Slashdot Mirror
An Early Look at Freespire Linux
An anonymous reader writes "DesktopLinux.com takes an early look at Freespire Linux in a recent article. Linspire will be releasing their first version of Freespire, the first community Linux distribution to include many third-party proprietary codecs, drivers, and software. From the article: 'While I still have my doubts about the long-term wisdom of using proprietary software and drivers with Linux, I must say that if you feel you need to use such programs, Freespire makes it much easier than any other Linux distribution. And, when is all said and done, that's really what Freespire is all about -- making Linux as easy as possible for users.'"
Linspire has had some pretty good ideas when it comes to making Linux easy for the Windows user. But since it has not been free, I have been reluctent to recommend it to friends. I would like to see how this turns out...
For a linux distro that contains software which is not "free"
Is it just me, or do Linux Desktops seem to be following the Windows trend? They seem to be getting more bubbly. Take me back to the days of BlackBox
Proprietary software, as long as it doesn't make the system less free, is not necessarily bad.
For example a proprietary document system that uses open formats and has open APIs does very little to harm the user and potentially fills a niche that cannot be served by free software very well (eg handles certain legal compliance issues, which requires expensive insurance and research).
As long as you *could* write your own software to replace bits of the system, or interoperate with the system, then you dont necessarily have to for the benefit to be very real indeed.
A lot (although not all) of the stuff that comes with Linspire falls into this category.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Usually, when all is said and done, more is said than done.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
... but EasyUbuntu accomplishes the same thing (at least as far as the codecs and drivers go, I didn't RTFA) for Ubuntu and is as easy as the name suggests.
is that it uses root accounts by default. That's pretty much asking for trouble.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
The work around is that there is no GPL violation. The Linux Kernel has an open API. If you conform to the API and have written all the code yourself, your code isn't subject to the GPL. The Kernel source is GPL. Any module can be whatever the author deems it.
It is illegal to distribute non-GPL binary kernel modules (ask any kernel developer), and Freespire should respect the GPL since they are a Linux company.
Well, the actual nVidia/ATI kernel module IS GPLed. It acts as layer between the kernel and the binary blob. This layer has an open API, which is used by the blob. Thus, the blob uses the kernel, it does not extend it. The extension comes from the GPLed layer.
The real issue is that nVidia & ATI use GPL code from other parts of the kernel in their drivers. This is the only issue, because the way I described above makes binary blobs perfectly legal.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
"It does mean that the user would need a valid windows license, but they come with all computers now."
That license does NOT grant the right to run Windows on any other system.
But, on a different note. There are different points of view. The first is that the "Operating System" is simply a resource manager. Its goal is to maximize utilization of your computer. From this point of view, Linux is already superior to Windows.
Another point of view is that the "Operating System" is central to your (enjoyable) use of the computer. That it presents and correlates information, and integrates applications. From this point of view Windows is superior to Linux.
What is a "newbie"? If it is someone who interacts "lightly" with a computer, and only does email and web surfing, Linux is probably a better choice. If it is someone who uses programs in a "non-integrated" way, Linux is a better choice.
Only if that "newbie" uses multiple programs and expects them to integrate in the Windows way, Windows would be the better choice. But that person would no longer be a "newbie". As to "config file problem" -- I have 22 years of computer experience, and I don't know my way around the "Windows Registry". It makes no sense to me. And, to boot, I have been unable to install Windows XP on some pretty plain hardware. I would say that Linux is easier to install and manage. I guess I'm not that mythical "newbie".
You are dead on in your observation that simply emulating Windows isn't the right direction. Not because Windows is a "bad" experience. Simply because the super-tight integration costs a lot. In security. In trying to customize. In maintainance.
"Crazy package dependencies". Interesting, the same finger can be pointed at Microsoft. For instance, I purchased a program "DVD Ripper". It claimed on the box to run on Windows 98 up to Windows XP. I installed it -- it is missing "something.dll" (not sure of the exact thing). Now, that would be a crazy package dependency. Especially as I really don't have time (or the desire) to dig though OTHER peoples computers to find what is missing. Or "warez" sites. Available in binary only, naturally. I should be so stupid as to actually download a random binary, from a site I don't trust...
