Slashdot Mirror
ESR Says Linux Followers Should Compromise
jpheasant writes "Eric Raymond argues time is running out to win over the iPod generation. To get there, he says the Linux community will need to make 'compromises.' For starters: 'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'" From the article: "I mean that we need to be prepared to go to the rights holders for these proprietary codecs and say, we'll give you money, give us a license; and this is something that the Linux community has a huge antipathy to doing because we've got all this idealism about open source. And in the long run, I think that's true, I view comprising with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open."
Someone should read up on modern philosophy (I think Kant would be a good start), particularly the bits about the ends justifying the means.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Politically, technically, pragmatically, ESR is singing perfect pitch. There are warning signs indicating Linux, and OSS-related efforts could be relegated to backroom geekdom for a long time if some "commercial" hurdles aren't first overcome.
Five years ago I had reasonable success getting non-Linux users to at least try it for a while, about half stayed and have never looked back. I consider that pretty good marketing and return on marketing.
Fast forward to today -- first(ly), I'm more reluctant to recommend Linux to non-Linux noobs because I know how many more devices people connect to their computers today, how many people watch DVDs on their computers, how many people are managing pictures and music on their computers. And many if not most are moving to use wireless routers.
Linux comes up short in all of the above... it can handle some, but not all. I've as much as completely given up on even considering wireless configurations for non-Linux noobs. Part of my "price tag" for getting Linux(s) up and running in a home network includes some kind of wireless bridge.
As for connectivity for mp3 players, not so much. And people who would consider Linux don't when they find they can't hook up their players and go. "Plays for Maybe" doesn't cut it. Unless their choice for player also connects as a non-driver plug'n'play mass storage device, they're not interested in working through the quirks.
Managing photos? Another tough sell.
I love Linux more today than ever, it's matured into a top notch competitor in the server (and desktop in my opinion) world. But if some of the interactions with commercial devices: wireless; cameras; music players; etc., Linux today is a tougher sell than five years ago, and that just ain't the way it was supposed to be. Sigh.
I suspect I'll get a barrage of replies where readers describe "solutions" to all of the above. That would be great -- especially the wireless conundrum. But, I haven't found the suite spot yet... not where everything is easy to configure, easy to use. If readers have solutions, let's start a list, some repository, some "goto" place where we can all point and say, "There's your Linux desktop solutions."
I'm willing to pay. Friends and family I've talked with are willing to pay, heck they already pay dearly for Windows XX. If Open Source/Linux doesn't make some compromise to come more mainstream, what looked like a viable and potential option may be forced into niche-dom... and everyone will pay. Yeah, slashdotters can continue to get great use out of their Linux, but Linux is good enough -- it deserves better than just the cloistered existence among the technical elite.
I think more than finding some profitable additional customer base, vendors need other enticement.... How about getting out from under the behemoth that is Microsoft? If the Linux and Open Source community could hold out that carrot, not only would vendors open potential revenue, they could cut better leveraged business deals with Microsoft -- a benefit for all of us.
but just last week he was Advocating Proprietary Software!!!!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
ESR says this...
ESR says that...
RMS oughtta hit him with the whiffle-ball bat!
Why change? I love Linux, and if it changed to suit "the ipod generation," I would probably like it less. Why compromise beliefs so we can have a 8% market share instead of 6%? Who benefits?
Eric Raymond is the biggest dork there is. Ignore this guy.
First, they'll have to learn subject-verb agreement.
Seriously, "...beyond geeks who learns..." is just sad. I'm normally not a grammar troll, but a sentence that badly written just goes above and beyond....
No end user is going to use a product if the documentation isn't comprehensible.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, I'm insulted by the comment. I was hoping to see it translated into Klingon first so I could practice my second language skills that hopefully will get me into Star Fleet Academy.
ESR is telling the Linux community what it should do to stay relevant.
I am loathed to pay money for a license for such a small part of the system when so many people have donated their time to build the rest of the system.
Perhaps what is needed is a concerted campaign to get these codecs open sourced (and no I don't just mean moaning on a web message board).
liqbase
While I totally agree that sometimes the (some of the) OS community is up to zealot like level on everthing oS..
and actually hindering the development of OS from development view and practical social view.
And we need to tame that sometimes.
However the answer to zealotry is not total "pragmatism".
Timang tinggi tinggi
parang sudah asah
alang alang mandi
biar sampai basah
The "collective decision" about the dominant operating system is going to be the decision about which OS supports existing applications. People switch OSes only if they'll run their applications. And that's going to be Windows Vista. The ace up the sleeve here is that, as with the 16-32bit transition, Microsoft will continue to support 32-bit in the back. The "different software suite" bit makes no sense to me - Microsoft had at that time a "pure" 32-bit OS (NT3.x) as well as the 9x line that balanced the 32/16 mix well. I don't understand why ESR is making this argument at all, because it makes no sense.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
There's absolutely no need to 'compromise' on including proprietary binary kernel modules to perform DRM. If the media companies want Linux users to be able to read their chosen formats, they can release the source GPL'd and Linus will include it in the tree, or not, based on his own quirky ideas of code cleanliness. Linus has made it clear he'll accept DRM support code. So, there is no issue here as far as "compromising" with the media companies.
Before anyone bitches about refusing to release the code for security reasons, I'll simply state: "security through obscurity is neither" blah blah blah.
On my bullshit soapbox, here's what I say: open source DRM is fine by me as long as it's limited to restricting specific media filetypes. In the end, \*I\* must control \*my\* computer. Which means that I still get to boot Linux, remove or never install the DRM module at will, and continue using and running free software and media without content restrictions.
IOW: My computer Sony! How about I not download and buy your music/films and you keep your filthy hands off my computer? Deal?
I don't see how playing to twentysomethings who have no power, influence, or deep pockets as being an effective strategy. Rather, I would advise pushing to the corporate desktop. Where business goes, the home will follow. If we can push GNU/Linux to the corporate desktop, conquering the home desktop will be easy. How do you think the IBM PC became the standard? It was at first a boring machine, with no color, no sound, and no appeal to anyone, save the suits who make the corporate purchasing decisions. And now, nearly thirty years later, it's evolved now everyone has it on their desktop. GNU/Linux must be positioned as a viable alternative to Windows in the corporate space first. The iPod generation is a useless distraction that can be dispensed with for the time being. If more businesses started using GNU/Linux for office workstations it would drive people to start using it at home as well. At least the media conglomerates have no influence (and in fact negative influence!) when it comes to the corporate desktop.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
What money are we supposed to use to pay these people for a license to use their codecs? How is a distro like debian supposed to raise money to buy a license without charging money for the distro? Free as in speech is great but many of us also like the free beer part. If we want to keep linux free in every way it will be very hard to start licensing software for inclusion in distros.
Wait a couple more years and critical the MP3 patents will expire atleast in the US. Many of these patents were filed in the early 1990s. This will solve much of the problems.
Linux doesn't work with iPods? News to me.
There may be some issues with the iTunes Music Store, but the issues with iTMS affect more than just Linux.
I think you might be one of the geeks he is referring to.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
was OSS about marketshare?
If you build it, they will come.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
English is his second language, his first being Klingon, you insensitive clod!
