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.

[Speare]

What is an acronym, and what is an initialism, depends on how you pronounce it.

NAFTA is an acronym, because you don't pronounce it En-Ay-Eff-Tee-Ay. Same for SONAR and SCUBA.

"The ESR" would be pronounced like The Ee-Ess-Ar. Not an acronym. The ESRB, the NAACP, and OSDN are all initialisms.

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.

Re:That's not quite what he said.

[squiggleslash]

POSIX and Windows are both operating systems that use hardware memory management to seperate otherwise unsafe (written in liberal mid-level languages like C) processes from one another, using a security model based largely upon user ownership. If a large number of jobs have to be done that require communications between the different programs performing the different jobs, a single program - running in its own memory space - is generally written that manages all the jobs, rather than the jobs being split out one-per-program.

Programs are loaded from files on disk, from a simplified file system that uses hierarchical name management and that's based upon arbitrary length binary files. From the point of view of the user, there are running programs and files.

This is essentially classic 1970s computer technology. In terms of where it became the standard for system design, that's roughly when it dates to.

There have been serious attempts since then to reform that model, but generally they haven't gone anywhere. The 1980s was full of simplified systems where all processes ran in the same memory space - Windows, Mac OS 6+, AmigaOS, Sinclair QDOS, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, there were many abortive attempts to break up operating systems into more simplified units protected from one another. None of these design changes are present in Windows, Mac OS X, or GNU/Linux, either the simplified or the microkernel strategies (with good reasons for both.)

The 1990s saw the beginning of managed code. While this probably does represent the future of computing, we're not seeing it yet. As yet, managed code only exists in mainstream operating systems running as high level processes at the same level as other ordinary user applications. Mac OS X, Windows, and GNU/Linux do not use managed code, they merely support it.

File systems have been reformed several times. DEC VMS supported native rich file types with record indexing. This has yet to appear anywhere else. Mac OS introduced forks and added creator and type information to the file system. While present for legacy reasons, Apple has deprecated support; Microsoft technically supports file forks in NT but has made no effort to use them or encourage their use; GNU/Linux has only recently started to support additional metadata, and the feature is barely used. Systems like Smalltalk, NewtonOS and PalmOS blur the differences between files and other objects. Achieving minor success on PDAs, their approaches have yet to really have any serious impact.

Essentially, Mac OS X, Windows, and GNU/Linux, are the latest, most optimal, versions of what you saw in the seventies. That's not a terrible thing, but 64 bits gives us the opportunity to rethink why we're programming the same way we did thirty years ago. In particular, the combination of managed code and the massive 64 bit address spaces gives us a chance to revisit the question of how we can most efficiently prevent operating system and application components from treading upon one another, and how we can keep the system secure.

Slashdot's wonderful humor

[vdboor]

Slashdot seams to have picked up a wonderful kind of humor. When I opened the article it showed the "Nothing to see here, please move along"-404 page :-) Guess they're right after all. I'm out of here.

Re:Slashdot's wonderful humor

[chromatic]

Can someone explain to me what is meant by compromising on freedom by using proprietary software?

Good luck upgrading your kernel or X.org or switching processor architectures if you're using NVidia's binary blob.

Re:Slashdot's wonderful humor

[Overly Critical Guy]

Uh oh - you're a I'm in a hole, I'd better keep digging kinda guy huh?

Maybe I should wait for you to get back to me when you learn to write proper English so I can understand you.

It's 'common knowledge' that goldfish have three second memories, but that's incorrect too.

Your strawman argument notwithstanding, it's still completely common knowledge that Stallman's goal is to get rid of proprietary software and have everyone using Open Source, because he considers proprietary software to be evil.

I'm actually ignoring you because you're incorrect. I honestly can't believe that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between someone saying "I don't like cabbage" and "I think the government should ban cabbage".

I never said Stallman wanted the government to "ban" proprietary software.

Beyond stupid - you've decimated my position by stating something is common knowledge?

Absolutely. I'm glad you're finally catching up.

This thread is going to form the basis of my new sig! This thread is a spectacular example of someone who can't back up what they say, but are too stubborn (stupid?) to admit they're wrong.

