ESR Advocates Proprietary Software

mvdwege writes "Apparently, Eric Raymond has decided that proprietary software is now a good thing, according to The Register. I must say it is rather revealing how easily he is willing to compromise on this particular freedom. Is his earlier vocal proclamation of the importance of freedom (still visible on his homepage) mere posturing? And if so, how about his vocal support of other freedoms?"

Comments

That's not quite what he said.

[squiggleslash]

Much as I'd love another excuse to blast ESR here, that's putting an awful spin on an article that doesn't quite say that about a speech that doesn't quite say that.

ESR is suggesting the open source movement concern itself with making sure GNU/Linux et al works out of the box, and if that means in the short term accepting some proprietary software, then that may be necessary. His belief is predicated upon the notion that the move to 64 bit computing means people are about to make choices about the next generation of operating systems. If they get a 64 bit machine, they're going to either chose GNU/Linux, or a proprietary system like Windows, and once that choice has been made that's it.

I think ESR is wrong in believing that. But if he believes that, then it's legitimate for him to believe that a short term acceptance of some proprietary software, that can be rewritten later, may be necessary to "get us through" to the point that the system most likely to end up being 100% FOSS is the dominant operating system.

My belief is that this is all bollocks, and the move to 64 bits will make no difference whatsoever in terms of which 1970s technology OS is used, as ultimately the major candidates are. But it's legitimate for him to think otherwise, and doesn't even represent an ideological "shift" (as the article implies) to believe that in order for FOSS to win-out, it may need some non-FOSS code in the short term. That's always been the case. Even the FSF accepts that, hence the LGPL, a license they like to discourage the use of but nonetheless one they invented anyway and want to see used for certain projects. The entire point of the LGPL is exactly the same as ESR's point: you have to integrate with proprietary software in the short term if you want to move beyond proprietary software in the long term.

The only way to read the meaning the submitter attributed to ESR is to believe ESR cares more about GNU/Linux's popularity than he does about free software. I seriously doubt that's the case.

Re:That's not quite what he said.

[dnoyeb]

We call those initials, not an acronym. Now if someone were to say "The ESR" that would be a different story.

Re:That's not quite what he said.

[Gerzel]

will make no difference whatsoever in terms of which 1970s technology OS is used,

I'm curios. Just to what extent is Linux 1970's technology, really? I doubt that it really is. I mean compare the original system with the system running today(the entire system not just the kernel) with the system of the 1970's. How much of that older system is still in use in terms of lines of code? Sure the organizing principals might be similar but to call it 1970's tech is about as descriptive as calling cars Roman technology, after all they are sized according to how wide the Romans thought a vehicle and road should be. Road tech hasn't changed that much as far as the basics.

ESR has a point

[yagu]

One of the most salient paragraphs from the fine article:

With iPod holding a massive market share and Windows Vista coming down the pipe, Raymond warned that Linux risks getting locked out of new hardware platforms for the next 30 years unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP.

This is true. This is the nature of the commercial world. And this will kill linux if it isn't addressed.

I already have various "paid for" applications on my linux machine -- I think it's a responsibility to support the linux and open source world -- not everyone can afford to put something out there for nothing.

And, almost the only reason I still maintain Microsoft machines and use them is there are certain critical applications I use still not available on Linux. Why? I've corresponded with some of these vendors and their responses to my gentle request for a Linux version of their applications were surprising.

What I expected was a dismissive "not big enough market" argument. While that was part of the argument the surprise was from a couple where they said they weren't about to give their product away for free -- they just couldn't afford to do it.

Again, they said they weren't about to give their product away for free! So, like it or not, there is a perception out there by vendors/providers that the Linux community not only is a small community and not likely to bring in big money, but they see the Linux community as cheap! Network trailer trash. Open Source crackers.

Really, until the mantra "free" is clarified (and I don't think it is entirely), businesses and providers will only take from the Linux community, not give.

In my discussions with some of these providers I've assured them the Open Source community is willing to pay for product. Maybe we aren't. But if we're not, and continue with the attitude that everything should be free, ESR is right, Linux stands to eventually lose a war regardless of any battles it wins.

It's the nature of the beast.

Re:ESR has a point

[MoneyT]

To a degree I think they might be right. Or at least that the vendors mght be on the right track. While I relize that slashdot is not a representative sample of computer users, it probably contains a high portion of open/free software users, and somehow I don't see a positive reaction to either of the following senarios:

A linux version with closed source, just like the companies mac / windows / what have you version.

or

A linux version with source, but A) you have to pay for it and B) you're not allowed to distribute/share source or even more restrictive the source is under an NDA.

both of which are the most likely commercial releases of a linux product. I think the only release that would be welcomed with open arms (no pun intended) would be a release that while paid for, still releases the source code and rights to use and distribute it. Unfortunately, to a comercial company, even if the initial software is paid for, that's still very much like giving their product away for free.