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'"
Um. I moved past that last week. Now I'm a self-absorbed geek who goes down to the pub and tries to englighten people on astronomy matters. It sure does clear seats around me fast!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
...you know the rest
A goal is a dream with a deadline
So... if Linux can't distribute an MP3 player or encode, how can Apple?.
They offer iTunes for free download to any Windows user (you do not to buy and an iPod or give Apple any money to use it). But iTunes includes MP3 encoding and playback, at no cost to the end-user (you can rip CDs to MP3, and you can also right-click on a WAV file in the library and convert it to MP3 if you've set codec in the preferences).
So how is it that Apple can release that MP3 player / MP3 encoder / CD ripper for free - and Linux can't include an MP3 player or ripper without threat of being sued? It smells of unfair competitive practices by the codec patent holders...
If you do things right, and hear out the users, eventually you will have a much more solid product. Focusing on marketing that much usually tends to drive tech-related stuff into the ground.
I believe that his views are quite insightful and maybe even correct. OSS zealotry might work for you and me, however, most people see their computer as a tool, not as a statement of ideology. Hardware and software vendors make their products to carter to most people. If OSS doesn't become a little more flexible to appeal to the masses it will never outgrow its niche market.
Bazaar!
Eric's argument presumes there is a *need* to 'Win over' the iPod generation.
Is the clock ticking? If we don't get them on board, will Linux implode by 1st January 200x? Must we hunt down, corner and 'convert' that last Windows user?
Hey, here's a thing, Eric: What if we work on the basis that those who need or want Linux will continue to do so, those who develop and support the product for love or money will also do so and those that want to have a looksee will do so and and may or may not choose to use it? Simple!
Chill out - there's more important things to worry about.
AT&ROFLMAO
Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geek who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'
You mean into the realm of geeks who learn elvish and attend Cosplay conventions in their spare time?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I'm a developer. I develop for Linux (actually for the GNU/Linux environment; I'm not a kernel developer) because I value programming freedom. I don't care a rat's ass for "market share". Why would I? I get the same amount of money, $0.00, for my apps whether they're used by one person or 10 million people.
The phrase "the iPod generation" means to me a bunch of kids who are pure consumers. They produce nothing I want. I despise their sheep-like following of fashion, I despise their inability to think for themselves, and I despise their taste in music. To consider giving up any part of my programming freedom to please these people is absurd.
...and he doesn't speak for much of the FOSS community. Claims to be a kernel developer, when he's done bugger all. Claims many other things, that on closer inspection turn out to be hot air blown out of both arseholes.
The fat fuck should stick to playing with his big, compensatory guns.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Let me get this straight... I am fluent in Klingon and go to sci-fi conventions?!? I didn't know that... time to visit a hypnotic therapist and dig up some suppressed memories.
Perhaps I was Elvis in my last incarnat... no wait... that can't be he's still alive.
On second thought, I think I'll just settle for guzzling down some beer and read "Advanced Programming in the UNIX(R) Environment (2nd Edition)" for the 19th time
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Lots of people will view this as a sellout, but it isn't. The primarly difference between ESR and RMS is that ESR is pragmatic, and RMS is 100% principled and doesn't allow his principles to be modified by pragmatism.
ESR's stance is that the end (more openness -- and that means more Freedom, too) justifies the means (deal with more proprietary software now).
Lots of people will also claim that there is danger of a slippery slope here, that if we allow *any* proprietary software, then we won't know where to stop. I simply don't think that's true. As Linux increasingly dominates the marketplace and the world wakes up and realizes that Software Freedom just makes more sense, then we'll see a shift away from the new-old way of doing things. (The old-old way was when code was delivered to the customer with the compiled executable(s).)
I believe we'll see the same sort of progress in DRM and music/movie/etc. copyrights and the related P2P battles. As artists wake up and realize that the Internet enables them to survive in a different way than the current studio systems allow, many of these issues will morph and the current battles will go away. Why do you need a studio pushing your single in stores and on radio when the Internet can simply bypass these traditional advertising means and 'Net-based word-of-mouse advertizing can do all of/most of the work?
Of course, these processes will take years, and I think Linux-on-the-desktop will be the first one to see significant progress.
Especially if the community heeds ESR's advice now.
Because we all know the ends justify the means.
First, many Linux distros already support most common audio formats, either through reverse engineered codecs (developed outside of the Land of the Free[tm], natch) or binary wrappers around Windows codecs. While they may not be easy for a distro vendor to legally distribute, it is certainly not difficult for users to obtain them. It's unclear if ESR really understands what he is talking about here, or the state of Linux media support, which is really quite good. But he likes making up buzzwords for concepts which have already been hashed and rehashed outside his reality distortion field, then pretending he's saying something brand new. Damn am I glad he doesn't run OSI anymore. (The comment about sci-fi convention geeks is also deeply ironic given ESR's own personal history.) One path is clear -- while evangelism for open codecs like Ogg, and support for them in hardware, should continue, Linux users should also cease recommending distributions like Fedora that don't come with basic mp3 playback support out of the box. Redhat's lawyers really screwed the pooch on that one, and it takes a very mangled reading of the situation regarding mp3 to assume you need a license to decode mp3's. Note that he has not actually mentioned DRM. Of course that's the big sticking point, and even if you assume the RIAA would be satisfied with application-level control (because you will NEVER get driver-level control on Linux to match Windows), you've got to convince one of the big legal music distribution sites to play along. Surprise -- both iTunes and Urge are owned by or partnerships with a major OS vendor that competes directly with Linux. Does he think there's a chance in hell Apple would jeopardize their hardware market to port iTMS to what they consider an insignificant platform? Windows Media DRM on Linux? Don't make me laugh! Steve Jobs will embrace Linux if it has good "industrial design"? Maybe if it's designed by his industrial designers! And remember, the iPod generation is only slightly younger than the Napster mini-generation...
ESR needs to proselytize the virtues of Free Software at Gangster Rap conventions, he can use their mutual love of guns as a conversation starter then he can transition into the finer points of the GPL. I just hope he avoids any mention of IQ and race comparisons unless he wants to go out in a blaze of glory.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
It's my understanding that many of the people who use Linux don't have an agenda to convert the masses to using Linux.
They use it because they like it. And they add to it if they can (either through applications or through the kernel itself) because they have an itch to scratch. And they support other applications because those applications scratch their itches.
I guess it comes down to some people saying, "Linux isn't becoming mainstream and simple enough for everyone to use!" And the reply from many will be, "So?"
I'm not advocating a gigantic crime ring to bust everyone's IP into the open - although reverse-engineering is supposed to be legal in many places in part to prevent illegal leveraging of technological monopolies in other markets. It has also got a track record of working.
Waiting for corporations to supply, even when paid, would very likely be a waste of time. There are many closed-source drivers out there which are rarely (if ever) updated, for commercial products those vendors sell. By not updating, those vendors are voluntarily choosing to put doing nothing over potential earnings. In the case of ARINC drivers, the hardware can easily cost a few thousand dollars for what is little more than an RS-232 device with an aviation rating. Why should they be any more active if you paid them? In fact, how much would you need to pay them before they'd notice? A few hundred thousand, to be economically viable?