I've backed up Stallman's position countless times and could continue to do so indefinitely. I've given you an interview and could give you more. Everybody knows Stallman doesn't believe in proprietary software and wants to do away with it. You're obviously in denial. I'd love to be in your sig. It will serve as a constant reminder to you that I completely owned your ass in this debate long ago, to the point that you're now actually arguing that you never had a position in the first place. Please.

Next.

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

[rolfwind]

That's true. You can't exactly sell "service" for most application (except perhaps access to an online service forum, etc). But many people I know, who are on Windows, take the software for free as well, legally or not. Many people, not just Linux users, are accustomed to "free" software in this day and age. The age of buying boxes at CompUSA is mostly over and has been killed by the internet, except for things like Photoshop, etcetera (where a lot of people still get it for free).

That said, it's just perplexing to me that Apple doesn't provide an iTunes app for Linux, presumably binary for the DRM. They make money off the users using it, not from the app itself.

Anyway, the people who pay for many of the apps like Photoshop are businesses, it's irrevelant if it is on MS or Photoshop, they still will pay to remain compliant. Are you sure you weren't being thrown a curveball, since another very public side of Linux is the one IBM is displaying?

Re: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

[daigu]

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. Further, even if you do want to do write these articles, the executives at the companies you are writing will not read them. You even have an interest in the topic, have you read them?

The bottom line is that most business executives do not want to put themselves on the line to come up with a creative product strategy, and even those that do have to deal with stifling organizational inertia. This is partly why iPod and iTunes still dominate the downloadable music market. It is rare for a company to be able to come up with and put into the market a product people want. Most companies simply follow someone else. They wait to see what happens when someone else tries something new and different and if the business model looks viable, they try to jump on the train about 5-10 years down the line - even technology companies.

So, I don't think it is a matter of thinking the Linux community is cheap. It is rationalization in support of complacency. It is a matter of a lack of imagination. The best approach to these people is to ignore them. If you can't ignore them because their software is key to what you do, then you need to demonstrate there is a market for it, get someone to bet their career on it, and then wait 3 years as they try to get "buy-in" to actually do it. Note: You as an individual, don't make a market.

I used to talk with product vendors all the time. I've personally found that the most effective strategy for getting companies to change is to bring these issues up during contract negotiations where you imply that you will take away revenue streams they already have. You make X dollars providing Z software/service, I'd like to see this new product from you and would be willing to spend Y to get it. I know that other companies in my industry would be interested in the same product. I also know your competitors are talking with me about providing this service to me and as part of a larger package where I would move all my money to them.

This is a line of reasoning that most executives at companies can understand. However, you can have this conversation only when you control fairly large sums within another company and where these arguments can be used - not when you are some end user spending less than $5,000 for software once every few years. You also aren't going to get someone to bet their career unless it is a good risk, and in this case, it sounds like you yourself are even uncertain about it.

Re:ESR has a point

[jmorris42]

> 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.

And just why would the source have to include redistribution rights? Commercial 'open source' software is a perfectly reasonable thing once you get past the mental blocks put up by a generation of commercial==closed thinking. Binaries are a technical artifact caused by compilers having a speed advantage over scripts. I say copyright should be adjusted to only allow a copyright on the actual created contect, i.e. source. Binaries should only be derived works like a translation of a book. Then you could fix bugs the vendor didn't care enough to bother with, port it, etc. But it would still be a copyrighted work and you couldn't give out copies anymore than you can pass out copies of Photoshop now. I'd like to live in a world of all free software. But until that day arrives a world where the commercial stuff came with a src.rpm would be almost a good.

Re:ESR has a point

[jmorris42]

Further more, you still have to account for the fact that many companies have competition and sometimes a big trick to do something that's hidden away because you don't have the source is their upper hand for the moment.

Oh yes, I know that is the current reality. I'm arguing that we as a society have zero reason to permit it. You should not be able to have both a trade secret and a copyright on the same thing. If you manage to obtain the secret formula for Coke you can publish it because they opted to keep it secret instead of patent it or copyright it. Copyright is just an arbitrary contract between society (as expressed through our elected government) and creators. Part of the deal is that we get the content, and the innovation, in exchange for a limited monopoly. By allowing them to lock it up companies go kaput and take it with them to their graves.

Re:ESR has a point

[NoMercy]

I think OpenSource, Free(GNU) and Propitary software should mingle more. There should be more GNU software available on windows, and more propitary software available on Linux and other OSS operating systems.