What honestly needs to happen is that FOSS and the general Linux distributions (the one's looking to make headway in the home market) need to become seperate causes. FOSS has a goal and a noble goal at that to have all free and open software, but most comercial vendors don't see that as viable, and the FOSS tie in with Linux is keeping many from even trying linux. So in the end, you can't even begin to get companies to see the benefits because you can't get them to take that first step.

Re:ESR has a point

[Mr. Slippery]

[From TFA]: Raymond warned that Linux risks getting locked out of new hardware platforms for the next 30 years unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP.

Nah. The question is not "Why doesn't Linux work with my iPod?", it's "Why don't iPods work with my choice of operating system?"

While digital personal music players are certainly here to stay, the iPod itself is a fad, a trend, which in 30 years will be as meaningful as the original Sony Walkman is today. For the Free Software community to compromise its core principles for compatibility with a fad would be foolish.

Re:ESR has a point

[ciggieposeur]

Linux is rapidly being locked out of the mainstream by stupid moves like GPLv3,

GPLv3 is not a stupid move. Face it, there are (at least) three distinct classes of computer users whose interests are now in full conflict due to DRM: consumers, software developers, and content sellers. GPLv3 brings this conflict out into the open and provides some practical leverage for software developers against content creators, sorely needed in these days where the content creators have so much more money to purchase favorable legislation.

Fortunately Linux is not likely to go to GPLv3,

It will be greatly affected by GPLv3 once glibc moves to a GPLv3-like license (still LGPL, but users must be able to replace it). Given: the Linux kernel only works with the FSF toolchain (gcc, glibc), and once glibc can be replaced with a user version that doesn't bother checking signatures on new binaries, the whole TCPA/DRM lockdown comes apart. There goes the Tivo business model.

Linux kernel developers will find themselves thrown into this conflict. Do they *really* want Tivo, or maybe nVidia/ATI, to be able to use the code they wrote to dictate policy on users? If so, they'll need to either fork the entire FSF toolchain (hard) or move to BSD libc (maybe easier). Ironically enough, Linux now needs the FSF more than the other way around.

OTOH, maybe enough critical Linux kernel developers will take the FSF side and fork the kernel to stay compatible with newer versions of glibc. What then? What if something really important (like the SCSI support layer) threatened to fork into GPLv2 and GPLv3+, with many of the knowledgable developers picking only one to work on? Would Linus push for unified kernel development even if he was "forced" to stay compatible with glibc?

Or maybe the glibc developers will split in their camp, creating one version for the Linux kernel and another for everything else; they have just as much reason to pick Tivo's side as Linus does. It could domino against the FSF with a number of major FSF components forking into GPLv2 and ignoring the "GPLv3 or later" version; or it could domino against the Tivo-minded developers with a major Linux distro expicitly forking all "GPLv2 or later" applications into "GPLv3 or later", forcing their users into DRM+freedom. All it takes is two extra words in the project-wide COPYING file and your code becomes a political football for someone else to play with.

Personally, I'm glad GPLv3 is pushing this out into the open. These issues will determine the fate of the 21st Century "information economy"; if developers and consumers don't get a voice we will definitely be screwed.

Uhhh, duh.

[RingDev]

OS Software is good, proprietary software is good. The two will always balance eachother in order to match the market, demand, and availability of developers. Saying one is "evil" compared to the other is just blind fundamentalism.

-Rick

Um....

[antifoidulus]

Isn't the definition of "freedom" choice? So apparently this guy has made a choice to use proprietary software. How is that not freedom? I hate when Open Source software people get all preachy about "freedom" because to me it just comes off as "You are not free unless you do what we tell you to do". Which doesn't strike me as particularly "free"....

Not the target audience

[Scarblac]

Raymond, a champion of all things open, said it is vital to the future uptake of Linux that the community compromise to win the new generation of non-technical users aged younger than 30. This group is more interested in having Linux "just work" on their iPod or MP3 player and "don't care about our notions of doctrinal purity",

Indeed they don't. So?

It seems that ESR has started believing that "overthrowing Windows" is the end goal of Linux. It's not, it's having a completely open and Free Unix system. That group he talks about, they'll just use Windows or whatever, and be happy. I don't see how that matters for Linux' direction.

