardware while leveraging the development, maintenance and bug-chasing of developers all over the world. That is real added value, not the short-term exploitation being practiced by Linspire's offering of uninformed "choice" to end users. >"Remember, you are most likely using that non-free software that PJ and others are complaining about, it just didn't come with your distro." You make unsupported assumptions while ignoring the point of PJ's article. It's the same point Tom Adelstein made several times on LXer about open source "pretenders" who piggy-back their closed wares on top of the superior software of open source developers. It's selfish, greed-driven exploitation, not community. Linspire's contributions to open projects is laudable. Their use of the convenience of closed source to sell their wares, without informing users of its dangers to the very open source that provides the foundation for Linspire, is dangerously exploitive. |
| tuxchick2 Apr 27, 2006 6:13 AM EDT |
good points, grouch. I am re-thinking. Especially after reading Joe Barr's review of the Linux Desktop Summit. (Newsforge) |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2006 6:30 AM EDT |
Grouch: We agree that Linspire is not the best version of Linux out there. We agree that they do not seem to completely understand or support free software concepts. However, they are Linux. They are a somewhat confused vendor attempting to add what they preceive as "extra value" to their Linux distribution. The are following the GPL and doing so within the established rules of the game. You and I do not consider what they add as value, but we're not the market they're aiming for. If they're successful, they will spread Linux use among a group of people we have been unable to reach. Once those people adapt to using Linux, it will be much easier for them to switch to a more open distribution if they wish. Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see the problem. It's true that Linspire doesn't preach the GPL gospel, but the GPL itself doesn't require that users or vendors do so. Linsipre is another distribution among many, trying to reach an untapped market. If they ever reach the position of being the dominant Linux vendor, then it may be a problem, but I don't see that as likely. |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2006 6:32 AM EDT |
Tuxchick: > Especially after reading Joe Barr's review of the Linux Desktop Summit. Link, please? |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2006 6:34 AM EDT |
>but the GPL itself doesn't require that users or vendors do so. But (some) GPL supporters apparently do. They need a hint: Freedom -- it's more than merely a word to be tossed around. |
| grouch Apr 27, 2006 7:50 AM EDT |
dinotrac: This is not a GPL-specific issue. See, for example, the OpenBSD 3.9 release's theme song about "binary blobs". Theo also chastises Linux a bit about so many "binary blobs" being allowed in it. Running Doom 3 on your Linux box is not the issue, even though it is closed source. (id software has a good record of opening their previous games as they produce new ones, somewhat like Aladdin and ghostscript, BTW). Your use of such closed source software does not undermine the efforts of free/open source developers. It might be argued that it is unsupportive, but at least it is not encouraging the creation of a dependency that affects all GNU/Linux users. The issue is promoting the use of closed hardware drivers as an added value to open software. This does directly undermine the efforts of free/open source developers. The argument that Linspire increases the numbers of Linux users and therefore should be forgiven for promoting closed drivers does not stand up to examination. The new users are not informed by the promoter that closed drivers hamper the development of the kernel and its viability with a wide variety of hardware. The new users are not informed by the promoter that using closed drivers takes the best practical advantages of the open development of the kernel away from those developers and places it back under secret control in those areas. New users gained with such a promotion are unlikely to be willing to suffer inconvenience in order to help free/open developers continue their work. Promoting the convenience of closed source drivers is purely for short-term gain. It is contrary to the long-term viability of GNU/Linux, BSD and all other free/open development, since all software depends on hardware interaction. This is not a case of tolerating closed source ties into the hardware because there is no alternative. Those who have to tolerate closed source drivers in such a case are also likely to continue to actively seek open alternatives and/or complain to manufacturers. Closed drivers subtract value from open software rather than add to it. Closed drivers destroy the distributed development model. Promotion of closed drivers promotes a dependency on unscientific, unverifiable software. It's a step back, instead of a way forward. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2006 8:37 AM EDT |
Grouch -- All of which is fine. You are free to do as you wish. So.... I'm tired of philosophizing. Let's get down to concrete: If Linspire were suddenly to evaporate, what freedom would you have that you do not have today? |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2006 8:51 AM EDT |
> New users gained with such a promotion are unlikely to be willing to suffer inconvenience in order to help free/open developers continue their work. Agreed, but the users Linspire is seeking to attract probably won't in any case, since by definition they neither know nor want to know the details of the OS. What we want is for Linspire to support open source development, not their users. That's something they have done and are doing. There's no reason to expect that they won't continue to do so. > This is not a case of tolerating closed source ties into the hardware because there is no alternative. Those who have to tolerate closed source drivers in such a case are also likely to continue to actively seek open alternatives and/or complain to manufacturers. See above. The users in question aren't interested in such things. They want a system which works. Do we want them using Linux or Windows? You seem to think both we and they would be better off if they used Windows. I disagree. I agree that most Linsipre users will never become active FOSS supporters in the broader sense. However, some will, and those that don't hurt the community any, as they're not supporters now. If Linspire is a success, they will increase the usage of Linux. If the company is competently run, they will realize that supporting closed source drivers is difficult and expensive, and will pressure the vendors for open source drivers (possibly funding their devlopment) wherever possible. So far, we've seen nothing to indicate that won't be the case, and based on their past support we probably owe them the benefit of a doubt. No current or competent new user will choose to use Linspire, so the other distributions are in no danger of losing their market. Again, I may be being dense, but I don't see that there's really a problem. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2006 9:16 AM EDT |
>No current or competent new user will choose to use Linspire Depends on what you mean. Several people here (including the former Editor-in-Chief) have posted about using Linspire for desktop machines. I think they generally did it for the benefit of a friend or family member, or to get a laptop working just so. i seem to recall Mr. Adelstein saying very nice things about the performance of Linspire when compared to SuSE. Some might see that as dire, I see it as an indication that the Linspire folks are doing something that other distros might learn from. |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2006 9:32 AM EDT |
> Some might see that as dire, I see it as an indication that the Linspire folks are doing something that other distros might learn from. Agreed. And since all of these type things are GPL'ed, they can do so. The sticking point with grouch and other such seems to be the proprietary drivers. From my perspective, a newbie friendly distribution HAS to include such drivers, as no newbie is going to be competent to install them him/herself, nor will even know that they need to do so. Linspire's choices are defined by their target audience, yet they are being blamed for targetting that audience. As I noted earlier, it's a no win situation for them. While I would be hard pressed to call them a blessing to the Linux community; I can't honestly label them the curse others seem to think they are. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2006 9:34 AM EDT |
Heck, not just newbies.... My girls like to play TuxRacer. That doesn't quite work without the nVidia driver. I don't mind taking heat from grouch, but the little ones know where I live! |
| dcparris Apr 27, 2006 9:36 AM EDT |
Grouch: You weren't on the debate team were you? :-) You've done an excellent job of defending PJ's position. |
| grouch Apr 27, 2006 10:27 AM EDT |
dinotrac, "If Linspire were suddenly to evaporate, what freedom would you have that you do not have today?" That's the wrong question. If Linspire greatly succeeds in promoting closed drivers as better for users than open drivers, all other users are that much further away from influencing manufacturers to release the specs. I do not want Linspire to evaporate. I want Linspire to cease promoting closed drivers to "maximize the performance" of a user's computer. If they want to promote themselves as "community-driven", they need to cease undermining the community's efforts. jdixon, "The users in question aren't interested in such things. They want a system which works." I want a system which works. I was once uninterested in free/open software because I was uninformed about it. My systems work because of the shared, open, distributed development by an army of developers who choose to work openly. If not for their efforts, I might still be stuck on MS Win95 or have given up computers entirely. (Don't count on that last bit to save you from my harassment, though). "The users in question" are not statically programmed robots nor are they, in general, cold, selfish, greedy, mindless consumers. It wouldn't cost Linspire much effort to attempt to inform them. I suspect it would increase sales potentials if Linspire made an effort to explain how free/open software benefits users far beyond price and how closed drivers, while convenient, disrupt the open development process that allowed the creation of Linspire in the first place. It would also be nice if Linspire ceased spreading misinformation about other Linux distributions in their FAQ. dcparris: Thanks for the kind words. I was on a high school debate team *cough* decades ago, for a while, but didn't like their rigid schedule impositions. |