Some things will never be Free, some things will always be free... they should at least work together though. It's insane in this age that applications are still written only to work on one platform and virtually impossible to move between them.

Id like to see for example KDE applications on windows and World of Warcraft on linux, without any nasty hacks. Quite dificult with Warcraft coded for windows only DirectX+D3D, and KDE using QT, for which the Windows version isn't Free.

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

[asuffield]

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.

Or alternatively and preferably, until these ingrates have all been implemented around and driven out of business. Yes, I would far rather live in a world where the people who seek only to accumulate wealth and power (at the expense of all else) end up losing. And that's the only reason why these 'providers' act in this manner.

Nobody has a 'right' to endlessly increment their wealth and power, nor is it desireable for society that anybody ever do so.

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

Re:Uhhh, duh.

[kclittle]

Rick, you are being logical, rational and open-minded. Your privileges here at Slashdot is hereby revoked.

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"....

Re:Um....

[babbling]

You're misunderstanding the stance of the Free Software community. Even the FSF says that it should be up to people to choose whether they will accept proprietary software. They say that they have chosen not to, except in certain circumstances that usually don't arise anymore. What they do say is that people should not be forced into using proprietary software.

Re:Um....

[Stalyn]

Isn't the definition of "freedom" choice?

That's only half of it. You also have to include "as long as my choice does not restrict the freedom of others". Without that clause simply "choice" would lead to less freedom than more freedom. I think the majority of FSF advocates have no problem with a person using proprietary software as long as it doesn't restrict their own freedoms. For example having proprietary software forced upon you, like certain kinds of DRM. But as long as there remains a choice between Free and Non-Free there shouldn't be an issue.

Everybody Loves Eric Raymond!

[TheRaven64]

Sorry, had to be said.

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.

GNUpod, gtkpod etc.

[Psionicist]

"We have a serious problem. Whenever I try to pitch Linux to anyone under 30, the question I get is: 'Will it work with my iPod?," he said. "We are not yet as a community making the painful compromises need to achieve widespread desktop market share. Until we do, we will get locked out of more hardware."

Of course it works with iPod. Take a look at:

* GNUpod and gtkpod
* iPod Shuffle Database Builder

And then there's another one with a funky name I cannot remember.

Re:GNUpod, gtkpod etc.

[shreevatsa]

Yes, this was already covered yesterday — The iPod can be used, very well, and easily.

Re:GNUpod, gtkpod etc.

[Nosklo]

Ok, now try and actually use it with your ipod

I've plugged my ipod on a fresh install of kubuntu 6.06 and it worked out of the box. I don't see where the problem is.

Re:GNUpod, gtkpod etc.

[93 Escort Wagon]

Of course it works with iPod. Take a look at:

* GNUpod and gtkpod
* iPod Shuffle Database Builder

And then there's another one with a funky name I cannot remember.


I think your post, and the majority of other posts on this thread, serve to illustrate the fundamental disconnect that's in play here.

From GNUpod's home page: GNUpod is a collection of Perl-Scripts which allow you to use your iPod... If you really think this is what your typical person (you know, the type who have better things to do in the evening than sit around hacking Linux kernel modules) wants, then I don't think I can explain it to you.

gtkpod is much closer to what these "normals" would want. But it looks like there are still problems with iPod Mini support; you need a separate program to handle podcasts; there's no support for DRM'ed AAC (one of ESR's exact points, I believe); you have to use a different program to rip CDs to mp3/aac/whatever, and then manually import them.

Plus if you go to the troubleshooting links, you'll find "solutions" that talk about manually editing /etc/fstab. You may think "oh, this is simple stuff" (and for a lot of us, it is); but most people don't want to deal with the system at that level for something as trivial as getting an iPod to work! It's why a lot of Linux users (like me) defected over to OS X in the first place.

Frankly, I think ESR's thoughts on this are spot-on; and most of the posts here today are serving to prove his point, although the posters don't realize it.

craps

[l3v1]

unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP

This is the usual media crap we see these days popping up everyplace. And we also should tell everywhere that it's not true, iPods are easy (try Amarok or choose your poison), mp3/ogg/every other music format is easy, wmp is easy (think next realplayer version, think mplayer, etc.).

Whenever I try to pitch Linux to anyone under 30, the question I get is: 'Will it work with my iPod?