For a couple of hundred thousand dollars, you could have a full-time staff dedicated to nothing but writing Linux drivers in one of a number of IP "safe havens". You could then guarantee the drivers would work with the latest kernel, work on all applicable platforms, be bug-free and be open-source. And, personally, I'd rather have a dedicated team of Linux gurus writing such code than have a couple of part-time hacks who really know nothing about Linux but are being paid by a corporate warlord to churn out something that is good enough for the company to keep the cheque.
If the Linux community could pool together enough cash to buy up-to-date usable drivers of any quality, then they could pool together enough cash to pay someone to write vastly superior drivers for a vastly wider range of Linux platforms including the most recent.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'"
It's a slippery slope.
Next, you going to tell us we have to talk to girls and move out of our parents basement.
So, how will you say "Please don't beat the crap out of me" in your pathetic imaginary trekkie language, losers?
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Seriously there's one reason that linux is constantly getting the shaft all the time... it's because the users will fight with each others and then fight with windows users all the time. No one has said "let's get together and present a unified front" instead I often see which linux brand is better.
Why does Firefox do so well when Linux is stagnating at best? Because Firefox bends to the will of people "oh we need IE" IE tabs is created. Oh we need access here... access granted. I want to be able to browse Microsoft's updates so I can get the new IE.
The fact is in the end even though Linux wants to believe it's open source it can't be and win. It has to work with groups that are closed source. At least for now. Perhaps ten years down the line after ITunes is popular on Linux then a Linux open source alternative can start being created working with music groups. But there appears to be no demand on the Linux side for it because no one is actively giving money to the RIAA so why would they support them.
The fact is Linux isn't Microsoft's friend and that's fine but Linux should at least pretend to be Microsoft's friend. The more you are willing to work with other people the better the cooperation works and the better the end result can become. Yes Linux will lose it's 100 percent open source ideals, but at the same time Linux will be able to do far more than it can do with only open source, while at the same time some users can remain 100 percent open source. It's about options.
Or Linux users can continue to fight amongst themselves and hang out at the 5 percent market share as Macs overtake them.
First, many Linux distros already support most common audio formats, either through reverse engineered codecs (developed outside of the Land of the Free[tm], natch) or binary wrappers around Windows codecs. While they may not be easy for a distro vendor to legally distribute, it is certainly not difficult for users to obtain them. It's unclear if ESR really understands what he is talking about here, or the state of Linux media support, which is really quite good. But he likes making up buzzwords for concepts which have already been hashed and rehashed outside his reality distortion field, then pretending he's saying something brand new. Damn am I glad he doesn't run OSI anymore. (The comment about sci-fi convention geeks is also deeply ironic given ESR's own personal history.)
One path is clear -- while evangelism for open codecs like Ogg, and support for them in hardware, should continue, Linux users should also cease recommending distributions like Fedora that don't come with basic mp3 playback support out of the box. Redhat's lawyers really screwed the pooch on that one, and it takes a very mangled reading of the situation regarding mp3 to assume you need a license to decode mp3's.
Note that he has not actually mentioned DRM. Of course that's the big sticking point, and even if you assume the RIAA would be satisfied with application-level control (because you will NEVER get driver-level control on Linux to match Windows), you've got to convince one of the big legal music distribution sites to play along. Surprise -- both iTunes and Urge are owned by or partnerships with a major OS vendor that competes directly with Linux. Does he think there's a chance in hell Apple would jeopardize their hardware market to port iTMS to what they consider an insignificant platform? Windows Media DRM on Linux? Don't make me laugh! Steve Jobs will embrace Linux if it has good "industrial design"? Maybe if it's designed by his industrial designers!
And remember, the iPod generation is only slightly younger than the Napster mini-generation...
There seems to be this eternal rift between Linux diehards who want to see Linux become the #1 desktop OS and those Linux diehards who simply want to use Linux-only on their own machines without much care for how many machines are routinely running it.
Without closing this gap and coming to some kind of agreement, Linux will never penetrate the market the way people hope it will. In order to actually get it on desktops, you have to get the average Joe to use it and like it on his own (without resorting to "just Google it" when he needs Tech Support). Forget the label of "iPod Generation." For the typical end-user, right now, Linux simply isn't as viable for myriad reasons, and the one listed in this article is a big one.
he's got a gun.
To Eric, I say, "Flac you!"
Eric Raymond? This is the guy who ran VA Linux into the ground, right? This is like getting economic advice from Enron management.
Oh, right, Bush did that.
Rather than pay codec "owners" to let us use their crummy codecs, why not pay the device makers to support the existing open codecs? Wouldn't that be a better use of money - assuming one doesn't think paying either way is stupid.
His suggestion that the community sell their souls for a higher user base comes with drawbacks. Higher base = more exploits, more support demands, pandering to a different crowd and taking energy away from the current one.
It won't be but a few more generations before the bridge between the technically savvy and the hip is finished. For crying out loud, the popularity of the personal computer is barely 20 years old. There is no need for it's fans to have to go on a crusade to expand its base. It will happen on its own in its own way.
This is an ironic call to arms from a guy who emphasized the need to scratch an itch when adding to the community. If there isn't a real problem noone's going to bust down the doors to fix it. And being out of the mainstream is not a problem.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
ESR is starting to lose his grip entirely. Linux doesn't need its core geek constituency (including ESR) to change. It needs to attract new geeks who aren't quite as exclusively geeky. Whose hobby is hooking Linux to the rest of the world, including iPods. Who want to exploit the work of the geekiest to bring Linux's builtin power to the even less geeky.
This has always been true of Linux, even for the benefit of true geeks. We need people who will at least write documentation, or even just edit documentation to be read by mere mortals. We need capitalists who will produce interfaces, apps and packages for the lure of money. We need people who will make "developers' kits" bridging the raw power and flexibility of the open OS to the more limited imaginations and attention spans of the masses.
ESR would spend his time more productively by writing some documentation or some example code than by loudly eating crow in public.
--
make install -not war
Linux has already won over the iPod generation, in a sense, because iPod runs on Linux. Google also runs on Linux, and anyone in the know uses Google. TiVo also has Linux under the hood.
That leaves the desktop. Why all the fuss over it? If ESR is talking about productivity apps, let businesses decide where to spend their money--they may very well come around to Mac or GNU/Linux. But it appears he cares more about the following:
Well, as I said in the panel, whenever I try to pitch Linux to somebody who is under 30 and has grown up with the Internet, the questions I get are things like, Will it work with my iPod? Will it work with iTunes? Will I be able to stream with this media format video? Will I be able, in other words, to use the content that's out there that's already published?
To that I say: Linux has already won! The Internet runs on Linux (and BSD). Moreover, these folks who have "grown up with the Internet" will find in greater numbers that their only constraint in computers is the web browser. YouTube, the "content that's out there", runs on Linux web browsers. And it would be a safe bet that we will be seeing YouTube and MySpace on TV set-top boxes, powered by Linux, in the coming months. Don't count out the linux-powered web appliance, either.