Re:Not the target audience

[babbling]

You're right, but I think the idea of overthrowing the Windows empire is often played down. It would definitely benefit Free Software if there was a greater diversity of operating systems being used by the general population. All of a sudden every document being in Microsoft Word's format wouldn't be acceptable, and open standards might become important.

Proprietary software isn't a threat to Free Software, but proprietary standards are, because then Free Software users begin to be excluded from the rest of the population. Open standards are an issue of fairness and equality.

Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' article

[jmorris42]

Yup, I also disagree with ESR's reasoning somewhat but agree that if you accept his reasoning his conclusion is perfectly rational and pro Free Software. But this is slashdot and for some reason there is a large contingent that loves to slag ESR so the editors are throwing a little raw meat out to get some pageviews on a slow Saturday.

I think ESR is wrong because most people aren't ever going to notice the 64bit transition, at least nothing like the 16-32 bit horrors of the 1990s. Both Linux (almost flawlessly on RH based distros and fairly useable on Debian ones) and Windows have made it all but unnoticable whether one is using 32 or 64 bit apps for 90+% of users and uses. Only those who need to malloc gigs need concern themselves.

But even ignoring all that we might want to consider compromising enough to capture desktop share. It wouldn't be unprecedented, GNU itself was developed on closed platforms because ALL platforms were closed, and after all the FSF is still wanking with HURD.

It isn't the 64 bit barrier we need to worry about, it is the ability to play multimedia content, which ESR also is concerned about, that is a real problem. We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents. Yes I hate them as much as the next geek (and had the consistency to launch a big "Fuck you" to Tivo over yesterday's patent troll by them) but until we can change the rules of the game we are mostly stuck with them. Yes [I] can go get mplayer and most of [YOU] can get it, but corporate america isn't going to take a lawyer bumrush from the MPAA/Franhaufer/etc over the issue. And newbies are being put through a horrible rite of passage when they try to join us.

Misconceptions in the commercial community

[jmorris42]

Again, they said they weren't about to give their product away for free! So, like it or not, there is a perception out there by vendors/providers that the Linux community not only is a small community and not likely to bring in big money, but they see the Linux community as cheap! Network trailer trash.

There is a lot of FUD among the commercial vendors, much of it probably being spread by a certain behemoth vendor and allies. Yes, many less clueful ones still think a Linux port has to be free, as if the GPL would taint their code or something. Others do subscribe to the belief that Linux users are either Free Software zealots who wouldn't pay regardless or are all a bunch of poor starving students. Some of us are hard nosed realists who refuse to be fooled again by being subject to the whims of vendors to the greatest extent possible. Some of us realize the Free stuff usually works a hell of a lot better than the piles of steaming crap vendors want to exchange a pile of cash for.

We just have to educate them. I will pay for software under very limited circumstances. If there is NO Free Software that can do the work I'll pay. If it isn't important (games) I'll pay. If it is going to process content I create it MUST write that in an open format, I won't be locked to a single vendor's whims. So I wouldn't buy Photoshop, even if Hell froze over and they ported it, unless I had an absolute requirement that The GIMP couldn't satisfy but since it writes many open formats I would buy it if I had to. Games are't a problem though. I really hated to see Loki go out, I did buy stuff from them.

At work we do the same thing. We have bought software before and will almost certainly buy it in the future. Just because I prefer Free Software doesn't mean we can refuse to computerize an operation just because there isn't a Free program available and we certainly don't have the man hours available to write an accounting system from scratch. That is just an example, yes there are some free offerings but none are anywhere ready yet. None can yet handle vital functions like payroll.

2003 is on the phone for ESR

[iabervon]

He's absolutely right that, in order to stay relevant, Linux will have to be able to work with iPods, MP3s, and Windows Media. It's a good thing that it works with all of these, and has for a long time. I'm not sure how easy distributions make it, but the support definitely exists, so it's now not a technical problem but a distribution policy issue, and isn't at all a matter of using proprietary software, which is neither necessary nor particularly helpful.

There are certain vague caveats: there are some theoretical issues with valid patents related to MP3. But the holder doesn't seem to want to cause problems, unlike the holders of invalid patents on practically everything else. Getting the latest and best support for Windows Media files requires using a freely-available but proprietary codec as a plugin to the player program.

The actual issue, so far as I can tell, is that people conflate the iTunes Music Store with iPods, and so they ask ESR about iPods (which are easy) when they mean to ask about the iTunes Music Store (which is difficult).

Not Just The Under 30 Crowd

[Prototerm]

The problem Eric Raymond is running up against is the cold reality of a shifting market share. Once upon a time, the Gnu/Linux community was composed mainly of programmers, system administrators, hackers, and the like. In other words, people capable of adapting to the learning curve of a Unix-like system. Now, however, an increasing number of people are interested in it who do not have those skills, or who feel that those skills should not be necessary to operate a computer.