| jdixon Apr 27, 2006 12:37 PM EDT |
> It wouldn't cost Linspire much effort to attempt to inform them. No, but I suspect that in Linspire's opinion it would alienate those customers if they even made the attempt. I suspect Linspire's opinion of their customers technical abilities is on the low side. :) They may even be correct. |
| jimf Apr 27, 2006 1:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:They may even be correctSad but undoubtedly true. Never underestimate the ignorance of a noob user. |
| tuxchick2 Apr 27, 2006 2:22 PM EDT |
I really am changing my mind on this whole thing. Regardless of user's levels of sophistication, it's the vendor's responsibility to do things the right way. Reaching a wider market probably means making some compromises. But not that many- you can build a good-quality PC with 100% native Linux-supported parts- sound, video, modem, NICs, the works. These can be bundled with Linux-friendly printers and multifunction devices from Samsung and HP, both of which have extensive Linux support. That leave browser plugins and multimedia as the most vexing challenges, and even there is it really that much of a problem? I consider playing DVDs on computers to be a dumb waste of time, sheesh, tiny screen and bad sound what a thrill. That's what the giant conglomeration of high-end electronics in my living room is for. But even there we have mplayer, libdvdcss, and other apps. Gaim does Aim. (more eww, but people want it.) So, with a bit of effort a nearly 100% FOSS box can be delivered, and any vendor who is truly interested in supporting FOSS can support whatever projects already exist to fill in the gaps. Am I missing something here? Because it doesn't seem that insurmountable a problem, and certainly not one requiring massive compromises. |
| grouch Apr 27, 2006 2:46 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: Exactly. It's far from insurmountable. Even when including popular hardware, such as nVidia, the open source driver can be the default with a simple explanation and warning accompanying some clicky installer for the closed driver. Something needs to alert the uninformed user that they are straying from what allowed such high-quality software to be created. IMO, such an alert should accompany any closed source installation, but it's only of significant consequence to the community (all users) when it directly affects hardware support. (Dino drooling over Flash-y websites doesn't make it harder for me to find hardware supported by free software). That type of alert is even less important than the vendor being honest with the user, though. Making the installation of closed source drivers a selling point of an otherwise FOSS system is deceptive. Those drivers should never be installed except by way of an informed choice. They do affect all other users by encouraging bad behavior by manufacturers, reducing pressure to release specifications for hardware so that FOSS developers can maintain support, encouraging an increasing dependency on binary blobs, and undermining the attempt to produce a free OS. |
| dinotrac Apr 27, 2006 4:04 PM EDT |
grouch -- >Those drivers should never be installed except by way of an informed choice. Now that's an interesting thought...Kind of like the EULA screens, etc that nobody ever reads, except that... Informed choice on free software doesn't have to be very big. Just something along the lines of "Warning: You are installing non-free software. That's ok from a technical standpoint, but may impose restrictions on you that free software doesn't. You should read it's license carefully." A really slick informed choice might even add: "The following free software can do the same job without extra restrictions. You should check it out:" Or what have you. That doesn't seem like a giant burden on users, and can be done in a clear, un-scary way. |
| grouch Apr 27, 2006 4:41 PM EDT |
dinotrac: There ya go! It doesn't have to terrorize Aunt Pitty, just let her know something different is going on and where to get more info. She's not completely nuts. If it seems a little questionable to her, she'll call in one of the nieces or nephews to ok it. The main thing that still bugs me is a distributor who falsely disparages other distributions, claims community, yet uses the exact antithesis of the community to sell its wares. That not only seems self-destructive to me, it also seems just plain disrespectful of the people who gave up their time to create the foundation of the distribution. |
| richo123 Apr 28, 2006 10:39 AM EDT |
Tuxchick, Hats off for the intellectual honesty. It is rare in these sort of fora where ego seems to be the modus operandi. This issue is pretty knotty because it is hard to predict how vendors will react to demands for open source drivers (and other things such as codecs). And yet if we don't insist as a community we may well end up with another M$ just badged as linux. The balance between idealism and pragmatism is always a difficult one but then that is real world politics for you.... |
| grouch Apr 28, 2006 4:11 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: I've been told that you're the author. If so, I want to apologize for the title chosen to start this thread. I regretted it about 5 minutes after typing it. It was an emotional reaction to a phrase used in the article. |
| tuxchick2 Apr 28, 2006 6:02 PM EDT |
grouch, don't worry about it. She who dishes it out better be able to take it, don't you think? :) |
| grouch Apr 28, 2006 6:23 PM EDT |
tuxchick2: Thanks for being so gracious about it. I've enjoyed your writing and certainly meant no slur (just an argument). ;) BTW, yesterday PJ invited me to repost my comments from here to Groklaw _if_ I would drop the "header". I've had a few comments nuked there because I have a tendency to growl first and think later. |
| vinea Apr 28, 2006 7:39 PM EDT |
"Because it doesn't seem that insurmountable a problem, and certainly not one requiring massive compromises." Yes, you could probably build a PC that was linux friendly. On the other hand Linspire doesn't make the hardware configurations but the OS that rides on top of them. To restrict the ability for these vendors to choose the hardware they see fit restricts Linspire's ability to increase Linux's desktop market share. The other aspect is that there is more to it than drivers but also flash, mp3s and playing DVDs. That's likely the most important aspect as I'm guessing the lower tier hardware Linspire ends up on has drivers for the most part. I know lots of my cousins (in their teens) watch DVDs on their computers. They don't have high end electronics or a living room (or an older sibling/parent has control over the living room). The crux of the issue isn't CAN you make a 100% FOSS box...its what tradeoffs you are willing to live with. As Kevin Carmony pointed out this is a lot like the hybird car scenario. Its a very good analogy (as many car analogies are not). Purists insist that hybrids damage the zero-emission movement by offering a polluting alternative and say that pure electric vehicles are the only ones that should be acceptable. Never mind that the average consumer isn't willing to put up with the inconvienence of a pure electric vehicle that can be built today. Hybrid proponents agree that zero-emissions is the eventual goal but introducing hybrid technology that increases fuel economy and decreases emissions (benefits you see today and not a decade from now when acceptable EVs are possible) while providing the same level of performance the consumer expects helps to a) increase awareness that emissions and fuel usage is important, b) makes the average consumer aware that they can go "green" without major disruption in lifestyle and c) drives research in battery technology so that pure electric vehicles arrive that much quicker. Zealots claim that hybrids are evil and are part of the corporate agenda to destroy the environmental movement and that hybrid proponents are sell-outs to big oil. Hybrid Open and Closed source solutions (like say Linspire) appears to me to offer the same kind of advantages as Hybrid vehicles. It seems that Carmony agrees that a pure 100% FOSS box is a desireable goal but that hybrids offer a) increased awareness that open source solutions exist, b) that you can use them without disrupting the activities you do with computers and c) provides funding to replace more closed applications with open ones. And as pointed out you see Linux machines challenging Windows in brick and mortar stores today. Not a decade from now. Me, I'm buying a hybrid for my next car. Linspire I don't need but I do like the idea. I work on Linux. I play on OSX. Why? It just works. Vinea PS with respect to distro lock in...um...yeah. It boggles my mind that there are so many ways of packaging components all of which mostly suck in some way or another. rpm vs deb. apt vs up2date vs yum. Everything vs portage. Part of it may be that I have RH7, RH8, RH9, FC3, RHEL as well as SUSE, Debian (and variant) boxes but sometimes it feels really random how some distros decide where the heck to put stuff. I dunno exactly what you mean by distro lock in but I do know that even moving between versions of RH (via upgrade) is an adventure best avoided by backing up /home and just starting over with a clean slate. Its not like you can transmute a rpm based machine to a deb based machine easily. Installing Linux software is easy...if you're willing to pay RH for an up2date thingy and live with whatever comes down the pipe. Otherwise, I've spent hours puzzling over which bloody version of lib-xyz is hosing up app-abc but is required by app-def and how to get to where I want to be. Because I really want the latest version of app-abc which requires lib-xyz-1.3.1.9 but app-def depends on a "feature" (bug) that was in lib-xyz-1.2.9.4. Just as there is DLL hell there is rpm hell. I may be just a programmer but I've watched real sys admins do the same damn thing. |
| grouch Apr 28, 2006 7:48 PM EDT |
vinea: Nice long, rambling post about nothing concerning either PJ's article or Carla's article. You did the same thing, repeatedly, on Groklaw. None of your comments concerning Flash, MP3s or DVDs relate to the problem. All of your ranting about "zealots" and "hybrids" are likewise off the mark. The only one besides you who claims there is such a thing as distro lock-in is Linspire. |
| vinea Apr 28, 2006 7:59 PM EDT |