Basically, the only real things I can see the Free Software Movement compromising on are things such as patents and Trusted Computing. The people/companies who are pushing for software patents are doing so for the sake of establishing or maintaining dominance in the software feild, and the rise of Trusted Computing will eventually lead to a TIVO-like situation where your PC will be unable to run any self-made operating systems (or, possibly, they may be cut off from accessing the internet at the router level).
These aren't issues that you can honestly 'compromise' on. These issues mean the difference between there being Free(dom) Software or there NOT being Free Software.
ESR should be able to see that, and I honestly have to question his motives in advocating 'compromise'. Whatever they may be, I suspect they're very short-sighted and not involving any sort of concern for the well-being of the Free Software Community.
tl;dr ESR should stick to fucking up the jargon file and fetchmail and STFU.
Unfortunately, i think that ESR is going about this all wrong. I strongly disagree with 'comprimising and changing' in order to appeal to anyone. The geeks that learn Klingon or build tesla coils out of scrap monitors need to just be themselves, and to hell with anyone else.
It doesn't matter if you're popular to the masses, only if you're popular to the people that matter- namely people like yourself.
What's interesting, is that even after you peel the thinkgeek/slashdot manufactured fandom/leetness off of it, it's still never before been so *accepted* to be a geek, a nerd, a brainiac or techie.
I dunno. That whole line and concept just rubs me the wrong way.
do() || do_not();
Obviously, the iPod generation doesn't mind laying down a few hundred dollars for the latest and greatest technology. The way to win them over to Linux is not to play catch-up, or even to offer a free alternative to something that already exists. Linux will have to offer some killer app that can't be had on Windows or OS X.
I'm not sure what that would be, but there's an angle: FOSS developers are free to develop applications that don't have a business model, and paid developers are not.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
However, it should not be hard to roll a distribution that supports the devices out there. This might include commercial add-ons for Linux (the commercial version of CUPS adds a LOT of printers to the database, for example), but a hardened, newbie-tolerent, desktop-friendly Linux distribution could be done today.
It would take a bit of time to assemble, a lot of disk space and bandwidth I don't have to distribute it, and some sort of investment to be able to get the utilities out there. If these were all done tomorrow, I could have something ready for newbies within a week that really was closer to "plug and play" than "plug and pray".
As things stand, I don't see enough interest in such a product, or any real chance of the investment needed to fund the compilation. Everything's there, everything's done, but the only way to get past the "some assembly required" stage is for someone to do the assembly. That's not cheap, but it isn't difficult. What's lacking is the green stuff in the wallet, the grey stuff in the heads of programers has already been applied.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I have read slashdot for about 6 years.. never bothered to make a login never posted until now ESR is a traitor and should be excommunicated for this. By 'compromises', he means sell out and give up. Not to mention his insulting view of Linux users - I am physically fit, have diverse interests, am attractive, able to pick up attractive women and achieve full intercourse with little effort. But I will not give up or sell out as ESR urges us to.
http://kitties.b-log.ca
( translation from Klingon to English... "Cooperate? NO!" )
nuch!
With the exemption of DVD support (which is pretty darn easy to get in Linux nowadays... I prefer linux as my DVD player due to the ability to play many regions without hassle), what CODECs would the average user need that require payment? There are tons of free windows apps out there that use these codecs, and I daresay most people use the free ones, so I don't see why it would cost anything for the free 'nix apps.
No.
We should be willing to put up cash for licenses. Money is the only language businesses understand, and we can't dent their sales enough to put up an effective boycott. I personally would concentrate on specifications without NDAs and with sublicensing rights: if we're putting up extra money, I damn well expect these things at the minimum.
Why does Linux have to be popular? If folks want to make MS change their ways, there's Apple to eat market share. If the philosophy of "free" has few followers, no big deal. Linux and FOSS are movements with output, not a "market player" that needs some magic % to "become something."
I would much rather Linux and GNU-based systems to remain the true Techie Platform for projects than to see it injected explicitly into every home computer room across the globe. The user market isn't what matters to FOSS, it's the contributors. As long as folks are enticed to join in and help create useful applications on these platforms, building on one another, then it remains a useful tool - not an OS-market competitor, not an appliance, not a turkey for every pot.
The philosophy that "something must be changed for Linux to catch more market share" is misguided. Market share isn't the goal. Keeping a free platform available for technology experiments of all kinds is the goal. Linux/BSD, etc, will forever remain the platform for low-funded (academia, hobbyist) or long-lifecycle (embedded) systems. It doesn't need to become the Windows desktop platform alternative for families everywhere.
That was the case then because that was where the computer market was, and just as is the case now, there were two systems.
./ers though: compromising Linux is stupid and goes against most of what it stands for. A computer is a tool. Some people like to know how their tools work, others couldn't care less. I'm not a car guy. I can't even change my washing fluid. (scratch that, WON'T). It's not that I'm stupid, it's just that I'm lazy and feel I have more important things. I enjoy spending my time other ways. The iPOD generation is a technical generation, raised on the digital edge. Some will gravitate to being interested in how their tools work and for them, there will be Linux. Other's don't give a rip and just want use the thing to interact with all their toys. Proprietary OS for them.
One that was a sweet computer and could do all sorts of cool stuff - Macintosh
One that was considerably cheaper and couldn't do 90% of the Mac stuff but it could run VisiCalc.
Computers weren't seen as home devices then, they were for business, so of course, the machine that could excel in the business environment won out.
Today's environment is almost a flip-flop. Computer users know what they want to do with their computer at home now. There is lots of cool stuff that can be done, and unfortunately, Linux just doesn't cut it yet. The corporate and home worlds are spreading further apart in terms of use, expected functionality and control. Your average secretary generally doesn't care or couldn't tell the difference between MS Office or OpenOffice. Just train her to do her job and she'll be happy. But, if you can't get the kiddies pictures downloaded off the new HandyCam, then "What the **** is wrong with the ******* computer? Geek husband!? Can we please have Windows back?! I want to send Jenny's pictures to Granny."
I utimately agree with most
ReaLemon is yummy
...that ESR's *how* potentially makes sense. What I'm not sure I understand is his *why*.
When he says that, "'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time,'" the next question that needs to be asked is, why do they have to do that?
Something I think ESR doesn't understand is...Most Linux people that I've seen really don't want mainstream types using Linux, and by the same token, mainstream types by definition generally don't want to get within 50 km of Linux. There is a vast, and I tend to believe unbridgeable chasm between the two groups, and for the most part, both groups each tend to view the other as being beneath contempt. In order for said chasm to be crossed, two things would have to happen: On the geek side, RMS and the FSF in general would need to be rendered no more than an unfortunate memory, and on the mainstream side, Joe Six-Pack would need to suddenly and mysteriously experience an IQ boost of around 70 points. As anyone who reads this can probably guess, tragically, neither of those scenarios are likely to manifest any time soon.
Another thing I don't think ESR understands is that anything that *does* manage to break through to a genuinely mainstream audience won't actually *be* Linux in any recognisable sense any more. Those of us who remember that far back would have seen that with Red Hat. Red Hat claimed to put Linux on the map, but binary rpms *weren't* Linux as it existed before then.