While this is not a question anybody should be surprised about, I'm still happy that where I live is apprarently not like where he lives :)

at the end of 2008. After that the operating system gets locked in for the next 30 years

I don't think we (linux or not) need such close-minded people. This smells more rotten than anything else.

Comprimise is Good

[Foofoobar]

Well all I think him and Maddog are saying is that a comprimise must be met. People expect multimedia play from their PC's and thus far, evn though progress is being made, it is slow. It's a small sacrifice to make in order to win the bigger battle.

At the same time, it will win software manufacturer support and more people will realize that they can make software for Linux that is proprietary. While the Linux community has always said this, some software manufacturers are still scared due to the militant ideal of keeping EVERYTHING free. I too think everything should be free but I don't think it's going to be possible without making concessions. Allow some through the door to get others involved and then once critical mass has been achieved, people will start creating their own options.

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

[heinousjay]

Do you intend to insinuate that anyone who doesn't believe all-out in free software must be lacking principles?

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).

He's trying to solve the problem the wrong way....

[Theovon]

Compromising what makes Linux Linux is not a compromise at all. It's taking the very thing that makes it great and throwing it completely out of the window. Maybe not right away, but there's that slippery slope. Eventually, Linux would make itself irrelevant.

In my opinion, the real solution is for us to start designing our own hardware.

www.opencores.org is a repository of open source hardware designs.
www.opencollector.org is another.
The Open Graphics Project is about to release real open hardware. They're focusing on graphics right now, but they have aspirations toward other kinds of hardware.

Rather than giving up control of the software just to get the hardware, take control of the hardware!

(BTW, I'm much less concerned about proprietary apps than closed-source drivers. Drivers are a major source of potential system instability. They need to be open source. Applications are isolated to their own process spaces and can't crash the system when they crash. I think a closed-source iTunes for Linux would be wonderful!)

Not Just The Under 30 Crowd

[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).

ESR is not associated with Free Software movement.

[jbn-o]

ESR, Eric S. Raymond, is not associated with "FOSS". FOSS is a term used when one wants to give credit to both the Free Software and Open Source movements without favoring either. ESR is a proponent of the Open Source movement and one of the people who started the Open Source Initiative over a decade after the GNU Project and the Free Software movement had been going.

The Free Software movement advocates exclusively for free software because only free software respects users software freedoms (the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software). The Free Software movement examines these issues in terms of ethics, speaks to all computer users, and takes a far broader view than the Open Source movement which never discusses user's freedoms and examines these issues in terms of a developmental process that is chiefly aimed at businesses.

The OSI has given a remarkably disrespectful view of the differences between the two movements, reducing the difference to "ideological tub-thumping" in their FAQ. The Free Software Foundation has a far more informative and respectful view in an essay on the differences between the two movements.

Eric seems to have forgotten something...

[3seas]

... and that is Free Software, open source software is a result of consumer choice. And that not all consumers are programmimng ignorant. And that programming languages have only to get better, easier to use (a matter of developer market drive.)

The thing about FOSS is that it's not one company or even a collective of companies that have rules to follow where if you don't you get kicked out, but that it is individuals who only have their own rules to follow or break.

The only rule is to not use, or at least do not distribute Proporiety Software code, unless permission is given.
But this doesn't stop finding other ways too do things. And its findiong other ways to do things that can be motivational to the programming wise consumers.

Its never really been about this license vs. that license, but rather about human choice, consumer choice.
Its wrong to assume all consumers here are programming ignorant.

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.

Not quite, but still ESR says worrisome things

[dido]

ESR, as much as I have my misgivings about him, didn't quite say that proprietary software was a "good thing". All he said was that in today's changing landscape of computing, GNU/Linux risks being left behind if it cannot achieve a compromise with proprietary software and systems. In other words, far from saying that proprietary software is a good thing, he is saying that compromise with proprietary software is a necessary evil in ensuring that GNU/Linux does not become irrelevant. A valid point, but I must ask ESR how far he is willing to take compromise. His mention of iPods and the like seems to indicate that he's willing to go far enough as to compromise on the issue of DRM, which remains a deeply contentious issue for the entire Free Software/Open Source community. I for one believe that compromising on the issue of DRM to the level required by the media conglomerates would mean that the Free Software/Open Source community will become shackled and closed, no different from the proprietary software systems that F/OSS has been so touted as an alternative. Compromise is a very dangerous game... Frankly, I don't believe that F/OSS should be playing to the twenty-something-iPod generation demographic if the goal really is to dominate the desktop. What we need to do is convince the corporate IT procurement departments that GNU/Linux is a viable alternative to Windows. That's how the IBM PC became the de facto standard. If GNU/Linux can own the corporate desktop, owning the home desktop will be a lot easier. Using different systems at home and at work is extremely painful, and once more businesses start using GNU/Linux workstations, this will drive GNU/Linux home desktops.