I'm saying that Carla was right. Linspire is challenging Microsoft today in the consumer segment just as hybrid cars are challenging non-hybrids in the consumer segment. Call it off the mark if you like but neither hybrid cars nor hybrid software dilute/destroy either the environmental or FOSS movements. They are simply different mechanisms to get to a desireable goal and achieve short term improvements today. Flash, MP3s, DVDs, etc are part of the requirement to make a Linux desktop that doesn't require that folks to sacrifice what they want to do with computers. These solutions are typically closed source and make up the majority of the hybridization. Given that some binary drivers have been accepted by Linus I don't see it as all that big a deal. Vinea |
| vinea Apr 28, 2006 8:05 PM EDT |
Oh...I have no clue what YOU mean by distro lock in. Or Linspire for that matter. All I know is that once you're in a distro its not like you can move to another very easily once you have everything set up for non-trivial uses. For example you have stood up a webserver running PHPNuke, Bugzilla, etc. with actual data you want to keep. Its not like you can just slot in a different distro CD and run a script and boom...now you're running SUSE instead of RH. And tell me that neither RH or SUSE wants lock in to their enterprise distros. Vinea |
| grouch Apr 28, 2006 8:15 PM EDT |
If you ever come up with some point that relates to either author's work, I'll be happy to discuss it. |
| vinea Apr 28, 2006 8:41 PM EDT |
She discussed DVDs, MP3s etc. I pointed out that Linspire doesn't make the hardware and to achieve their goals on increasing Linux desktop share they have to provide whatever drivers (binary or open) that the hardware vendors require. Personally, I don't really care if you discuss anything. Mostly, I'd like to just give Carla an alternate view. For that the hybrid analogy is potentially compelling. That you can't rebut anything only reinforces the position that hybrid software is a non-threat to FOSS and likely a net positive. Vinea |
| grouch Apr 29, 2006 7:13 AM EDT |
Carla mentions "DVDs" only in passing, regarding computers at Wal-Mart: "But there they are, side-by-side online with toothpaste and DVDs and socks and all those regular-people-who-are-not-Linux-geek things." This is used to show Linspire's ability to get computers with Linux pre-installed in front of potential customers who are not likely (at all) to go searching the Internet for such pre-installation. MP3s are not mentioned. ("etc." is also not mentioned). Linspire does not manufacture the PCs but it has "featured partners". http://www.linspire.com/featured_partner/featured_partner.ph... This does not change the fact that they promote closed hardware drivers as an added value to Linux, which undermines the efforts of the developers of Linux. The provision of "hybrid software", by which I suppose you mean mixing closed and open software on the PC, is not the heart of the issue. The closed drivers are part of the issue. Closed user applications do not, of themselves, create a dependence on vendors and disrupt the progression toward a free operating system. (Advocating those closed applications and the closed formats and protocols is detrimental to open development, but do not create a dependence, except where they act as drivers for hardware). From the Groklaw article to which the LXer article responds: "First, the closed source companies refuse to provide drivers for FOSS. The community figures out a way around the blockade, but it naturally isn't quite the same experience. How could it be? Then Freespire sets it up so you can compare the two, and if you care only about your short term practical gain, which do you choose? Do you think those companies will ever provide drivers for FOSS if you compromise like that?" From the LXer article: "We need computers in stores running Linux, so that people can see them and touch them and buy them and take them home. They need to be good-quality computers with everything working out of the box. They need to sit side-by-side with Windows and Apple PCs, just like any other product where you a dozen different brands sitting on the same shelf. They need to be bundled with printers, scanners, PDAs, and other peripherals that are well-supported in Linux." I do not see irreconcilable differences in the two positions. In fact, I see both authors advocating support for Linux. Most of the discussion that stemmed from the Groklaw article ignored the crucial issue, as summarized in the final paragraph of that article, and instead focused on individuals and their use of closed source, just as you have. Almost every distribution provides some closed source for user convenience. Even Debian provides repositories of software that is "non-free". Linspire goes beyond providing closed source where the open source alternative is lacking. Linspire promotes closed source hardware drivers to sell systems. They do not inform customers of the effects on development and maintenance of the foundational open source software by the quiet acceptance of the closed source drivers. They seek market share at the expense of the community of which they claim to be a part. Note that what Carla advocates, "[...] computers in stores running Linux [...] everything working out of the box [...] bundled with printers, scanners, PDAs, and other peripherals that are well-supported in Linux", does not require Linspire to promote closed drivers and certainly does not require Linspire to be silent about the effects of those drivers in their marketing. What she advocates is good for the community, good for the market, and good for users of all computers, whether based on Linux, Mac, MS Windows or whatever. The way Linspire markets is not good for the community, not good for the market, and not good for computer users. It's only good for Linspire, short-term. |
| vinea Apr 29, 2006 6:02 PM EDT |
She states: "That leave browser plugins and multimedia as the most vexing challenges, and even there is it really that much of a problem? I consider playing DVDs on computers to be a dumb waste of time, sheesh, tiny screen and bad sound what a thrill." I provided a counter point as to why these are important. "Linspire does not manufacture the PCs but it has "featured partners". [HYPERLINK@www.linspire.com]" I suspect that Linsipre would have far fewer featured partners if they demanded a certain hardware set. Certainly the lower end manufacturers would be less willing to spend more for hardware with an open driver and that increases friction and makes it that much harder for Linspire to get computers on store shelves. Its a total package issue of which binary drivers are a part of ease of use for both the OEM and the end user. Linspire believes it needs both. Given the lack of other Linux distros in prebuilt boxes on store shelves I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. Certainly someone like HP has the resources and hardware pull to do it right...perhaps the venom being directed at Linspire should be directed at them instead since they're doing even less while being in a position to do far more being an OEM and a big one at that. PJ can tilt at windmills regarding closed drivers but frankly if Linus thinks they're okay for Linux I'm inclined to agree with the pragmatic side of the discussion. They aren't derived code if they were built for Windows and if the community doesn't like them they should buy different hardware. Which leads to the point that closed applications (such as games) are an important part of the acceptance of a desktop. If it were not to play games then it's likely the open drivers (and slower vid cards) would work well enough and in fact do for the server domain. Likewise generic interfaces to USB sticks and USB based peripherals should work well enough. However, from the user's perspective why should they have to worry about some limited set of devices with open drivers? They don't have to for Windows. Linspire is saying they don't have to for Linux either. They don't have to worry about ideological purity or warnings that these drivers aren't "free" to run Windows. Why require ideological purity in order to run Linux? Running Linux is a good first step to opening up the desktop market in the opinion of Linspire. I really doubt Microsoft agrees with that sentiment. Given the payoff to the Chinese it seems to me that Microsoft is very much against seeing Linux on the desktop in widespread numbers. The way Linspire markets is good for linux and bad for windows. Personally, I don't care that much anymore (about desktop Linux) given there IS a desktop unix that doesn't suck and it's based on BSD. That certainly is good for computer users, the market and the open source community even if it is a hybrid of closed and open source. Vinea PS I'm inclined to believe that had it not been for the dilution of effort between KDE and GNOME that we'd have a more polished and consistent UI. Likewise Eclipse and NetBeans vis a vis Visual Studio. Open Source has the annoying tendency to either eat their own and fork. |
| grouch Apr 29, 2006 8:31 PM EDT |
>"She states:" She who? Oh, tuxchick2, in this thread. Licensing DVDs for the U.S. market was not an issue in the Groklaw article nor in the LXer article in response. >"I suspect that Linsipre would have far fewer featured partners if they demanded a certain hardware set. Certainly the lower end manufacturers would be less willing to spend more for hardware with an open driver and that increases friction and makes it that much harder for Linspire to get computers on store shelves." Those "lower end manufacturers", such as Microtel, are more likely to provide hardware that functions well with open drivers. Microtel in fact changed the modems they ship with their machines in response to complaints by Linux users online. Even so, that is still a distraction from the point that Linspire promotes closed drivers as an added value, to the detriment of the community they claim to be part of. From "The Linspire Letter": http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter.php "However, what many may not understand, is that for me to enjoy all of these things, Linspire uses legally licensed, proprietary codecs, drivers and software from third-party companies. Without utilizing this software, Linux is right back where I started five years ago: unusable." This is demonstrably false. I'll ignore the rest of your comment, as it simply returns to arguing against straw men instead of what was in either PJ's article or Carla's article. |
| vinea Apr 30, 2006 6:43 PM EDT |