Mainstream UNIX is, always has been, and always will be a contradiction in terms, specifically because UNIX was created *by* people of genius, *for* people of (or close to) genius. It was designed with the assumption that the person using it a) posessed a high degree of base intelligence, and b) was extremely willing to put said intelligence to active use. The mainstream, by definition, are a group within which neither of those assumptions are true. "Brand X" (lowest common denominator) UNIX would no longer be UNIX at all, precisely because the entire intent behind making anything "brand x" is to make said thing as simplistic and as undemanding of intelligence as possible.
So, to my question. Linux being "on the desktop," seems to be something a lot of people want. What I want to ask said people is whether or not they've really thought the implications of that through. I very strongly suspect that they have not.
In, about 80 years, you'll probably be dead. As will many geeks of the "linux generation". Linux Developers will die, if there's no new generation to pick up the slack, Linux will die too. Same with Open Source or Free Software movements.
Thats a basic fact of life : Species need to reproduce to survive. Which is very problematic with geeks...
and Microsoft's winning it. They want to close the currently open PC architecure and elect themselves as gatekeeper to what's left. They've got hardware manufactures adding features that prevent code without digital signatures from running. You'll need and incredibly expensive compiler and certification to get that signature. It'll kill Open Source deader than dead. You'll lose all the hobbyists (who won't be able to afford the software and certification), and with them the OSS community. Before long only a few big projects will survive, and those will only be relevent to large companies (because they won't be able to secure enough funding to do the smaller stuff). OSS software won't be able to offer the features it needs to, people will stop using it, and it'll die out.
What can stop this is getting a large enough base of OSS and linux users now that hardware manufactures won't abandon us when Microsoft comes calling.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
much better than I could: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/eric-buys- an-ipod
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
If you're interested in going, you should give this guy a call. He looks like he needs a date.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Thank god fo Richard Stallman. At least we have one high profile person who has an unwavering value system. How sad it would be if we didn't, as we watch the values of our "leaders" and "spokesmen" drift with the times. We don't need to license codecs if we can write our own. I can barely watch news videos on my Mac, because they're all in some dumb format, but are Macs behind, or becoming irrelevant? Free Software users do exactly the same thing Mac users do when confronted with codecs they can't play-- they ignore them. Why waste your time trying to play a clip if the owner makes it so difficult? Why buy a movie if you can't play it on your computer? (Movielink doesn't want money from Mac or Free Software users, so why should I give a shit?) When these "content providers" get around to wanting my money, they will bend. Otherwise, I'm fine keeping my money and spare time for better uses.
Nobody is offering money or anything else to the codec hoarders, because the simple fact of the matter is the content is not worth anything. The codecs and players and formats are shoved down the users' throats on other platforms, and people will consume the content because it is easy.
Look at it this way. If your website requires Shockwave, I'm not going to reboot, go find my old laptop, load VMWare, run WINE, or do anything else extraordinary -- I will just end up ignoring your product. Same goes for your content under RealPlayer. I'm simply not going to jump through the hoops. Your content is less valuable to me than my time and effort that would be spent locating and installing codecs to play it. I can play MPEG audio and video, and even various flavors of DIVx and numerous other A/V codecs without any trouble at all. You should have used one of those, if you had truly wanted my attention -- and certainly if my viewing of your media was of some value or importance to you.
I'm not sure I actually see the problem here.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
If you are a "self absorbed" ? Linux geek who speak Klingon (can learn commands?) why would you want to have all the "Ipod generation" masses to use linux?
....
....
Why? really why ?
It is fairly enough if those companies that host their stuff use linux, so you can sell your services for the price of gold. You do not want to turn your hard-learnt system to be completely understood by the "ipod generation" or anyone else. You do not want to end up with 500 Linux admins for that one Linux job in your town. You do not want everyone be a "linux admin" as every second user calims to be a windows network admin because they managed to hook up a second windows box on their dsl router.
You just don't. You do not want people to understand what you are sedding and grepping and happy if your network card works so you can do whatever you have to.
And if your sound card has a semi-decent driver so you can listen to some loud mp3 so you do not have to interact with the rest who do not speak klingon, all you need is just a non-nvidia card so your xf86/xorg is not crashing on you every half an hour
ok, maybe that last tylenol I took for my cold just took my barin over for now
Linux is pretty much THE dominant OS in the server space these days...
Yet I don't have or won't ever have a server at home. I have a desktop system and want to use desktop OSS. All my OSS development efforts (see http://wyoguide.sf.net/) are for the desktop so everybody can use them and not only big business with servers. So if Linux is useful for the desktop then it's fine, else I'll move to a different system.
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
He is looking at this all crabbed...
You don't compromise on this end, you compromise on THAT end...
what I mean to say is...
Linux becomes more popular, more people use it...THEN the hardware manufacturers will make drivers that work on the linux platform...
Not the other way round...you don't make an operating system popular by making it compatible with one piece of hardware...
When Apple gets the idea that there is a whole segment of the world that WON'T buy the IPod because they cannot use it on their computers, they might do something about it...
--E--
Libertarians aren't worried about whether we get screwed over in the process (and seem oblivious to non-market, non-greed forces, even when they're more important), they just want marketshare. Means? Ends? They don't matter; if you're strong (rich) enough, you just screw over anyone you want so long as they're not stronger (richer) than you to take whatever you want.
/dev/null as befits them. I tell the computer and the software what to do, I will *NOT* stand for it doing that to me. And if a system ever forgets that, it can expect to face as many debuggers, hex editors, screwdrivers and soldering irons as it takes for it to remember who is boss here.
Yeah, I'm being glib here, but it doesn't feel like it compared to some of the libs I've talked to. I swear some of them read the Rules of Acquisition and think they're a good idea, not unlike Quark's line of "we don't want to end exploitation, we want to become the exploiters."
Anyhow, I'll side with RMS on this one. I want freedom, not compromise, and I'll help code it if I can, but DRM, software patents and the like can go to hell, or
ESR suggests that the community give in and pay up for proprietary technologies to enable more easy and immediate multimedia support, which in turn will somehow make Linux more attractive to people obsessed with the current trappings of multimedia pop culture.
I can't say I care for the idea, but I don't understand how it's supposed to leverage open source software in the long-run: by embracing and welcoming proprietary technologies now and successfully bringing more people in through those sorts of actions, how are they going to be lead to believe that open source multimedia technologies are a good idea? Accepting these things would ultimately result in them being accepted on yet another platform and decrease the relevance of open and/or free alternatives. Sounds like a pretty shit plan to me.
ESR doesn't understand a really important part of the F/OSS movement that he really should - namely that F/OSS developers aren't usually in it because they adamantly want the whole world to embrace Open Source. Sure there may be some F/OSS leaders out there like that, but when it comes down to the grunt, the armies of programmers and end-users, most of them just use F/OSS because it works for them. Maybe they can't get the features they want in commercial software, maybe the commercial apps aren't secure or stable enough, or maybe they're just hobbyists who like to play with different operating systems. But overall, the F/OSS community isn't in it to win over the whole world to BSD/GNU/etc. philosophies. Even if some project leaders compromise, even if a lot of Linux/BSD distro managers license some codecs and algorithms and whatever else, it won't make much of a difference unless the software is being designed and tested by people who are designing and testing it with people who aren't F/OSS nerds in mind.
Ohh come on... mod parent funny!!!!