"bi-daily system updates". Well then, don't do it! Or, choose a "Linux" that is stable.
As always, YMMV
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
What sometimes gets left out of this kind of discussion is that closed-source drivers are often of very low quality. Recently, I've been scanning in an old 400-page book on an HP scanner, using HP's closed-source MacOS 9 driver and scanning software. The MacOS X driver wasn't released until a couple of years after we bought the scanner, although they claimed it would be coming "real soon now." When the MacOS X driver finally was released, I found that it crashed so often as to make it useless. So here I am, in the year 2006, booting into MacOS 9 whenever I want to use the scanner. IIRC a driver is available for SANE, but I think I had dependency problems getting it to instal on my Linux box.
I scanned the first 100 pages or so, transferred them to the Linux box, and made sure I could read them. No problem. I finished scanning the book, transferred the rest of the pages to the Linux box. Oops --- can't read anything after page 250. Why? It turns out all those files are empty --- zero bytes in size. Why? Oh, the Mac's hard disk had apparently filled up, and the software didn't check for an I/O error when it wrote the files.
I'm not saying that OSS is always perfect and bug-free, but I doubt that this kind of low-quality code would ever have become widely used if it was open source.
I don't really want closed-source drivers for Linux. All I want is two things:
- I want to be able to find clear, accurate, up-to-date information on what devices have OSS drivers available, so I can buy hardware that's well supported.
- I want to be able to install the OSS drivers without a lot of hassles.
Really, #1 seems to be pretty well covered by the SANE folks (although the situation seems to be worse for wireless cards, where there's a ton of out-of-date info on the web, and I didn't find any canonical, well-maintained site that had all the info). #2 is probably slowly getting better too, as Ubuntu becomes more and more mature. I suspect that by the time I upgrade to the next Ubuntu, the scanner driver I need will already be included in SANE by default, and the dependency problems will be fixed.Find free books.
Linux' ability to run proprietary software such as an Oracle database is essential to its success. How is this any different?
Coincidentally, I discovered today that Linspire/Freespire are standardizing on Haskell for core OS development. I'm still blinking a bit about that one, but you have to give them marks for chutzpah.
Nice quip, served you well.
You appear to be misinformed however. Freespire will be released in two distinct versions:
One containing entirely free software, and one containing proprietary codecs (paid for and licensed by Linspire).
The user gets to choose which he uses.
Hence the "Free" -- freedom of choice to opt into one of two free (as in beer) choices: a completely free (as in speech and beer) version, and a free (just as in beer) version.
Seems pretty free to me.
Any questions?
One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
legality.
Freespire uses fully licensed codecs (paid for by Linspire), whereas EasyUbuntu takes the gray area route of not using fully legal stuff.
Since Linspire is footing the bill for the codecs, I think we can all see which choice is both more practical for the user and more ethical.
Two other versions are currently being designed. One, which requires that users give the company some of their intellectual property in exchange for additional software packages, and another, which allows users to exchange a few hours' work for a robust Linux-based system. The first version will be called Inspire; the second, Perspire.
The company is also thinking of donating free software to relatives of the recently deceased. This will naturally be called Expire.
>One eensy weensy little detail distinguishes Freespire from EasyUbuntu:
>
>legality.
Only in the U. S. of Eh. my friend. Up here in the Great White North, not to mention the rest of the free world, (NOT Australia since they've joined the US copyright tyranny) it is completely legal to use most of those codecs that might land an American butt in the slammer.
What I find most frustrating is that because people are so afraid of what the Americans will do, they intentionally cripple these distros. Grrrrr.
No. No 'we' don't.
Windows has been around in its' current incarnation for 11 years now. During the course of that 11 years it has remained decently consistent in its' interface and has provided a reliable mechanism to do tasks (keyboard shortcuts, cut and paste, etc).
There are places where the UI violates good UI design (too many nested menus, for instance), but for those minor problems, Linux is no better.
Half of the reason, my friends, that KDE and GNOME are busy playing catch-up with Windows is that they do not have a better way of doing things either.