For the average user, not having flash, mp3, dvd, codecs, etc does make the PC unusable for many if not most home users. That is demonstrably true...given that most home users have these features (from Windows) and apparently uses them. The proof is on you to show that the average consumer will accept a totally FOSS desktop. As far as your "point" you have failed to prove that its a detriment for Linspire to use binary drivers or that is is not a key part in the "it just works" strategy they are pursuing. Many open source folks feel the same (like say ESR) and should Linspire succeed in gaining sufficient market share they would be in the position to dictate that open drivers be developed and used. Even assuming worst case (Linspire gains market share against Windows...the horror...but doesn't demand open drivers), increasing Linux market share (any distro) improves the odds that binary drivers are written for linux at all and once written you can't easily lock them out of other distro's because of GPL. The only caveat is you need to run roughly the same kernel. All fearmongering aside, when you look at it technically the kernel is GPL and will remain so. The only "lock-in" potential for binary drivers is lock-in to Linux in general. Should backward compatibility to older binary drivers be required then kernel hackers can code that in if necessary. Heck, if you can run Linux binary-only plug-ins on FreeBSD then running older Linux binary drivers on a current kernel shouldn't be insurmountable. Closed drivers are an added value as is closed source in general at the beginning. That has never kept open source from replicating its capability when the need arises. Nor should it be a big deal for Linspire to use it from a marketing perspective. For most folks, just HAVING drivers is sufficient. A manufacturer currently can not write a Linux driver (open or closed) because the Linux desktop share is small. Should Linspire (or someone) succeeds in capturing real share they will all pony up or leave business for their competitors to take. Eh...you know, at some level I hope you folks do drive Linspire away from Linux and toward BSD. There really isn't much that they couldn't do with FreeBSD as a core and improving the Linux binary compatibility capability. I think that would be a shame for the linux community but a gain for the open source community as a whole. Vinea |
| tuxchick2 Apr 30, 2006 9:46 PM EDT |
Ok ok already, meelyuns of words posted and to what end I have lost track. The essential questions are: -is Linspire yet another sneak attack by Microsoft, designed to undermine Free Software? PJ thinks it might be. I don't know, it seems too devious and subtle for the big Gang o Thugs, but who knows. -If it isn't, is Linspire pursuing an exploitative, possibly destructive-to-FOSS path? I think so. They're basing their revenues and business model around closed, proprietary junk of all kinds, and touting it as good stuff. That's not a beneficial behavior, no matter how much money they spread around to various FOSS projects. A vendor who really wanted to support FOSS would be making a lot of noise about the benefits of Free drivers and applications, and doing their best to deliver products that were as Free as they could make them, and pressuring vendors to support Linux. They would make only absolutely necessary compromises, rather than bragging about their closed proprietary crap and stuffing as much of it as they could into their product. These are not esoteric subjects that the mythical "Aunt Fanny and Uncle Joe" won't understand, and it's insulting to make that claim. Aunt Fanny and Uncle Joe understand perfectly well unwarranted intrusions into their possessions and personal lives. Aunt Fanny and Uncle Joe are most likely feeling mad and helpless, because their rights are under assault from so many different directions, and they can't even turn on their windoze computers without something bad happening. I think they would welcome the FOSS message of "you are in control of your own stuff." Sad times we live in when this is a radical message. Dismissing the GPL and Free Software values as mere "ideology", and therefore unimportant, is a huge mistake. It's that "ideology" that made the entire Linux universe possible in the first place. (I'm sure we all know the story of the golden goose.) It's more than ideology, it's a very pragmatic approach to software development and user rights. Values are everything; values drive behavior. On this PJ is absolutely correct. Unfortunately I think the Napster/Torrent generation has been raised up on Free as in Freeloader and is completely missing the point. BTW Linus does not think binary drivers are OK. http://lwn.net/1999/0211/kernel.php3 He never has. |
| jdixon May 01, 2006 3:23 AM EDT |
> is Linspire yet another sneak attack by Microsoft, designed to undermine Free Software? Well, we can't really know what was in that settlement with Microsoft, but I agree that it seems unlikely. > If it isn't, is Linspire pursuing an exploitative, possibly destructive-to-FOSS path? Yes, they are. However, I think your original assessment that they were free to do so, and free to seek customers using that model was the correct one. I neither use nor recommend Linspire to others. > A vendor who really wanted to support FOSS would be making a lot of noise about the benefits of Free drivers and applications, and doing their best to deliver products that were as Free as they could make them, and pressuring vendors to support Linux. I'm not sure this is true. I think this is a matter of judgment, and that otherwise reasonable people can disagree about the best path to follow. The fact that Linspire disagrees with us does not make necessarily make them evil, merely wrong. > Dismissing the GPL and Free Software values as mere "ideology", and therefore unimportant, is a huge mistake. Agreed. And this is why I don't support Linspire. I don't think they really understand FOSS, and therefore don't trust their decisions to be in my (or FOSS's) best interest. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 6:27 AM EDT |
"-If it isn't, is Linspire pursuing an exploitative, possibly destructive-to-FOSS path? I think so. They're basing their revenues and business model around closed, proprietary junk of all kinds, and touting it as good stuff. That's not a beneficial behavior, no matter how much money they spread around to various FOSS projects. A vendor who really wanted to support FOSS would be making a lot of noise about the benefits of Free drivers and applications, and doing their best to deliver products that were as Free as they could make them, and pressuring vendors to support Linux. They would make only absolutely necessary compromises, rather than bragging about their closed proprietary crap and stuffing as much of it as they could into their product." As you point out...where is HP and IBM? Suppporting Linux via closed drivers is supporting Linux. Its selling rope as Kruschev would say. Heh, perhaps not the best analogy given the outcome of the Soviet Union. Or perhaps it is. Destructive to FOSS? Only perhaps the FSF segment of F/OSS. And its a rather weak threat given that by improving the acceptance of a linux desktop increases market acceptance of FOSS in general by Aunt Fanny and Uncle Joe. Who certainly are smart enough to understand but probably don't care enough if it impacts what they want to do with computers. Just like global warming, environment and fuel dependence (see the abundance of SUVs). And there is no technical threat that cannot be coded around. "Dismissing the GPL and Free Software values as mere "ideology", and therefore unimportant, is a huge mistake. It's that "ideology" that made the entire Linux universe possible in the first place. (I'm sure we all know the story of the golden goose.) It's more than ideology, it's a very pragmatic approach to software development and user rights. Values are everything; values drive behavior. On this PJ is absolutely correct. Unfortunately I think the Napster/Torrent generation has been raised up on Free as in Freeloader and is completely missing the point." Or free as in BSD and unfettered. Open source existed long before RMS except that we never called it that. We called it sharing. Shame on us for not knowing that in order to share we needed religion...programmers share code. We always have. If we can't share our companies' code (fair enough...they paid for it) we share the code we write on our own (which good coders invariably do just to keep up with technology). Its how we teach each other how to do stuff. Remember also that half of the LAMP stack is based on the Apache and BSD (PHP) licenses. And the Linux segment is often FreeBSD based on the top five hosting vendors (for reliability). For enterprise databases there is Postgres although it is a slower performer than MySQL for many LAMP uses. On the desktop there is OSX...closed but contributes back to Darwin and FreeBSD and actually is a unix desktop that can go toe to toe with Windows and not suffer from an ease of use comparison. I feel that the Napster/Torrent issue has more in common with the FSF segment of open source than others. "Free" proponents are constantly worrying about how business "steal" their code. When they see a business they see a potential thief...kinda like RIAA/MPAA...when they see a consumer they see a potential pirate. Whereas "Open" proponents feel that you can't steal what is freely given. When they see a business they see a potential partner and user. Tell me who is "missing the point"? There's a saying that you project on others what you think of yourself. The preoccupation with theft IMHO isn't a very healthy one for folks that think "sharing" is a good thing. The open source ecology is more than just GPL. But if you've made your mind up, that's fine. Have a nice day. Vinea PS Linus doesn't like closed drivers but supports them in the kernel anyway. He doesn't like Linux being used to kill people but he also doesn't attempt to preclude them from using Linux in that fashion. Likewise DRM. Apparently he does believe in "freedom"...an overly used and often misappropriated word. "Linus Torvalds, the developer of Linux, never agreed with our ideas. He was not a proponent of the ethical aspects of our ideas or a critic of the antisocial nature of non-free software." - RMS I guess you shouldn't look to Linus for FSF ideological purity. Seems like he's been ex-communicated for a while now. |
| tuxchick2 May 01, 2006 7:14 AM EDT |
Vinea, you're all over the map. You've gone everywhere except where the actual discussion is. Let's backtrack to PJ's original article: "Freespire: A Linux Distro For When You Couldn't Care Less About Freedom."