If you cringed while reading that last sentence, if you felt a burst of bile rise up into your throat, then you're gonna *love* the future, because more and more people who feel precisely that way are joining the ranks of the Penguin every day. As the article says, "This group is more interested in having Linux 'just work' ... and 'don't care about our notions of doctrinal purity'". There will continue to be friction between the Old Guard and the N00bs, as more and more people abandon the Redmond Upgrade treadmill, until Gnu/Linux either fades into obscurity, collapses into chaos, or a compromise is found that's satisfactory to both groups. In a way, FOSS is becoming a victim of its own success, although that success has not been the sort Raymond and others had hoped. Somehow, it will have to find a way to adapt.

Re:Not Just The Under 30 Crowd

[stony3k]

Frankly there are multiple Linux distros that "just work", and even provide iPod support out of the box. There is absolutely no need to compromise on our ideals any longer. What I do feel needs to happen is that new users need to be guided to the simpler and easier distros instead of the distros that hardcode Linux fans use. The problem is that when most of us are asked about which distro a person should run, we tend to recommend what's good for us, instead of what would be good for the user. This needs to be changed.

Re:Not Just The Under 30 Crowd

[ardor]

Define "Just Work".

WPA is still a nightmare (even in Ubuntu). It is not trivial to install nvidia/ati drivers (especially ati), which are essential for useful 3D acceleration. The whole access rights stuff is hard to grasp at first (ESPECIALLY with Samba, which is also horrible to configure BTW). GUIs are not as responsive as in OSX or Windows (I suspect the font rendering to play a large role in this). Configuring X is *still* awful (and necessary for setting trivial stuff like the physical screen size for correct DPI).
As long as your hardware is recognized, the driver issue is non-existant (especially Ubuntu has a wonderful autoconfiguration). But once something does not work well (even the tiniest bit), you better spend months learning everything about Linux.

Oh, and the terminal should not be necessary for configuring *anything* for a desktop. Not samba (for sharing), not wpa_supplicant, not xorg.conf, .... stuff like Apache is another thing entirely - one does not expect Joe Average to use Apache, but Joe might be interested in encrypted WLAN (and WEP is crap).

I didn't get the article

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the article, or your comments. Do the companies think that software for linux must be given away for free, or that there is only a tiny market willing to pay $500-$2000 for Linux softare? Are they worried that people are going to rip them off, or do they not want to compete with F/OSS software that has similar features at no cost? There are many companies that distribute precompiled versions of their Windows/Mac packakges for Linux. In some markets it makes sense - for other markets, it may not.

A large part of the reason I run Linux is indeed that it is free in the monetary sense of the word. Almost every good Mac utility (especially in the OS9 days), and many good Windows utilities are shareware or pay software. Most Linux utilities are free/OSS. There's nothing wrong with one or the other, but if I have a choice, I am going to go for the free software. Does that make me "cheap"? Probably, but as a graduate student who doesn't have a big pot of extra money lying around, I'd treat that as a compliment.

I certainly wouldn't expect any given program to be free. I'd expect to pay Wolfram Software for Mathematica, or Autodesk for Autocad, etc. But I do expect software to be free in the sense that I could write an alternative and distribute it for free. As things currently stand, I don't know of a single good F/OSS CAD package for Linux. But, if I wrote one, I would expect that noone could prevent me from giving it away for free. Then, there would be a choice - my package (free, but possibly lacking in features) against a commercial package (expensive, but probably full-featured). I don't expect to dictate terms to other people any more than they try to dictate terms to me. The problem is, the current trend towards software patents and closed specifications and binary-only drivers does try to dictate how I distribute what I do on my own. I should have every right to make a free package that competes with a closed-source package. Is that what companies are afraid of? Competition?

I particularly don't understand the use of iPods, MP3 players, or WMP as examples in this article. MP3 players generally show up like any other mass storage device; you plug the player in, copy files over, and you're done. I don't have an iPod, but I thought it was just as simple. WMP is a bit more complicated; all the linux players I know use the binary Windows drivers in a simulated environment. I don't think there's any native support for the newest codecs, because they're too cryptic to reverse engineer. But programs like mplayer already seem to have made that compromise; I'm not sure what it has to do with the linux kernel. Other companies (eg. Real) have binary-only players that run on linux - nothing stops Microsoft from porting WMP, if they wanted to. The best thing for linux in terms of media codecs would be wider adoption of a good OSS codec & format. It would be great if the current mess of Quicktime/WMP/Realplayer/newer-WMP-that-won't-play -until-you-update-your-codecs went away, and everyone used something that had F/OSS support on any platform. But the point is, neither Microsoft nor Apple have any incentive to support linux. On the contrary, they have incentives to use their control over media formats to benefit their own operating systems.

Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popularity

[jbn-o]

[...] in order for FOSS to win-out, it may need some non-FOSS code in the short term. That's always been the case.

To win what, exactly—popularity? For free software advocates popularity is not a goal. Freedom is a goal, a goal that is not achieved by installing non-free software on one's computer.

Even in the essay discussing the LGPL (formerly known as the "Library GPL" now known as the "Lesser GPL") one can see the FSF making this point:

Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection. For example, they may appeal to the ego, promising "more users for this library" if we let them use the code in proprietary software products. Popularity is tempting, and it is easy for a library developer to rationalize the idea that boosting the popularity of that one library is what the community needs above all.

But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together. We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other's free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

pulling your FUD PUD

[rubycodez]

Of course there are open source projects that have paid tech support available. There are companies that support the major pieces most business/government Linux users use, like Apache, Tomcat, Postgresql, MySQL, OpenOffice. There will be more and more of that available as Linux share increases worldwide, regardless of what the U.S.A. does. The money in software isn't in selling the product, its service and support. if any proprietary product in wide use by business were to go open source tomorrow, but factor the purchase price into support and service, customers would still pay.

"Open Source" is not clearer than "Free Software"

[jbn-o]

That's why the phrase "open-source" was developed. Unless you are Richard Stallman, you don't want to have to write long articles explaining what you mean by free.

So instead, we have confusion over what "open source" means. That term is no more clear and comes with its own long essay on what the term means (a 10-part definition, last I looked, which is longer than the definition of free software). At least with the FSF you get respectful descriptions of how things are complete with references and quotes to back up the claims. The OSI is far more disdainful and less professional in its description of the difference between the free software and open source movements. From the essay describing the difference between the two movements: (emphasis mine)

The official definition of ``open source software,'' as published by the Open Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software; however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users. However, the obvious meaning for the expression ``open source software'' is ``You can look at the source code.'' This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also includes semi-free programs such as Xv, and even some proprietary programs, including Qt under its original license (before the QPL).

That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':

Linux is ``open source'' software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.

I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the ``official'' definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:

Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.

Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for ``free software.''

But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has grasped the idea of ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again. There is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of ``open source'' and show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.

Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme

[byolinux]

Totally. I'm never entirely sure how ESR got to where he is... he wrote a few utilities and a book or two, but short of maintaining the Jargon file, it's hard to see what he did on a day to day basis that allowed him to be quite so prevelant.

Anyway, I think we should buy him an iPod.

Freedom is not "choice".

[jbn-o]

No, the definition of freedom is not choice.

Choice can be a scam that can railroad you out of something more important, such as your software freedom.

For some time, web users who wanted a (then) modern GUI web browser had Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape Navigator to choose from. You only need two alternatives to have "choice" but here one had three to pick from.

None of these choices respect a user's software freedom because all of those programs are proprietary.

Can't win that way

[Tony]

Giving up your freedoms is not winning, whether it's some ill-defined "war on terror," or getting Linux to a larger audience.

Why should *we* become what *they* want? If Linux is good for them, they will use it. If not, they won't. Big humongous liver-flavored deal. I don't care if businesses adopt Linux or not. I just care that I have the freedom to use Linux on hardware I purchase, and have the freedom to work on the software I want without danger of a slap-happy patent lawsuit.

If we go down the path of sacrificing principles, we are likely to lose those freedoms.

Re:Free and non-free don't treat users the same wa

[RingDev]

And we must also discuss and pursue the developers freedom to keep private, protect, and profit from published software.

-Rick

Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme

[Anonymous Coward]

it's hard to see what he did on a day to day basis that allowed him to be quite so prevelant.

He talks a lot.

Followers vs Leaders

[argoff]

Sometimes a group of individuals will take an initiative, start to move in a direction - and then someone will run to the front of the crowd and say that he is leading them when he really isn't. This is the case with ESR. Even though he looks like a leader because he is always out in front giving direction, the truth is that he is a follower and it shows because the future is not about ipods, or embeded devices, or 64 bit platforms, but about freedom and liberty in the information age. If you have the freedom, then all the rest of the stuff will eventually follow. If you don't have the freedom, then the other stuff really doesn't matter much.