The ease of use of Linux is still very variable from distribution to distribution. In gui terms Linux is far more illogical than Windows simply because you never know what you're gonna get.
Only someone wrapped up in their hatred of Microsoft could dismiss windows' strenths out of hand...this is even more obvious when considering the fact that linux has the same exact flaws and many more to boot!
There's a difference between accepting and utilizing a necessary evil and integrating that necessary evil with your long term operations. I don't pretend to have a well-informed opinion on whether or not the FSF's position on shipping things like proprietary drivers and codecs with GPL software is the correct one, but I know it's important to address that issue before acting in potentially harmful ways (and regretting it later).
Let's not look at the way things are when we decide the way things should be.
I understand the free speech part, but I've been to six supermarkets and have yet to find this free beer you speak of.
Because they've fallen for the same trap as Microsoft Windows: They put the button you push to turn the machine off in a sub menu of the button you push to start your work! What could possibly be next? Insert headers and footers in the View menu on the Freespire-customized version of OpenOffice.org?
May god save us all.
Try this: charge a newbie Windows-user for something like the Gimp, pocket their money, point them to the official website where they can get it for free, explain what you did was perfectly legal and then watch their reaction. Think they'll pay you again? No matter how legal it is for Linspire to run their CnR thingie, *nix-users don't want to pay for free software and a great many view it as a (legal) scam
If all you do is point, the user has a right to be pissed. That's not what Linspire or any other Linux company is doing. Most users expect you to sit down and make sure everything works before they pay you. If it does work, they will be happy to fork over the cash because you just saved them the difference between your hour's wage and the cost of a non free program that does the same thing, $600 - 40 = $560.
What the commercial Linux companies are doing is packaging free software so that it works together. That's a big job. They have to modify configuration files, compile and do other nasty tasks. Debian does it though volunteers and is big on user freedom. Linspire is using that base and adding non free junk. M$ takes non free junk, most of which comes from competitors, and passes it along.
What the user wants is something that works. The Linspire, Xandros and Mepis approach has it's benefits and dangers. The benefit is that all your non free hardware and popular software can work right out of the box. My wife loves watching You Tube with Mepis and it's much easier to set up than Debian proper. The dangers are all those associated with non free junk, a lack of long term credibility and difficulty upgrading. Binary blobs are just as sticky and brittle in the Linux world as they are elsewhere, though the sane separation of user and system files helps a lot. Upgrading Mepis is just as easy as installing it in the first place. The hard part is when you want a program that's not included. In the worst case, you have to download 500 MB of dependencies and they break your non free crappo. In the best case, you just install the newest CD and then get all your favorite applications. A completely free system does not have that issue. It can be incrementally upgraded for six to ten years, without fear of breaking installed applications, until the hardware is so obsolete it's not worth the electricity it eats. You should also note that it's easier for the distribution to not bother with non free junk that does not work. Distributions that make non free stuff go are having to do a lot of extra work, sometimes completely in the dark, to make sure it all works together. They also have to trust the non free software maker in a way that you should not. For most users, none of the above problems is a big deal and they are happy to fork over the money it takes to make sure things work right. Happy in slavery, sometimes and sometimes not.
What users really resent is the way M$ makes you feel like a sucker. You can go full out, buying nothing but "professional" versions of the software, the most expensive hardware AND IT STILL MIGHT NOT WORK. The more you add, the more likely it is something won't get along with something else and the system degrades with time no matter what you do. With a 12 minute half life on any network, no M$ system lasts very long. The difference between a Linspire "sucker" and a M$ "sucker" is about $1,000 is software and hardware costs. The addage is, "Linux" makes a new computer out of trash and Windoze makes a new computer into trash." DRM in Vista are going to make things even worse.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I don't see what your problem with linspire is. What you're paying for is time savings, essentially. You're paying $99 for a system that doesn't need much anything in the way of setup, and another $99 per year for guaranteed-working builds of free software (something I've found is lacking in the wikiality of community-assembled builds of OSS).
Usually, linux needs careful configuration to get it working well, and when it's done, it works better than anything else. But it takes time and patience.
Not dissing OSS or anything, but the QC is great with Linspire. I don't use it, but I understand what they are charging for.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1