You're using "freedom" to mean "I want what I want, and anything goes." PJ is referring to Free Software, as defined by the four freedoms of the GPL: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this." This is not "anything goes", but precisely defined. The rest of that page goes into more detail and should be required reading for anyone who claims to support FOSS, or wishes to argue it intelligently. So PJ's premise is absolutely correct. You said ""I feel that the Napster/Torrent issue has more in common with the FSF segment of open source than others. Free" proponents are constantly worrying about how business "steal" their code. When they see a business they see a potential thief...kinda like RIAA/MPAA...when they see a consumer they see a potential pirate." And I said WTF do you get this stuff?? The GPL is a legal license, and of course it needs to be enforced. I call Godwin on this- comparing the FSF to the stormtroopers of the MAFIAA is ludicrous and offensive. It shows you have no idea what the GPL means or what Free Software is about, and you certainly have no clue how the good folks at the FSF operate. You think FOSS is a just a big free candy store for everyone and anyone, and the folks at Linspire think so too. There is no way anyone who claims to understand and support FOSS can also claim "hey, whatever, binary drivers are good, closed source is good, proprietary locked-up is fine n dandy, because real freedom is doing what I please." That's hypocrisy and inexcusably flawed reasoning. As to whether Linspire is destructive to FOSS by embracing everything that is against FOSS principles, well duh, yes it is. Initially I felt that it was more important that they were getting Linux computers out on store shelves, never mind what was in them. I have changed my mind. They're not just making necessary short-term compromises to deliver a user-satisfactory experience- they are embracing and financially supporting closed, proprietary drivers and applications. They are aggressively and happily advocating and supporting the very things that FOSS is opposed to, while claiming to be good little FOSS community members. You could apply the same reasoning to a vegetarian restaurant that serves meat- hey, it's a free world, they can make "vegetarian" mean anything. Did you even read PJ's article, or the FSF pages, or the material on the OSI site? I bet money you didn't. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 8:02 AM EDT |
Perhaps because the FSF has co-opted the word freedom. As you say...you can make "vegetarian" mean anything. I've read PJ's article, FSF and OSI. That's not a very sound bet just because I disagree with the position. Its like asking someone if they've read the Koran or the Bible or the Torah because they disagree with your particular stance on God. Its actually more likely that someone that takes the time to discuss the issue with you that they HAVE read your canon material. Folks cross over from purity to zealotry when they decide that everyone that disagrees simply cannot have read the "truth". They assume the worst in their opponents. They fear...and we all know what Yoda said about that. :) FOSS is like a big candy store...or more like the candy jar I have on my desk. I let folks know that they are free to take any candy in the jar. Some folks take candy and enjoy it. That's nice because that's my goal. Some folks take candy, enjoy it and give me some other kinds of candy in return. That's nice too as I like trying other candy. Software is a magic candy jar...take as much as you want and its always still there (unlike my jar that I have to replenish every so often) for me and others to enjoy. The open source (BSD variants) community understands this and understands what sharing and freedom really is. Amazingly things get contributed back in the candy jar for others to share. Its not demanded, we just assume that folks will do the right thing...especially if its to their benefit anyway. Perhaps you should reexamine the use of the term FOSS...Free and Open Source (or Free/Open Source) before you claim that I don't get it or haven't read it. This term includes the segment of open source that does not subscribe to the FSF dogma. It is an overarching term that covers both. It is possible to be a "good" FOSS community member (the open source segment) while being a "bad" FS community member. Note that APSL, CDDL, BSD etc are all OSI approved licenses that can connect to evil bad closed source...except they don't consider it evil OR bad. Perhaps you should just use the term Free Software since you are so well read and informed? Perhaps you also need to reexamine the terms hypocrisy and irony as well. Vinea |
| grouch May 01, 2006 8:09 AM EDT |
vinea: You keep rehashing your same off-topic sermon, just as you did on Groklaw. You've hardly mentioned the promotion of closed drivers by a business founded on free (libre) software in any of your multitude of comments, here and there. You harp on user choice while all but ignoring the protection of user freedoms in the GPL that governs the basis of Linspire and which are utterly removed from the closed drivers Linspire takes such great pains to promote. You also state a blatant, provable falsehood: >"A manufacturer currently can not write a Linux driver (open or closed) because the Linux desktop share is small." One example is sufficient to disprove this. See HP: http://hplip.sourceforge.net/ A second example should therefore be sufficient to drive the nail in the coffin containing this strange assertion: "Via has released source code to Linux 2.6 and Xorg/XFree86 drivers for the Unichrome graphics capabilities on northbridge chips in its popular mini-ITX boards. The drivers offer 2D, 3D, and hardware MPEG2/4 acceleration, as well as video overlay, and support both the CLE266 and CN400 northbridges." http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS5778694249.html Linspire's promotion is anti-user and therefore anti-GPL, regardless of how much spin they put on it about user choice. Note they do not make attempts in that marketing to inform users to allow an informed choice. They make a lot of cooing, soothing noises over closed drivers and codecs so that users are informed of only one side of the equation. tuxchick2: I think you have distilled all the arguments down to the core 2. (Nice debugging and optimization there: 'It's not finished until you can't take any more out.') I also like your assessment of "Aunt Fanny and Uncle Joe". They have historically shown the ability to reject marketing BS, in general, when informed. Where is DIVX? See many Bricklin SV-1's on the highway? jdixon: Overall I think your points are reasonable. I do strongly disagree with Linspire's path regarding closed drivers. They make a big deal about selling the convenience of those drivers, including the CEO's comments in their "Linspire letter", asserting Linux would be "unusable" without the drivers and codecs they provide. I still can't find anything on their website that tells potential customers about the negative effects those drivers have on the development of Linux, though. That imbalance of information still looks damaging and exploitive, to me. |
| tuxchick2 May 01, 2006 8:46 AM EDT |
Vinea, I'm wondering if you're missing the point on purpose. No one cares if you personally support FOSS or not. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion if you agree with the GPL or not. It has nothing to do with BSD, which you keep dragging in like some kid forced to sing a song before an audience. The premise is very simple: PJ thinks that Linspire is anti-Free Software. Plain and simple, though I admit it took me a long time to see that, perhaps because she didn't explain herself with her usual clarity. Or perhaps I read her article through my own errant filters. At any rate that's the core of this whole discussion, which you still seem to be missing. PJ's article is not about freedom as a general fuzzy principle, but Free Software, which is specific and well-defined. Linspire is free to bundle Linux however they like, as long as they obey the terms of all the various licenses: GPL, LGPL, Artistic, whatever. No one disputes that. The question of whether their whole-hearted embracing of the very things that FOSS is against is anti-FOSS. Well DUH. Here is another PJ comment you missed: "as for Open Source, proprietary codecs, drivers and applications are not Open Source or open in any way." So this is about FOSS values, not just FSF "zealots" as you so unkindly denigrate them. There has been a increasing amount of anti-RMS and anti-GPL chatter lately, both in "news" stories and in discussion forums. I suspect either yet another microshaft astroturf campaign, or an invasion of poorly-informed windbags who think baseless opinions actually have value. Probably a combination of both. grouch: " You harp on user choice while all but ignoring the protection of user freedoms in the GPL that governs the basis of Linspire and which are utterly removed from the closed drivers Linspire takes such great pains to promote." Bingo! and "Linspire's promotion is anti-user and therefore anti-GPL, regardless of how much spin they put on it about user choice. Note they do not make attempts in that marketing to inform users to allow an informed choice. They make a lot of cooing, soothing noises over closed drivers and codecs so that users are informed of only one side of the equation." Well said. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 8:59 AM EDT |
tuxchick2 - Speaking for poorly-informed windbags wherever they might be, I have to take issue with you... You know and I know you know that FOSS is not homogenous. Some licenses are explicitly tolerant of proprietary binaries. One of those even comes from the FSF -- the LGPL. That doesn't mean that proprietary anything is Open, free, etc. It means that some people who have given a lot of thought and contributed a lot of effort do not believe that proprietary things are the digital devil. "FOSS values" as you put them, leave some room for debate. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 9:03 AM EDT |
"You also state a blatant, provable falsehood:
>"A manufacturer currently can not write a Linux driver (open or closed) because the Linux desktop share is small."" What I meant was that the Linux desktop share is small enough that a manufacturer can ignore it. The can (choose) not to write a driver not they cannot write a driver. The context should be clear enough even if my wording was not. Vinea |
| grouch May 01, 2006 9:09 AM EDT |
vinea: Ah, I see you were composing your latest promotion for BSD while I was answering your previous distortion. Linspire is based on GPL software, specifically, Debian GNU/Linux. It is not based on a BSD kernel. Sorry if that fact saddens you, but there it is. Maybe you should be conversing with Linspire to convince them to create BSDspire. Of course, Theo might have a few objections to those binary blobs being promoted by Linspire or the in-*your*-dreams, BSDspire. What's in this for you? You persistently and consistently ignore the points of both articles and all commentary in this thread and others and persistently and consistently preach for BSD (ignoring OpenBSD's hostility toward closed drivers and FreeBSD's "Project Evil" regarding closed drivers). |
| vinea May 01, 2006 9:27 AM EDT |
"Vinea, I'm wondering if you're missing the point on purpose. No one cares if you personally support FOSS or not. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion if you agree with the GPL or not. It has nothing to do with BSD, which you keep dragging in like some kid forced to sing a song before an audience." When you say FOSS you include BSD. Perhaps you missed that point? As dinotrac points out (as I did) there are many open source (FOSS) licenses that are tolerant of proprietary licenses. If you don't wish to include discussion of other forms of open source then don't attach them to the discussion. "Here is another PJ comment you missed: "as for Open Source, proprietary codecs, drivers and applications are not Open Source or open in any way." So this is about FOSS values, not just FSF "zealots" as you so unkindly denigrate them." I didn't miss that. It is true that closed source drivers aren't open source. That seems like a tautalogy. But it is not a universal FOSS value that these are necessarily evil. "There has been a increasing amount of anti-RMS and anti-GPL chatter lately, both in "news" stories and in discussion forums. I suspect either yet another microshaft astroturf campaign, or an invasion of poorly-informed windbags who think baseless opinions actually have value. Probably a combination of both." Are you saying that everyone that doesn't agree with RMS is a poorly informed windbag? And the whole microsoft astroturf thing is laughable. They have 90% of the market...they have plenty of fanbois without needing to buy any. Ask any Apple proponent...there are plenty of Windows (and Apple) zealots around. Sorry if I don't write in the style of sound bites. I assume the folks I'm discussing with likes to actually discuss. That makes me a bit windbagish. If they don't hold value, there's no need to defend against them either. We can agree to disagree with whatever level of respect you desire. I'll tell you what, I'll take the first step and apologize for the use of the term "zealot". Vinea |