Notice how linux took off inspite of not being "enterprise UNIX" like SCO, or "for the data center" like Sun, or "pro corporate commecrial software" like Microsoft. This is because contrary to popular belief, (ESR and) the corporate world does not lead, but follows. And who do they follow: individuals exercising their liberty to act in their own best interest. And how do you guarantee liberty in the information age, by having the minimal amount of restrictions on what people can copy by not using proprietary software whenever possible.

Re:Followers vs Leaders

[bladesjester]

You're off on why Linux took off. Linux took off because it let the sysadmins and programmers that were used to using unix at work to use something like it at home without having to shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for the hardware and software necessary to do so.

After that, they just started making it more and more like the unix systems that they used at work and eventually it became an enterprise useable system (for the most part).

It was a hobby project (Linus admits that himself) that people thought was neat, so they kept tacking things onto it. They didn't do it because it was "Free". They did it because it was sort of kind of like what they were used to using, so they took steps to make it more like the commercial programs that they were using.

The license allowed them to do it, but it was not the driving motivation. If it wasn't for the fact that people thought the project itself was neat or useful, it would never have gotten anywhere at all.

Re:Followers vs Leaders

[argoff]

Agreed, what he also forgot to mention is how growth in Linux exploded while growth in FreeBSD didn't. That had everything in the world to do with the fact that people who made a fork of Linux couldn't sue people who coppied it, but people who made a closed fork of FreeBSD could.

Mod This Parent Up !!!

[viewtouch]

Hear! Hear!

Mod This Parent Up !!

We all use the GNU compiler, GNU tools & the vast body of GNU software. Who is using the OSI compiler, OSI tools and the vast body of OSI software? Nobody - because it doesn't exist. Next time they ask you the difference between what the Free Software Foundation does and what the Open Source Initiative does, mention that.

It takes more than a catchy phrase to cause a revolution - it takes a lifelong dedication to writing the software to launch and to perpetuate a revolution - and that would be GNU.

Re:Mod This Parent Up !!!

[j-pimp]

We all use the GNU compiler, GNU tools & the vast body of GNU software. Who is using the OSI compiler, OSI tools and the vast body of OSI software? Nobody - because it doesn't exist. Next time they ask you the difference between what the Free Software Foundation does and what the Open Source Initiative does, mention that.

You have to look at time and circumstances though. There was a need for RMS to build a whole open source system from scratch. When ESR wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," there were GNU/Linux distros already out there. These days the GNU foundation does alot of advocacy. Most of the user land utilities are pretty stable. The compiler, glibc, classpath and such are actively developed. However, all of those would continue if the FSF were to fold. The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment. It does however, accept copyright for open source projects and provides advocacy and legal aide. The OSI, on the other hand, was born in the midst of a world of Free Software. It's purpose was to question some of the ideals of Free Software, develop its own, more business oriented ones, and advocate them. Would it be benificial if the OSI started sponsering some open source projects? I think so. I've personally given to the FSF, and never to the OSI, and my beliefs are more in line with the OSI. This is partially due to GCC and such. I outright disagree with software as a basic human right. However, with what the FSF advocates, and the state of the world today, I'm not worried about closed source software being outlawed any time soon.

Re:Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popular

[squiggleslash]

You're taking the views of the FSF beyond what they actually are saying - note, for example, that glibc remains LGPL'd, the base libraries for GNOME are also LGPL'd - and you're also ignoring network effects.

The issue isn't being "popular", it's being widely used enough to be relevent. Without relevence, the rug can be pulled from underneath you simply by the introduction of a market where everything software has to interact with is proprietary, be it the formats of content or the hardware it runs upon. We've been running perilously close to the former for many decades, and the tide is turning in our favour where it's turning in our favour only because there's a substantial body of Free Software and of Free Software users. Hardware has been hit and miss for years, the increased complexity of the type of hardware we deal with day to day is making ordinary black-box reverse engineering efforts more and more difficult.

Is Freedom Freedom if you have to practice it in a cage?

conceed a few scrimmages to win the battle

[capsteve]

not everything about linux/OSS has to be a major battle. a binary driver here and there for better acceptability is a pretty small concession to make. not every box i run has linux/bsd running, and its usually because i have equipment that requires drivers that don't yet exist/aren't ready for primetime in the *nix world.