I'm sorry, but ESR is simply wrong. There's no window that will close in 2008. Linux is unstoppable.
i lity-list/2004-March/000277.html
- It's growing exponentially
- The applications are becoming compelling
- It's growth is down-turn immune
- Can't be stopped with money
Linux is growing exponentially, not just the user base, but applications. As the market has proven many times, it's the applications that count in the end (which is why Linux should embrace non-free binaries). Check out Debian package growth:
http://telemetrybox.org/tokyo/
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/deb-usab
2000 - 2000
2002 - 9000
2004 - 12000
2006 - 19000 (in Ubuntu)
Fedora isn't doing too badly either, with over 6,000 packages available (in extras, mostly).
With Fedora or Ubuntu, I can now install with a few mouse clicks 10X more applications than can be found in all the software stores in the world, and many of these freebies rock. It's crazy, unstoppable growth.
The standard killers that cool technologies face in trying to overturn an entrenched dominate player don't apply to Linux. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. They can't sue Linux to death. They can't under-cut prices and force Linux into bankruptcy.
But, ESR has a good point about wooing the proprietary software and content developers.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
. . . I have forgotten why it is that we ( the open source community generally) are supposed to care whether mainstream 20-somethings use linux on their desktops? Further, why are we supposed to care anout ipods? What's so special and unique about an ipod? In view of the over abundance of other portable music players on the market (many of which use open(ish) standards), and the easy availability of downloadable music in alternative formats, isn't the ipod just a piece of marketing to us?
The law is not an ass. No really.
Don't tell me you're feeling ashamed of yourself! ;-)
tlhIngan maH!
I hate to be belligerent (sp?), and I really don't want to troll, but...
GET OVER YOURSELVE'S FOSS COMMUNITY!
Now, not everyone is guilty of this, but judging by so many of these comments it seems that so many are still stuck in this 1980's "Elite Hacker" mentality.
"Well if you don't know how to recompile your kernel so your sound can work, you don't deserve to be using linux"
The computer is no longer a geek exclusive, it is now being used by *SHOCK* average Joe. If you want to stay relevent don't tell Joe "RTFM you n00b," instead you need to walk him through it, because 50% of the time, the Manual ain't gonna help him.
People shouldn't have to violate (maybe, maybe not, depending on what day it is) U.S. Law to play the most common Digital Music and Video formats out there. Yes, we all know Ogg is superior, but until more people start using it, to Average Joe it is F-ing useless. Average Joe, who, in using linux for his pr0n and mp3z, is NOT spreading ads and viruses. I couldn't care less about market share, I couldn't care less about your "Ideals" over a bunch of 0's and 1's. If a linux distro could, out of the box,
1. Play DvDs
2. Play Common Music Formats (i.e. Mp3, Wma, AAC) (with DRM if possible)
3. Play Flash Correctly
4. Not require the CLI for common, end user tasks
Linux could win tons of converts, and less Average Joe's on Windows means less spam, virii, and ads in your inbox.
Sorry about the rant, bye bye Karma...
Shots: A Populist Parable
I feel a lynching is in order! Seriously, ESR would hate himself if linux turned into a proprietary market.
Sure, there are a few cases where compromise helps. I already compromise by tainting my kernel with the proprietary nvidia drivers. I hear people rave about subscription music services -- pay so much per month, get as much music as you can download, lose it if you stop paying -- requires DRM on a level that probably never will exist on Linux.
But for the most part, it's all about ease of use. People complain that their iPod doesn't work -- BS. Your iPod not only works well with Linux, but you can even put Linux on your iPod. But it's not easy to do.
People complain they can't play the music and movies they want to. Really? The only music I can't play is DRM'd iTunes crap -- everything else can be solved with codecs, which are of questionable legality and are not always easy to set up.
People complain about all sorts of things wrong with Linux, but for the most part, I don't see any kind of compromise necessary. Apple could release iTunes for Linux, and that would solve a lot of issues -- and no one would have to compromise. Same with the proprietary codecs -- most of them are legal to use if you've got a Windows license, and most of these people are moving from Windows.
Where he's right, though, is that compromise would help. I agree that I'd hate to see Linux turn into OS X just to capture the pod generation, but I'd also hate to see the opposite -- Linux on the desktop fades into obscurity, and more and more people switch back to Windows, because more and more things simply don't work with Linux because we weren't willing to compromise.
Here's what would make more sense: Compromise any way we feel we have to. When we completely own the market, then we can start to make demands. Imagine Linux was the primary gaming platform, and a coalition of distros sends a message to nVidia and ATI: "Whichever of you releases the first fully functional, fully-supported open-source Linux drivers, gets to be supported by us." That means if ATI becomes 100% open and nVidia is still closed, we officially no longer support nVidia -- ATI will be detected and will work out of the box, be supported by package management, and so on, but nVidia will be completely on its own. New boxes will be shipped with "plays best on ATI" logos, nVidia customers would get a warning about nVidia drivers voiding their warranty...
I bet nVidia would find a way to open up pretty quick, if that happened.
Do you see the point? Linux world domination and open source philosophy can go hand in hand, because if we have the world domination, we can apply pressure to achieve the open-ness.
The problem is, it's a much harder problem than simply buying codecs. We need great software, too, and great UIs. We need the codecs, but we also need them to work well out of the box, which requires more than just a license.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The only people who want a mainstream adoption of linux are the marketing (bottom-feeders) who want to cash in on it, so they obviously don't get the point.
Linux is for geeks, and it should stay that way. Windows and Mac is for the mainstream (spoonfed) mass, and it should stay that way.
If you want to make an alternative desktop to windows/mac, then start writing your own kernel, and go from there, but *please* don't continue to ruin the Linux kernal and OSS community by using jedi (marketing-influenced) mind-tricks, you padowan Siths.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
...I fixed it for you. I cannot comprehend why everybody is trying to get everybody to "switch" to Linux. The easier method for greater linux acceptance is to have people use it from the start. This is why I have dropped power and internet out of my kitchen window to the street below my appartment. I have also set up a brand new computer that runs Ubuntu. Nightly, before the soccer game, the neighborhood kids crowd around the terminal and watch movies on google. They also spend a lot of time on myspace (I tell them to get a google page because myspace spies on you). I would never dream of letting any kid go onto myspace from a windows box. The box would be immediately bogged down with crap and I'd have to re-install everything. I've had the linux box out there for months with no problems. I also use the box as a display model for people interested in a new computer. I am training the older kids in the neighborhood to find customers, assemble computers, and then support them after the sale. Some of them are doing well with finding people that want computers. My trainees don't have to know anything about Windows. They don't even need to know anything about Linux because I am there walking them through the entire process untill they are able to do it on their own. They get paid in tips. I train people that know zero about computers to provide computer service to people that know even less about computers. I have a successful system for shipping problem free linux computers. It seems, to me, that the rest of the linux community can only piss and moan about MS or tell new users to RTFM. Why is everybody waiting for some large computer company to ship a linux box and make all the money from doing it? Why wait for "wider acceptance", when 85% of the worlds population has no fraking idea what a computer is? People in my neighborhood think I'm great because I help them listen to Radio Monumental from El Salvador. They think its really snazzy when I have a 15 year old help them fill out job applications online. I'm really going to blow their minds when I introduce them to VOIP. All the things that the other 15% of the population do with their computers seems like magick to people without. Simple stuff...like getting pictures off of an SD card ( I got $10 for that the other day), and other simple tasks that we take for granted. So, to sum up, while everybody else spins their wheels trying to get people switch...I'll be over here creating new linux users.