| tuxchick2 May 01, 2006 9:36 AM EDT |
dino, I boot up my BiliousBuntu and generate masses of high-level invective at you! Take that, and that! Ha! I win! Never would I call you a poorly-informed windbag, but rather well-informed. I agree that the FOSS world is not homogenous. I'm not familiar with every last goshdarned OSI license, may their camels grow fleas the size of small dogs for allowing such a large number of licenses, most of which differ only in jot and tittle placement. As far as the LPGL goes, you might have noticed that the LPGL is tolerant of closed binaries only out of pragmatic necessity. In fact the poor thing is full of conflicts and self-doubt: "We call this license the "Lesser" General Public License because it does Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public License. It also provides other free software developers Less of an advantage over competing non-free programs. These disadvantages are the reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries. However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special circumstances..." Even without studying every last goshdarned OSI license, I think it's safe to say that "proprietary codecs, drivers and applications are not Open Source or open in any way." But I do agree that the FOSS world is far from homogenous, and in fact is a veritable bubbling savory stew of diverse yet complementary elements. OK, that's a stretch, but I'm hungry. As far as the Linspire discussion goes, I'm confident in asserting their non-Free-ness, since that was PJ's original premise anyway, and will leave their non-OSS-ness for someone else to debate. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 9:44 AM EDT |
"One of the problems plaguing the Free Software community is the availability of device drivers. Unless an operating system has a significant market share, it does not make economic sense for a manufacturer to write device drivers for that system. Many manufacturers won't even provide documentation allowing open source drivers to be written, claiming that it would require disclosure of valuable intellectual property. ... OpenBSD has a strong ideological attitude in this respect. If a manufacturer is not willing to release documentation, then they will not include closed-source drivers. This argument makes sense from a security point of view - if the drivers are closed then you can't audit them and so they may end up compromising the base system. FreeBSD is more pragmatic. They include Project Evil, a partial implementation of the Windows driver API, which allows Windows drivers to be used for network cards. While not quite as useful as a native driver, they are a significant improvement over no driver at all." Project Evil indicates that some BSD folks have a sense of humor. Come on...Project Evil? How much more tongue in cheek can you get? Nothing is "in it for me". Does there need to be something "in it for me" to discuss something that I care about (open source)? Its a mild intellectual challenge that involves something beyond code...so I guess that's what's "in it for me". Man, if that doesn't show the difference in mindset I dunno what does. Vinea |
| vinea May 01, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
"I'm not familiar with every last goshdarned OSI license, may their camels grow fleas the size of small dogs for allowing such a large number of licenses, most of which differ only in jot and tittle placement" You mean like the Apache license? Or BSD? Mmmkay. Vinea |
| grouch May 01, 2006 9:52 AM EDT |
vinea: The problem is your "style" of ignoring on-topic points while preaching off-topic. It's not the number of words you expend, it's the avoidance of subject matter at issue. Linspire and Freespire are based on GPL software. The GPL software proactively protects user freedoms with respect to software. The GPL does not promote closed hardware drivers. Linspire promotes closed hardware drivers. The Linux kernel is GPL software. Closed hardware drivers affect the ability of Linux kernel developers to develop and maintain a stable kernel that works with the hardware that is currently dependent on closed drivers for full function. Promoting closed drivers without noting their negative characteristics and effects is the promotion of detriments to the long-term viability of Linux. Claiming community status while promoting that which is damaging to the community is disingenuous. You do not address any of those points. You continue to ignore the points of PJ's article. You continue to preach your own message of "purists", "hybrids" and "zealots", in other words, attacks upon people rather than arguments in support or against Linspire's marketing and claim for community. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
"You keep rehashing your same off-topic sermon, just as you did on Groklaw. You've hardly mentioned the promotion of closed drivers by a business founded on free (libre) software in any of your multitude of comments, here and there. " By the way, I did multiple times. Here...so you don't have to wade through all windbagginess: Linux binary drivers do not lock-in anyone into anything except to Linux. The fear that binary drivers leads to the destruction of FOSS or even GNU/Linux is not based on anything technical. The technical problem of binary drivers are that they are compiled for a specific kernel (generally the most popular ones). However, given that the kernel itself is GPL it is impossible to lock out a distro or obsolete a driver unless the kernel maintainers decide its not worth the effort of backward compatibility with an old binary driver interface. Since you have all versions of the kernel code, assuming you're a competent kernel level coder, you can fix that if you're one of a handful of users of that old hardware and contribute that back. This addresses PJ's (or Arjan's) Doomsday Scenario. As far as the promotion of closed drivers I see that as a difference of opinion and degree. The only point I disagree with with PJ is that demonizing Linspire for having a difference of opinion in how to reach the same end goal isn't productive and smacks of that word I won't use here again. You cannot on one hand accuse me of "denigrating" that discussion as ideology and then only concentrate on the ideological portion. Its your ideology, if the Free Software community feels the need to cast Linspire out...well, thats your choice. Do I need to comment on that aspect that I really shouldn't have an opinion on? Your community, you deal as you see fit. If you want to say "FOSS" then that aspect I can and will comment on. Vinea |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 10:09 AM EDT |
tuxchick - >Even without studying every last goshdarned OSI license, I think it's safe to say that >"proprietary codecs, drivers and applications are not Open Source or open in any way." Indeed it is safe. No room to argue on that one. In fact, if we were to sum up the differences between different free licenses/software type, the big sticking point -- and pretty much only difference of note -- would be where, when, and how much to tolerate closed stuff. The question with Linspire is not whether they're evil for incorporating proprietary stuff, but whether they are on the right side of the line, and whether they are acting responsibly as beneficiaries (and, let's be honest, benefactors) of FOSS. Which, I believe, is where you and PJ (though not, it would appear, everyone) are coming from. |
| tuxchick2 May 01, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
Vinea, surely you understand the plain meaning of "most of which differ ..." you know, the part where "most" does not mean "all." Even where we agree you're making it into a conflict. Closed-source, proprietary binary drivers and applications are tolerated to a degree in all the FOSS world. But no more than tolerated, with the goal of native open support becoming the standard. They certainly are not encouraged in any way, which would be ludicrous for "open source" projects. There's a whole universe of closed-source licenses for devs who want them. dino, good summary. It sure took a lot of work to peel away the extra words! I'm starting to repeat myself, which is fun for me but dull for everyone else. Y'all behave now. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 11:29 AM EDT |
tuxchick2, surely you can see that BSD, ASPL, CDDL differ from GPL in more than "jot and tittle (sic) placement" as you seem to imply. That's the point. Not that many Open Source licenses are indeed similar. There is a large segment with a differing viewpoint than those that follow RMS/FSF/GPL philosophy. Why can you not agree that the FOSS community is also composed of folks that adhere to the Open Source mindset and not the Free Software mindset? Some of which DO welcome the availability of closed-source proprietary drivers over having nothing. Because they want the best possible technical solution. That's not YOUR goal, but it is neither evil nor misinformed. There's a whole universe of open-source licenses for devs with different mindsets which is why OSI lists so many. Vinea "In contrast, one of my favorite mantras is "perfect is the enemy of good," and the idea is that "good enough" is actually a lot more flexible than some idealized perfection. The world simply isn't black-and-white, and I recognize a lot of grayness. I often find black-and-white people a bit stupid, truth be told. " - Linus |
| dcparris May 01, 2006 12:34 PM EDT |
Vinea: You still seem to miss the point that Linspire's business model, while based (primarily?) on free software, has the unfortunate side effect of minimizing the importance of user freedom. It also minimizes and even undermines the value of FOSS, generally, by ignoring that freedom. The OSS camp cannot ignore the value of user freedom any more than the FS camp. After all, it is the user's freedom that perpetuates the whole community. By minimizing user freedom, we could very easily find ourselves in a nearly all-proprietary environment. One IT manager I know even suggested that would happen. He was ignorant of the idea of a copyleft, but he's hardly the only one. At any rate, free software is an ideal we should all be working toward. Non-free software is what we have to contend with until we can achieve the all-FOSS solution. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 1:48 PM EDT |
User freedom to select a distro that has binary drivers and applications out of box that work with the hardware they purchased? Or are we speaking of "user freedom" only when they adhere to a particular creed that free software is the only ethical software? Availability of source has little correlation between user experience or even freedom. Price of hardware and software represents a higher correlation with user "freedom". Commodity hardware and software provides the infrastructure (ie perpetuates) the community by insuring there is a critical mass of developers willing and able to contribute. Only when the pool of devs is too small is open source at risk. That and patents. The existance of Linux itself is proof that open source is secure. This was not true in the late '60s when litigation against IBM essentially ended the initial golden age of open source (through SHARE, DECUS and other corporate user groups). Because of the high cost of development (hardware and software wise) and the early state of computing there wasn't a body of developers to take up open source independently once corporate sponsorship ended. This is no longer true. And even during that intervening period between modern and classic open source there was plenty of software exchange occuring in the academic world. The only way to end up in a near-proprietary world is patents IMHO. Vinea PS I believe that your definition and my definition of user freedom differs. User freedom in my eyes includes the freedom to buy and use Windows if that's what they want to do. So long as Windows is the most compelling choice (or at least the path of least resistance) that's what they'll do. |
