Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
One of the most salient paragraphs from the fine article:
This is true. This is the nature of the commercial world. And this will kill linux if it isn't addressed.
I already have various "paid for" applications on my linux machine -- I think it's a responsibility to support the linux and open source world -- not everyone can afford to put something out there for nothing.
And, almost the only reason I still maintain Microsoft machines and use them is there are certain critical applications I use still not available on Linux. Why? I've corresponded with some of these vendors and their responses to my gentle request for a Linux version of their applications were surprising.
What I expected was a dismissive "not big enough market" argument. While that was part of the argument the surprise was from a couple where they said they weren't about to give their product away for free -- they just couldn't afford to do it.
Again, they said they weren't about to give their product away for free! So, like it or not, there is a perception out there by vendors/providers that the Linux community not only is a small community and not likely to bring in big money, but they see the Linux community as cheap! Network trailer trash. Open Source crackers.
Really, until the mantra "free" is clarified (and I don't think it is entirely), businesses and providers will only take from the Linux community, not give.
In my discussions with some of these providers I've assured them the Open Source community is willing to pay for product. Maybe we aren't. But if we're not, and continue with the attitude that everything should be free, ESR is right, Linux stands to eventually lose a war regardless of any battles it wins.
It's the nature of the beast.
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
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
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.
Democrat delenda est
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.
Democrat delenda est
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.
... 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.
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'
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
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.
Digital Citizen
And we must also discuss and pursue the developers freedom to keep private, protect, and profit from published software.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.