Free and freedom are excellent goals to strive for in the computing realm, but it needs to be balanced with usability and stability. i'm not always able to retrograde to 10 year old technology, sometimes i need current technology, and i can't wait for a reverse engineered driver/hack to make it work with my system. ESR is correct, ipods, cameras, phones, pda, these are the trappings of the modern computing experience, and if you can't get it to work right with one OS, you'll use an OS that items will work with.

sometimes it's better to conceed the small fights, like binary drivers, and worry about the bigger battles, like market share. you vote with your wallet by saying "i have your product, i've spent my money and i want to use it with linux. if you can't make it work with linux i'm taking it back". refunding money is taking money out of their pocket, and most manufacturers don't ever want to do this. and invariably they will communicate with you on some level, because you are a customer, and they have an obligation.

remember a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and if your a paying customer, you the bird in the hand that they don't want to see fly away...

threatening/posturing that you will not buy a product because it doesn't run on linux is a wasted effort. you haven't spent any money, so your not a customer. if you're not a customer, they're not gonna listen to you, 'cause manufacturers listen to their installed customer base not their potential customer base. i'd gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today is a piss poor way to convince manufacturers to work strongly with OSS.

Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme

[byolinux]

What other free software ventures from corporations happened? IIRC, CATB was only one part of the decision. The fact that IE was virtually owning the web, which could allow MS to pollute HTML and prevent Netscape making it actual money from its server products was a large part of it too. AFAIK, "netscape source code as netscape product" (Hecker's paper) hasn't been released publically.

Re:Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popular

[Andy Dodd]

"To win what, exactly--popularity? For free software advocates popularity is not a goal. Freedom is a goal, a goal that is not achieved by installing non-free software on one's computer."

In that regard, ESR is more of a realist than an idealist. From his opinions in the past, and also talking with him (Talking to him in person is EXTREMELY interesting) and seeing one of his lectures back from a year or so after The Cathedral and The Bazaar, I think he has always been a realist that considers open source to be preferable, but if short-term compromises have to be made for open source software to succeed in the long term (essentially what this article suggests), he has no problems and I don't think he ever had. Back in the time around his paper and stint of evangelism/advocacy, he had some stories about cases where he actually suggested to companies that they not go open-source as it had no actual benefits for them (and honestly would not have benefitted the community much either). The example that stands out in memory was a logging company that had some special control software for their log cutter. While ESR advocated they use open source in other parts of their business, he suggested that open sourcing their control software would not benefit them, would not benefit the community in general, and would cost them a significant amount. (Remember, taking a closed-source program open-source is rarely a simple as taking a CVS snapshot and posting it to the public - there are often numerous legal ramifications to doing so. See the initial state of Mozilla - Netscape took 3-4 months ripping out the stuff they didn't have exclusive rights to before releasing the code, and when it was released it was essentially crippleware.)

I think Linux users sometimes forget ....

[King_TJ]

... to more than just a few commercial software developers, they're "the enemy" - simply because the OS is centered around the concept of encouraging contributions of free software to the community.

This "battle" goes on all the time, regardless of the platform being coded for, but Linux is rather unique in the fact that it gives sort of a centralized "scapegoat face" to the issue.

As just one example (from the Windows world), I was at work several weeks ago, and ran into a need to convert a really oddball image file format to something more typical like GIF or JPG. I located a shareware product selling for about $40 that was perfect.... but before paying out the money, I did a little more searching. Just as I was about to give up, I found a free product some guy wrote to solve the same problem at his work.

Now, realistically, who knows if the shareware author was even aware that someone else made a free product that competes with his? But if he did, don't you think he'd probably be at least a little bit annoyed, disappointed, or upset that somebody just cut into his potential revenue stream?

Now, take this to a corporate level ... where you hire a whole team of developers to build a piece of software you're planning to get hundreds of dollars a copy for. Some unemployed software developer comes along and codes a Linux equivalent that's completely free, just because he wants the name recognition and the challenge of doing it. Some companies are going to see this and think Linux isn't their friend.

Re:I think Linux users sometimes forget ....

[Bing Tsher E]

I located a shareware product selling for about $40 that was perfect....

If you weren't able to use it to do your conversion, it wasn't shareware. It was crippleware, which sadly has almost entirely overtaken the shareware concept. The shareware definition specifies that payment is voluntary. Crippled 'demo' versions of an application that don't work unless you pay for a 'key' or an uncrippled version are NOT shareware.

You. Idiots.

[Hosiah]

And I mean ESR as well as all the people agreeing with him.

I know another operating system which started out open source code with it's maintainer deep in the hobbyist community before seeing money waved in front of his nose, and deciding to ditch his personal values in favor of conquering the Earth. That was Bill Gates. Because of that, Windows is a piece of shit.

Linux IS successful RIGHT NOW!!! Otherwise, why would it even be discussed? Why are you all here reading this? Why would anyone even care about it? Why would Sony be pre-loading it on the PlayStation? Why would some 270 distros and flavors of it exist on DistroWatch?