| grouch May 01, 2006 2:13 PM EDT |
vinea: >"Why can you not agree that the FOSS community is also composed of folks that adhere to the Open Source mindset and not the Free Software mindset? Some of which DO welcome the availability of closed-source proprietary drivers over having nothing. Because they want the best possible technical solution. That's not YOUR goal, but it is neither evil nor misinformed." That's your same worn-out sermon. You're still trying to distort the debate to fit your sort criteria for people. Linspire is based on GPL software. Linspire attempts to sell its wares by promoting that which is damaging to development of GPL software. From PJ's article: "I know some of you will point out that other distros also include proprietary applications and drivers. My Mandriva has a separate CD just for them, in fact. But they don't push them as a plus. They provide them for those who don't mind using them while we wait for a better solution, but they don't base their business on the idea that Linux needs proprietary stuff and we should all stop striving for a completely free distribution that does everything we need and be "practical" in order to gain market share. " She asserts that Linspire is doing something wrong, presents the views of kernel developers supporting that assertion, and then points out the difference between what Linspire is doing and what other distributors do. From the introduction ("teaser") of Carla's article: "Pamela Jones unfairly raked Linspire over the coals with this article, Freespire: A Linux Distro For When You Couldn't Care Less About Freedom. PJ, when you're right (which is most of the time) you're awesome, and when you're wrong you're awesomely wrong." She asserts that PJ was wrong and devotes the rest of the article defending that assertion and describing what she thinks (thought?) Linspire does right. The articles, and therefore their authors share these traits: 1. Observation of behavior. 2. Conclusions from observations. 3. Arguments and facts in support of conclusions. By contrast, your comments here and on Groklaw have these traits: 1. Sorting of people by mindset, zealotry and purity. 2. Promotion of BSD as more free. 3. Dismissal of arguments by reference to (1.) instead of analysis. Your only concession to arguing anywhere near the point was your attempt to blame kernel developers if they cease distorting their work to accommodate binary drivers. This is illogical on the face of it. Since you consistently and persistently ignore such facts as (a.) Linspire is based on GPL software, (b.) the goal underlying the GPL is a totally free operating system, (c.) closed hardware drivers work against the GPL, specifically, the kernel development, as voiced by the kernel developers themselves, (d.) Linspire actively promotes closed drivers as making their distribution worth more than other distributions, (e.) the first article contends that such promotion is detrimental to the goals of the GPL, (f.) the counter-argument is that Linspire's increased market share counteracts any detrimental effects, over time, I see no other conclusion to draw except that you have successfully trolled. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 3:17 PM EDT |
grouch, I'm answering multiple folks and they do emphasize different things. The list of a-f items you present really resolve down to e and f. You believe e), I think f). That in of itself is not a point friction (or at least it shouldn't be). But the discussion isn't couched in that fashion. In your first post you villify them as following the same direction as Microsoft, introduce the off topic issue of installation as root, and accuse them of FUD. Nor is e) what PJ suggests but the actual destruction of Linux as in her Doomsday scenario...which is nothing but FUD directed at a Linux distro for what? If you don't want to call it ideological purity what do you suggest? Had PJ's analysis been objective (as you're trying to portray) there would hardly been any comments. Her article starts out with Linspire's announcement is nauseating then characterize them as "we'd like to make money from the community's free stuff without honoring community values". Observation of behavior? Like where Linspire actively supports open source projects? Where they sponsor the Desktop Linux Summit, Lphoto, Lsongs, gaim, Nvu, CodeWavers, KDE League, KDE-Look, Reiser4, KDE "Kids Theme" ,etc? Where they are the only Linux desktop challenging Windows in the retail market in a consistent manner? They don't pussy foot around and say Windows is their competition and yet PJ spins this to be a bad thing. Well no kidding Red Hat isn't considered Linspire's rival...they don't sell desktops in Walmart. Microsoft does. There is fear mongering about the Microsoft-Linspire settlement. No observations, just innuendo. There is conclusions based on feelings of impropriety. There are conclusions based on not even picking up the phone to talk to Carmony. Conclusions based on fact? Please. Vinea PS I don't recall phrasing it as such but yes, BSD is more "free" in that it is less encumbered. Why is that so challenging that it needs to be rebutted? Its a true statement. |
| dcparris May 01, 2006 3:23 PM EDT |
Vinea:
>PS I believe that your definition and my definition of user freedom differs. User freedom in my eyes includes the freedom to buy and use Windows if that's what they want to do. So long as Windows is the most compelling choice (or at least the path of least resistance) that's what they'll do. That's because you are not arguing on the basis of user freedom as defined by the GPL. So naturally, until we argue from the same basis, we will continue to by-pass each other. The goal of the GPL, as stated by grouch - and the GNU Project/FSF, is to rid the world of non-free software. The GPL is an attack on non-free software. Doh! That I believe people should choose to not use Windows (along with other non-free offerings) because it infringes on their freedom is not a proposal to force people not to use Windows (and other non-free offerings). So much for your straw man. Perhaps you do not comprehend the difference between an ideological argument and phyiscally forcing someone to do something they do not want to do. Here is where I stand. Freedom is the goal. As an idealist, I tend to hold out for free software, rather than using the non-free, at times suffering incovenience because of my principles. I have a very open and friendly attitude toward the "pragmatists" who might use the non-free until the free becomes available and viable. I dual-booted until I could get along comfortably without Windows, and thus consider myself a former pragmatist. However, to ignore the value of user freedom, as defined by the Free Software Definition, or even to dismiss the value of freedom - to ignore or dismiss freedom as a goal - is to miss the point of Free Software - and truthfully, even Open Source Software (without such freedom, Open Source is no longer open, is it?). That Linspire seems to miss the point of free software - the basis for their existance - is what some here find problematic. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 3:40 PM EDT |
dcparris - Since when is user freedom defined by the GPL? That's certainly one way to argue that the GPL is the best way to preserver user freedom, but circular logic isn't very convincing. The GPL is not a house of cards. It is a sturdy instrument with strengths and weaknesses, depending on the use at hand. There is no need to puff it up. |
| jimf May 01, 2006 4:33 PM EDT |
Right on dino. |
| sbergman27 May 01, 2006 5:10 PM EDT |
> That Linspire seems to miss the point of free software - the basis for their existance - is what some here find problematic. Just a note. Last I looked, Free Software and Open Source Software had pretty much the same licenses. Not that software authors or their software can be neatly separated into 2 piles. But where do Free Software advocates get the right to lay claim to *all* of it in the name of the Free Software community? Does Linspire "not understand" Open Source software - "the basis for their existence"? Personally, I think that if one happens to be an author of software that Linspire is including in the distro and doesn't like the way his software is being used, he has a right not to like that. But he should have used a license that really reflected his intent on how the software should be used. I've seen a lot of moaning lately due to authors releasing software under one license on paper, and another in their own minds. The license on paper says one thing, but they somehow feel that there is some further, binding, unspoken agreement with their users. Theo's complaints about people not giving back to the BSD licensed OpenSSH is a glaring example. All the wailing about Linspire and Freespire are another good example. |
| grouch May 01, 2006 5:22 PM EDT |
>"The license on paper says one thing, but they somehow feel that there is some further, binding, unspoken agreement with their users." It's not unspoken, in this case. Linspire claims to be a member of the community while at the same time promoting that which is anti-community. While no excuse to express an opinion of their actions is necessary, their appeal to community and free software developers invites criticism. |
| dcparris May 01, 2006 7:16 PM EDT |
Dino: point taken. Thanks. :-) I did also point out that freedom is also OSS' real goal. The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Software Definition are not terribly different from each other, even if a copyleft license does differ significantly from a non-copyleft license. But you are correct - the GPL is not the sole defender (or definer) of user freedom. I did not intend to imply that. My point was that Vinea seemed to be arguing that I would advocate forcing users to use something other than Windows. In reality, I was arguing for user freedom, as defined by the FSF and OSI definitions, (though I omitted the OSI previously). We are, in fact, talking about moose and deer here (related, but not the same animals). Nowhere in my previous post did I suggest that users should be forced to use a particular set of software. Presenting an ideological argument to convince someone to change their mind is not the same as physically forcing them to do so. Even OSS proponents present arguments to persuade others that their position is (a) valid or useful and (b) good. Thus, Vinea's argument remains a straw man. My argument was that ignoring or dismissing user freedom (based on FOSS definitions) is a bad thing. While a user is certainly free to choose Windows, that user is choosing something that restricts freedom. It is certainly within a user's right to give up their freedom, but it makes less sense for a business that depends on that freedom to suggest that non-free software is a good thing. Sum it up: Don said: ignoring user freedom in licenses is bad Vinea said: users are free to use Windows Don responds: We're talking about freedom on two different levels here. I'm arguing for user freedom from a licensing standpoint while Vinea is arguing for a user's freedom to choose whatever software they want. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 7:21 PM EDT |
Steve -- With nearly no exceptions, Open Source software IS Free software IS Open Source software. The whole OSI thing was not intended to create some new flavor of software. It was intended to put a reputable suit of clothes on free software so that businesses and other organizations could be more readily interested in using it. What's funny -- a realization I had while laying the groundwork for a future article -- is that the OSI folks got it all wrong. What makes free software valuable to business is not the openness. It's the freedom. Sure, it's nice to look into the source to twiddle and/or fix. But...it's incredible to deploy and use software without having to design your bread and butter systems so that they optimize the myriad licensing steps/schemes of multiple vendors. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 7:29 PM EDT |
dc - I figured as much. My comment was more prompted by than aimed at you. We sometimes get so caught up in this license or that license that we forget some concepts have meanings outside of anybody's licenses, that the GPL and all the other little alphabet combo-platters are really just means to ends, not ends in and of themselves. |
| grouch May 01, 2006 7:30 PM EDT |
dinotrac:
>"[...] a realization I had while laying the groundwork for a future article [...]"