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.

Re:Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' artic

[kripkenstein]

We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents.

We can't write free software - but we can get multimedia stuff to work, if we pay for the license to do so. You can get your DVDs to work 'out-of-the-box' on Linux - just use Linspire. People who believe in the ideals behind Free Software won't (including me), but for those that are worried about 'losing the desktop', options are available.

If this was the thing holding Linux back from being a massive success, Linspire would be selling millions of copies. That they aren't says something.

(Note: I wish Linspire all the luck in the world, even though I don't use their product.)

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:Mod This Parent Up !!!

[Jack Action]

The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment.

This is just blatantly wrong.

What do you call Gnu Flash? Other projects FSF is directing include Free Bios and an open 3D Card driver. More projects are listed here. Just like gcc was needed in the 80s, these are the utilities users need now.

At the risk of being modded for flame bait, I'll also point out that it seems most criticisms of the FSF are based on plain ignorance.

Re:Mod This Parent Up !!!

[sedyn]

Agreed, I was going to argue something similar and then read your entry and decided not to re-invent the wheel. (Ironic, given your argument).
When it comes to the GCC, a need was filled long before the OSI existed. Thus, not as much interest in re-inventing the wheel.

If the GP really believes that a player who is first to market, is dedicated/committed, and creates/exploits network effects is in the right, then viva the closed source revolutionaries!

Yes, they can be granted the title of being in the right place at the right time. And if they do something positive in that place should be praised for it, but to be considered universally in the right for achievements that mainly took place in the past isn't a good thing.

In my mind, the FSF has burned a lot of good will that they have earned through their work on GNU. Yet I will not ignore either "contribution".

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?

So, allowing proprietary drivers iPod support?

[osgeek]

I'm not following the logic there. Apple isn't keeping iTunes/iPod support off of Linux because of open vs closed driver support issues. Apple could make a package that would install on Linux and talk to your iPod without that. It could sit right next to the Windows download for iTunes, or they could even include it on the CD that comes with your iPod.

Apple doesn't do such a thing because the Linux desktop market is too small to merit the effort of doing so. Even if the Linux desktop market were quite a bit larger, Apple still would probably resist because they don't want to lend support to a rival desktop environment. They only did it with Windows because that market is so gigantic that the revenue and dominance temptations for iPod outweighed the cost to their propietary OS and hardware platform.

Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme

[CRCulver]

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.

ESR's essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar inspired Netscape to open-source its browser code, which resulted in the Mozilla browser and Gecko, one of the best browser engines around. Netscape's decision in turn paved the way for open-source ventures from a number of hitherto opaque corporations. That "book or two" got quite a ball rolling. That's why ESR is so respected today.

Acronyms vs Initials

[emag]

Why would the esser, the esurb, the naahcpuh, and ozdin not be acronyms?

64-bit OSs overrated, overhyped, ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Then this writing fails. 64-bit OSs as overrated and overhyped. The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic. A lot of people, including those around here, seem to naively believe the move from 32- to 64-bit will be a similar event. It will not. 64-bit will be meaningful for some servers and some other high end applications, for the rest there will be no appreciable immediate benefit. *IF* Joe User gets all excited about 64-bit in the near term it will probably be due to a successful Micorosoft marketing campaign designed to artificially create an upgrade cycle. Barring this there will be a slow migration to 64-bit as Apple and Microsoft make the 64-bit versions of their OSs the default version, not an optional upgrade. In other words Joe User will get 64-bit when he happens to buy some distant new machine (4-5 years ?). The near term upgrades and build-to-order options will be a minority. I'll do it, I'm a programmer, I want my code to be 32/64-bit clean.

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.