What is this obsession people have with linux being accepted mainstream? What Raymond claims is true, if linux (and FOSS in general) wants to be adopted mainstream it's needs to compromise it's ideals.
But maybe linux doesn't need to be mainstream. Operating systems tend to be developed to accomodate the lowest commond denominator. Microsoft has a lot of grandmas and grandpas with eMachines to satisfy. Apple has a lot of clueless art students to "empower". If linux's lowest common denominator is a bunch of Klingons, that's a good thing.
If linux's demographic was magically expanded to include grandma, grandpa and emo art students that aren't willing to learn how to compile a kernel, it would have to contend with the point-and-click, plug-and-play mentality of it's clueless user base, meaning that developers would be forced to spend time making linux idiot proof instead of optimizing, debugging, enhancing and advancing.
I, on the other hand, would encourage linux, and all open source projects to minimize their user bases. I'm not suggesting that FOSS should be kept a secret, but you certainly don't have to waste resources buying an idiotic full page ad in the New York Times. A good open source project (like a good democracy) demands an educated user base, not a herd of people who do things because advertisments tell them to.
That being said, there's no reason you can't have linux for stupid people (ubuntu (no offense, I use ubuntu)) and linux for smart people (freebsd, ha). That's the beauty of open source software.
In summary, if you already use linux and you still bought an ipod instead of the countless non-DRM, usbstorage friendly media players that are better and cheaper, then you are stupid and you should probably buy a mac. If you already own an ipod and you want to get into linux, life sucks, get started reverse engineering iTunes.
Rather than imply that anyone should comprimise for the marketing of DRM,
There should be more of an effort explaining how DRM squashes fair use and oversteps/circumvents existing copyright law.
But really, education/explanation is difficult. If good songs are available in a less restricted way (non-DRM), the "mp3 generation", "ipod generation", or the "LP/8-track/cassette/CD" generation just wants to listen to music, and they will download it.
So the only thing that really helps is more sites with non-drm music, and more non-drm music players.
Its a somewhat chicken and egg problem. Usefull software won't be written unless there is a market. There can't be a market unless there is usefull software.
The more people using linux the higher probability that more usefull code (free and $$$) will be written.
Better drivers and HW support as well.
You can only write/ find so much free software yourself. You need enough people to continue using linux to create a vibrant community. Otherwise it stagnates.
This is the smarmiest post I have ever read. GNU/Linux users on this forum have been forcefed this ZDNet-style pablum for over 10 years. "Beware everybody, Linux could [insert some dreadful consequence here] unless you learn to compromise." Nothing bad has happened yet. Quite the opposite. ESR has proven himself to be a pretty unstable figure over the years. It takes some significant hyperbole for him to even get in the news anymore. Why does his latest 180 degree utterance even merit notice?
an ill wind that blows no good
yImev qIp jIH Dung
First of all, as much as I hate pedants who always correct "linux" to "gnu/linux", their thinking is valid here. Let's remember that linux is a kernel and a philosophy, not a whole operating system, and as far as kernels go, it's among the best out there.
People who don't understand what linux is or what is about always go for this angle "ZOMG SUPPORT IPODS OR MICROSOFT WILL WIN", and it's a bit sad to see them get coverage. Linux is just the expression and manifestation of the belief that making things that are free and open and elegant is rewarding in and of itself, but furthermore, incidentally the way to make the best products.
Let microsoft spend its energy worrying about competition and survival. The author's and microsoft's concerns aren't sensical in a open-source mindset.
"If non-Linux friendly devices don't want your money, then that's their choice to make."
No, their choice to make is "Do I use iTunes with my iPod, or do I use Linux?" It's all about "will I be able to use the stuff I have now?", and if asked to choose between the ubiquitous gadget and an OS few people have heard of, I imagine most people would answer "iTunes + iPod".
So he's saying the guys in the bazaar are going to have to crawl up to the cathedral and say 'please please we want to buy some of your holy goodness to make more people come to our bazaar'.
Not sure the metaphor works too well here...
RTFA. Despite the lack of clarity in his argument, ESR being a Libertarian is not relevant. His premise is that to gain ground in the user community, these proprietary codecs should be paid for and included in the OS. His primary supposition is that if LINUX doesn't gain ground in the user community, the popularity of LINUX will be diminished and morale, development, and support will also be diminished. I disagree, but I disagree because I don't accept the premise as a valid premise. His personal politics don't affect the argument any more than his race or religion.
It is a pity that high schools and colleges quit teaching Rhetoric in the 1970's and we have to listen to people like you trying to sound intelligent. May I suggest going back to school and taking English 101 and Philosophy 101?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
It seems like Eric has lost his religion and is caving into the closed source community. Perhaps he has forgotten that OpenSource is a wonderful "alternative" to closed source. Perhaps the fire has gone out.
OpenSource users provide a large and rapidly growing market that desperatly needs to be attended to by hardware manufactures and by software developers, both OpenSource and closed source. This market *will not* shrink in the future. OS software developers should act like it. Plan for it. Act like they understand what's going on. There is profit to be made with OpenSource. A lot of it as RedHat and others are demonstrating.
Rather than whinning about being left behind, OpenSouce advocates should stand up and become leaders, organize and be developing marketing strategies, agressively marketing OpenSouce alternatives and showing hte for-profit community how they can profit from continuing to develope OpenSource approachs to their businesses. Show them in plain dollars and cents language how it is in their best interests to adopt OpenSource methods and use OpenSource software.
Lets face it when it comes to marketing the benefits of using OpenSouce, these folks who claim to be "OpenSouce advocates" have been d*cks, small and downy soft ones at that.
Just how much does OSDL spend on medium advertising whether it be TV, radio or otherwise to extoll the value of using OpenSource? Why don't they?
When was the last time RedHat advertized nationally? Why not?
For that matter, have any of the others who make good quarterly profits marketing OpenSource software spent any significant amounts of national advertizing? No, they haven't.
This, plain and simply, is stupid and ignorant on their parts. Is it greed or lack of insight or both that prevents them from setting adequate funds aside for marketing budgets?
Why do we as users put up with such banality? Shouldn't we as users and even developers expect more and better from those who claim to be advocating for OpenSource and/or profiting because we produce and even use their/our products? What's it going to take to motivate us to jump in their sh*t?
So long as you do accept the other half: Linux will not be supported by major providers, and most people will not switch over. If you are ok with that, then great. I've no problems with people who believe Linux should be a server OS, and only a desktop OS for geeks.
The problem is if you think Linux is something everyone should start using and supporting. In that case, you've got to be willing to make concessions. When you want everyone to sign on to something, you have to try and make something everyone can be happy with or at least most people. That does mean making ideological concessions for practical reasons.