Huh? Did Linux get where it is today by sacrificing it's ideals and compromising it's freedom? Only in America is this strategy considered viable. Go torture some more prisoners to protect your free democracy from "terrorists". And then make what was free enslaving so you can sit on your tinpot throne and oink about how you conquered the world.

The drive to Windozize Linux will not save it, but ruin it. Can't you blind fools see that that's right where the enemies of technology freedom want to lead you? Linux will become a piece of shit. We've been down this road before.

Make no mistake, everybody who goes around pushing universal desktop acceptance of Linux cares about nothing but money. What people like RMS (AND ME) do is advocate Free Software only as long as it promotes freedom. Freedom of technology for everybody is good, and making it non-free will not be a benefit.

But I have a flash-back coming. I've lost this fight before. And so, I run away again as I ran away from Windows. This time to BSD or Open Solaris or GNU/HURD. And yes, thank you, I am a fucking flaming zealot. Better to be that than a greedy, shitty, fat, theiving SWINE!

Flame me all you want, I'm goddamn proud to say it. Better believe, though, if it comes to that day, I'll be ten times the enemy of Linux that I ever was of Windows. And I will not be alone.

Re:Simple. Who is paying his bills these days?

[Mateo_LeFou]

I don't know what GP is insinuating, but I'm personally tired of this attitude to the discussion. As explained in many many places, the free software movement is about building free software because (they/I feel) it is the right thing to do. On principle. The priorities are 1) Freedom; 2) Practicality. You can (and apparently do) order them differently and peace be with you. Why do you want to pick a fight with GP?

Re:I respect and agree with you, mostly, but

[sedyn]

I believe that if RMS is right, then he, and the rest of us have to acknowledge that someone else would have done the same thing... eventually.

It's kind of like math, we say that people either prove or discover something. The proper answer has always been there, but somebody had to get it right.

For example, I was using free software long before I believed in it. It was when I had to learn the true ugliness of closed software that I began to believe in alternatives. Thus, my path to freedom was a bit different than RMS', I don't think I would be brave enough to go as far as he did, but I still would have recognized the problems, if not the solution.

Upon re-reading this, I sound like an RMS shill, and I don't even like the GPL.

Re:Making freedom doesn't mean caving into popular

[smallpaul]

To win what, exactly--popularity? For free software advocates popularity is not a goal. Freedom is a goal, a goal that is not achieved by installing non-free software on one's computer.

I don't believe that Eric Raymond has never declared himself a partisan of "Free Software" so I don't know why you, the article submitter or the Slashdot editor are acting as if he did. Eric Raymond was one of several people who created an ALTERNATIVE movement to the Free Software Movement. The Open Source movement was specifically organized around the pragmatic principle, and this latest declaration is just one more pragmatic compromise he is willing to make.

I agree with him. I find ridiculous the idea that a person has a right to reprogram any program he's been given. Such a right is certainly not derivable from any major world religion, nor from any plausible natural law, nor from constitutional history, nor widely demanded by the populations of any particular country. I conclude, therefore, that it is a wish, not a right. Yes, I wish for the ability to reprogram all of my programs, as I wish for the ability to re-cut my movies, but I do not ask for the original takes of film.

He's right on some things...

[petrus4]

...and wrong on others, IMHO.

I tend to believe that Linux has got to the point where "the mainstream" have *heard* of it, but still not necessarily to the point where they're actually *using* it. I also don't believe that being truly mainstream would be good for Linux, however I don't advocate RMS' brand of cultic insularity, either.

The stuff about 64 bit architecture is wacky, IMHO. Vista could cause problems for the adoption of Linux, but that won't necessarily have anything to do with 64 bit architecture. Something tells me that Eric has possibly been spending too much time with his corporate friends lately, and forgotten about what the real world are doing, if he thinks *everyone* has gone 64 bit.

Although I'm not running Linux right now, (I've just had to do a large re-install) when I do I don't give a damn about whether drivers are binary or not, and neither does anyone else with a brain, as far as I'm concerned. Most of us primarily care about being able to use our hardware. I'll agree with anyone who says that hardware specs should be published so that OSS drivers can be written, but unfortunately that isn't how capitalism (or at least contemporary capitalism) works, and hardware manufacturers generally adhere to capitalist economics.

If by being locked out of "the desktop" for 30 years, Eric means a scenario where casual computer laypeople can use Linux to the same degree they can Windows, then I think he needs to change "30 years" to "never", at least other than specialised applications. Last I saw, Linux at its' core was still command line oriented, systems like Ubuntu notwithstanding. I don't consider that a bad thing...but it isn't a characteristic that lends Linux to being used by novices.