Effect on the users is more important.

[jbn-o]

I believe that is what I'm doing—from the perspective of the effect of that behavior on the users.

I don't mind paying for free software, in fact I've done so for individual programs as well as entire free operating systems. But I refuse to believe that the effect on users is unimportant or that one can't run a business by distributing and building upon free software. Plenty of large and small businesses (including my own) would prove me wrong by their mere ongoing existence. I would rather do business in an ethical way which means respecting my clients software freedoms while meeting their needs for a fee.

Ironic much?

[makomk]

I mean, it seems like the main reason the transition to 64-bit is taking so long is closed-source drivers (and software) that are only available in 32-bit versions. For example, the only reason I'm still running 32-bit Linux on my Athlon 64 machine is that I need closed-source wireless drivers (32-bit only), and various closed-source plugins and software that's also 32-bit only (Flash, codecs for various audio/video formats, Java, ...)

I respect and agree with you, mostly, but

[viewtouch]

It's fair to say that Linux might well not even exist without the work that RMS and his cohorts did in the first years of the FSF's existence.

It's also fair to say that it's NOT true that if RMS hadn't done what he did that someone else would have. It is not to be taken for granted by anyone that without RMS & FSF, sooner or later we would have ended up in essentially the same place we are today.

I know what it's like to have to get a company's permission to write software on their computers, and to pay them a LOT of money for the 'privilege'. NOT FUN. RMS has changed all of our lives in a way that we can only understand by knowing the history and by sitting back for bit and actually thinking about it.

I can't say that for ESR. All he ever did for me was threaten me for using his US service mark 'open source' on my web site, a service mark he didn't actually have. I find it easy to ignore him.

Re: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: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?

XP 64 vs XP 32

[metamatic]

The only reason anyone uses XP 64 right now is if they have an app that requires it. Otherwise, they're just asking for misery.

And this is different from regular Windows XP how, exactly?

16 to 32 transition

[metamatic]

The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic.

Only for DOS/Windows users. For Mac users it was largely a non-event, bar some software incompatibilities. Ditto most flavors of Unix.

Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme

[Anonymous Coward]

that makes him a "one hit wonder". the question being asked was, what does he do day to day that makes him worth listening to?

Re:Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' artic

[Stickerboy]

>>We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents.

>We can't write free software - but we can get multimedia stuff to work, if we pay for the license to do so. You can get your DVDs to work 'out-of-the-box' on Linux - just use Linspire. People who believe in the ideals behind Free Software won't (including me), but for those that are worried about 'losing the desktop', options are available.

If this was the thing holding Linux back from being a massive success, Linspire would be selling millions of copies. That they aren't says something.

I thought Ubuntu gobbled up so much mindshare precisely because it works so well, right out of the box. (That, and the generally helpful boards for those new to Linux.) Ubuntu doesn't hesitate to use non-free (as in speech) code when there isn't a free alternative.

or not

[dbIII]

The compiler, glibc, classpath and such are actively developed. However, all of those would continue if the FSF were to fold.

That is becuase they are from the GNU project and not from the FSF - it appears that even RMS proposing to put the gnu prefix before the word linux did not raise awareness of it as much as he wished! A lack of basic awareness of what GNU does and what the FSF does and thinking they are both the same thing renders the argument of the proir post clueless. Both groups share members and resources but they are not the same thing - don't take it from me, they have had web pages for many years.

And no - to the far more clueless, gnu/linux is not a gnu project. There is a gnu operating system, it is called hurd. The gnu/linux renaming was initially proposed for distributions containing gnu tools, linux and X and was first proposed as LiGnuX - but personally I don't think is should be called gnu/linux unless those who put a distribution together wish to credit gnu in the name as RMS intended.

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.

Re:Old fart programmers ...

[kclittle]

"privileges are" -- yes, I know, saw it .05 usec after I hit 'Submit'. It's hard to be grammer-perfect when your wife is yelling, "We have to go NOW or we'll be late!" at you from two feet away...grrrrr

RTFA, he's not advocating closed-source...

[borgheron]

He's advocating that Open Source start to engage the interest of younger people by making open source work better with things like iPods and other proprietary formats. This is a far cry from "advocating closed source." Being useful is part of the deal here. How else is FOSS supposed to catch on, if no one wants to use it?

GJC

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.