>"..it's incredible to deploy and use software without having to design your bread and butter systems so that they optimize the myriad licensing steps/schemes of multiple vendors." I hope that future article expands that idea. It has my curiosity up. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 7:35 PM EDT |
>I hope that future article expands that idea So do I!!! Seriously, I have to write the thing. It may be the one thing I was ever meant to say. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 7:47 PM EDT |
>That's because you are not arguing on the basis of user freedom as defined by the
>GPL. So naturally, until we argue from the same basis, we will continue to by-pass
>each other. The goal of the GPL, as stated by grouch - and the GNU Project/FSF, is to
>rid the world of non-free software. The GPL is an attack on non-free software. Doh! Newspeak. By redefining "user freedom" to be something other than the ability for users to choose whether to use whatever software they like is like defining "vegetarian" to be something different. If you "rid the world" of non-GPL software you eliminate a choice for the consumer...i.e. physically force people not to have the choice of closed source software. This is why other folks believe in simply making great software so the choice is natural, not enforced as either community peer pressure/social movement/"ethics". Some folks will always choose different anyways and that should be completely cool. If they like Microsoft, and there are positives, then more power to them. If the Microsoft hackers out code us...then they deserve to win. It is possible to be part of FOSS without feeling the need to destroy closed software or to consider its destruction to be a good thing. Open and closed can co-exist and can be complementary. I like OSX. I like that they contribute back to Darwin. I have no desire to rewrite the OSX UI and have no desire to see it "rid of". The UI is elegant and works. Not to say that OSX doesn't have flaws but the focus is really on providing a good user experience and because they control both hardware and software they can provide one. >However, to ignore the value of user freedom, as defined by the Free Software >Definition, or even to dismiss the value of freedom - to ignore or dismiss freedom as >a goal - is to miss the point of Free Software - and truthfully, even Open Source >Software (without such freedom, Open Source is no longer open, is it?). Why should the FSF dictate the meaning of "user freedom"? You can understand the value of open source without demanding that everyone adheres to the same principle by "ridding the world" of non-GPL software. Why is it that someone who doesn't agree with your definition of "freedom" "miss the point"? Maybe some of us GET the point but freely choose other criteria for excellence and freedom? Maybe some of us are kinda tired of the FSF folks redefining words (and history) to suit their own world view. Vinea |
| grouch May 01, 2006 7:57 PM EDT |
vinea: Go read another of Bill's memos. |
| vinea May 01, 2006 8:02 PM EDT |
>Thus, Vinea's argument remains a straw man. My argument was that ignoring or
>dismissing user freedom (based on FOSS definitions) is a bad thing. In your opinion. Your "FOSS" definition overreaches to equate user freedom to the elimination of closed source programs. >Sum it up: >Don said: ignoring user freedom in licenses is bad >Vinea said: users are free to use Windows >Don responds: We're talking about freedom on two different levels here. That's only part of what I said. I also said your definition of "user freedom" is not universal. By defining user freedom to be only non-closed licenses makes it a circular argument. It is not conceeded that one must have all 4 "freedoms" to have user freedom. Arguably the only thing that is required for "user freedom" is a common standard and a commodity market. The evidence for this is the hardware market. Users can have freedom even within the context of closed source because the best of closed source treats end users with the same level (or perhaps more) respect than open source and can provide a better user experience. Vinea |
| vinea May 01, 2006 8:04 PM EDT |
grouch, chill out. if you can't see the funny in Project Evil you're taking this software stuff too seriously. heh...go read a memo...yes, I'm sure it was a great loss when you quit the debate team. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 8:36 PM EDT |
Hey grouch: This vinea thing, is it a new version of Eliza? Seems almost human at first, until you realize that it is just shuffling and reassembling the same things over and over again, with what seems, at best, a mechanical connection to anything fed into it. More lifelike than Eliza, though. At least it doesn't generate , "I hear you saying that...". |
| vinea May 01, 2006 8:44 PM EDT |
Please go on. Please go on. What resemblance do you see? Do you wish to hear me? I hear you saying that... You are being a bit negative. You should really talk to my sister Jenny18. |
| dinotrac May 01, 2006 8:58 PM EDT |
>I hear you saying that... Oops! I spoke too soon. |
| grouch May 01, 2006 10:02 PM EDT |
dino: By Jove I think you've cracked it! You may have socially redeeming characteristics after all. (In spite of rumors to the contrary, your unholy non-fandom of RMS and your strange knife-and-dog heart treatments). The following is crude reverse-engineering, since no source is available: 10 print message user_choice 20 print message FSF_bad 30 print message BSD_good 40 print message purists_bad 50 print message zealots_bad 60 print message RMS_bad 70 print message hybrid_good 80 goto 10 Hmm. I debugged spaghetti code years ago, but I just don't see anything to work with here, not even spaghetti. There doesn't appear to be any way to get it to relate to anything outside the loop. It's a sort of philosophy espousal loop with no apparent means to "get down to concrete", as you put it 'way back when. Maybe a different language? |
| dinotrac May 02, 2006 3:45 AM EDT |
grouch: Looks like you've got it about right. I don't think there is an actual feedback mechanism. Don't remember my BASIC -- did it have a wait or sleep statement? I think you just need to insert a wait between each print to allow others to jump in. It won't be perfect as it creates race conditions, but, if you look at the pattern in this thread, it fits. Looks like they even vary the wait somewhat for realism: V= vinea O=others V-O-V-V-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O V-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-V-O -V-V-O-V-O-O I could be wrong about varying the timer. That long stretch of Os could be the result of technical difficulties. |
| sbergman27 May 02, 2006 4:33 AM EDT |
Grouch, Put me down for "Hybrid Good". :-) |
| vinea May 02, 2006 5:09 AM EDT |
C# and .NET 2.0...not BASIC. Didn't you get Bill's memo? Grouch, one thing I have learned, it's often better to poke fun at yourself than poke fun at others. One is (sometimes) funny. The other...something else. Heh, if I were an AI routine you'd be feeling pretty dumb at the moment. Vinea Feeling Dumb At the Moment |
| jdixon May 02, 2006 6:01 AM EDT |
> Newspeak. By redefining "user freedom" to be something other than the ability for users to choose whether to use whatever software they like is like defining "vegetarian" to be something different. Yes, I can see the similarity cleary. A user is free to buy closed source software all he/she wants. He/she simply isn't free to share it. Likewise, a vegetarian can buy all the meat he/she chooses. He/she simply isn't free to eat it. > Maybe some of us are kinda tired of the FSF folks redefining words... Everyone redefines words. Each of us carries their own definition of a word in our head, and it seldom matches the dictionary definition exactly. The FSF's defintion of user freedom doesn't match yours? Ain't that a shame. The discussion you've stepped into concerned whether Linspire was a positive or negative in realtionship to free software, as defined by the FSF and the GPL. In relationship to this discussion, the FSF's definitions were already accepted. You're the one trying to change them, not us. My position (just in case it's gotten lost in the mix) was that while I personally viewed them as a negative; as long as they abided by the GPL, other people should be free to choose them as they saw fit. In terms of the discussion you appear to be trying to frame, I think each software author should be free to release his or her software under the license of their choice, and that users should be free to choose which software to use and which licenses they preferred. My personal prefernce (as a user, I'm not a programmer) is for GPL'ed code. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!