What I hate are the people who evangelize Linux at every turn, but think it should only be available on their terms. Sorry, that's not going to cut it. If it's "OSS only" then accept that most people will say no. If it's "Linux for everyone" accept that you have to try and give everyone what they want. Just don't try and say "Everyone needs to do things my way" because that just doesn't work.
If you throw enough shit at the wall, every now and then some will stick.
/. his overall karma would be poor.
He's said a few things that have resonated, and a lot of things that sounds just like the Anonymous Cowards here. If everything he's ever said would have been published as a comment on
So why do so many people listen when he talks, anyway? Hoping for another piece to stick?
I'm not claiming that I necessarily disagree with what he's saying if the intent is widespread Linux adoption, but I'm very curious about something.
I've googled and Wikipedia-ed and tried very hard to determine what significant contributions ESR has made to the open source software movement to deserve the respect and broadcasting of his opinions that he seems to get, and I can't for the life of me figure it out.
From what I can tell, he wrote fetchmail, dinked around a bit with emacs, and maintains an online hacker dictionary. Surely we have slashdot members who have provided us with far more important accomplishments - both philosophically and programatically - than ESR. So why does he receive the airtime that he does? Someone want to enlighten me?
20-30%? Hell, Mac's getting a ton of games lately, and they're nowhere even remotely near 20%.
Please tell us what caused you to "fuck around" for 3 days.
You bought a windows-only thing, and then tried to get it to work in Linux, without googling for it first?
You tried to play an opaque/drm/proprietary format file in Linux.
You bought a apple-only thing, and tried to get linux to work on it?
I have done all of above, but I expect there is work involved in these cases.
It was never about payment. Getting things legitimately without paying for them is a nice bonus (and as a matter of principle, since I'm not in the habit of buying a lot of software, I'd rather run applications you're not supposed to pay for...) but the whole "philosophical" question here revolves around software freedom.
In that regard, I think the greatest contribution of Free Software is that it raises the bar of people's expectations. Commercial photo editors have to be better than GIMP. Commercial 3-D mesh editors have to be better than Blender. Commercial GUI systems have to be better than KDE. Commercial compilers need to be better than GCC. Maybe that's not a difficult thing, really, but the free software is making all this "baseline" functionality free to anyone. Without that influence, I think the bar for "standard operating system" would be lower, and all kinds of things that are standard now, you'd have to pay some amount of money for.
In the Microsoft Office example - the thing is that the Office suite is basically a de-facto standard. For that reason, Office on Linux would be an asset to those who want it. It has value and it's something Microsoft could sell. But the situation of trying to sell commercial software for Linux has never been a great one for various reasons - among other things, the lack of consistency between different distributions, and the fact that many Linux users, I think, aren't used to buying software. (It's a bit hard, when you're used to everything being cost-free. But I think it's important to recognize those times when a piece of commercial software really is valuable, and be willing to buy in that case.) Probably the reasons Microsoft hasn't released Office for Linux is because Linux (as a platform) benefits from that more than Microsoft does - they don't need to draw Linux users into using Office, they can just use the fact that a lot of people already use Office to try to guide people toward using Windows.
Going back to hardware drivers: the incentive for hardware makers to provide drivers on Linux would be to sell hardware. Looking at this from the perspective of a Linux user who just wants to use a particular piece of hardware, binary, closed-source drivers would be fine: but personally I hope to see more drivers get released as Free Software, as this allows more flexibility. Drivers released as Free software could be adapted to run on new architectures, or under significantly different versions of the kernel, for instance. Leaving that kind of thing in the manufacturer's hands means that the future usefulness of that piece of hardware is tied to their willingness to keep those drivers updated for new circumstances. That's a situation I'd prefer to avoid, though obviously not everything is going to work out that way...
So, when's it worth making compromises? I'm not really sure. Promoting Linux for the sake of promoting Linux - increasing the user base, etc. at best means that Linux will become a more widely supported program, with more commercial software releases and less tech support BS along the lines of "you use Linux therefore you can't use this {ISP|camera|whatever}". But other than that, I'm fine with it being a system by and for programmers.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
And Theo de Raadt. Although he's a BSDer, some involved with Free Software projects could learn a lot from his no-bullshit approach.
It's a market - if people want to lay proprietary or binary codecs on top of an Open Source operating system, they can do that. As long as the hardware makers 'allow' you a choice of software, the "iTunes" people will eventually get it and exercise the power of choice. Sure, you may have issues with some purists not allowing you to run proprietary code on their "Open Source Nirvana" system, but how are they going to enforce it? With DRM or 'trusted computing' technologies? ;-)
The makers and supporters or software and codecs are businesses, so remember that they will go where the market does. Adding codec capabilities to GNU/Linux systems (beyond what are already there for those outside the US) is just a usability feature at the moment. People who switch to GNU/Linux systems because of the Free Software philosophy are not going to switch away because non-Free stuff takes three or four clicks to install (and it does take that in Ubuntu), and likewise those who just want software for no cost are not going to bother switching away from Windows which came with their computer.
If people started adopting Linux desktops (there are loads of arguments out there, choose one: advertising, preinstallation, getting the school, getting the offices, etc.) then software makers will start offering their wares for Linux systems. Microsoft do not have contracts with the vast majority of software companies, it is the widespread use of Windows which makes software exist for it.
I think there are far more important issues which need to be solved, like the preinstallation/non-competition-contract one. Companies sell computers which come with Nero, Microsoft Office and other commercial software, so if they sold Linux on their systems they could easily include codecs and other non-free stuff. It is really easy to install proprietary software on systems if the user has already installed Linux on it (read: they are not completely clueless), and if someone else installs it for them then they could install this stuff for them as well.
There are basically three approaches: 1) Make the user install the stuff themselves, which is already easy with many distros, 2) Install it by default which a few distros do, but the DMCA can stop this in the USA or 3) Use Free formats. The first one is done already, the third is done in the distro but not in the mass market (Rockbox, Neuros Audio and things are trying to rectify this), so the only one left is number 2. I think it is a pretty defeatist attitude if Linux distros have to pay companies to be compatible with them because some laws say so. I would really say go after the DMCA on this one, since that is the main enemy.
I imagine a time not so far away when the "One laptop Per Child", or another $100 laptop becomes reallity.
Of course it would run open source, because anything else would add a magnitude of cost.
Then the pressure is reversed. It's no longer "can linux captivate to the millions of ipod kids?", it would be "will the media file play on a billion kids laptops running open source?".
I see the attraction of proprietary drivers / software IF you want to make the current LINUX userbase larger and make LINUX more popular than Mac, or as popular as Windows. I am one of those people who don't mind making the suggestion to try LINUX, knowing that it is ultimately up to the individual to choose their computer. Even with my suggestions, most continue to choose Windows because it is ultimately what they are most comfortable with. To make it easier for the average person to understand, I have found it helps to group LINUX operating systems into a "lowest cost but biggest technical challenge" category, followed by Windows which is still "low to average cost but biggest security risk", followed by Mac which is "biggest expense and most proprietary with least amount of technical headache". Or to keep it simpler, what are you willing to sacrifice to save money, prevent headaches, or secure your system? There is no such computer that offers all three to the home user. Ultimately, the majority of people with severe iPod dependencies are unlikely to become big contributors to Open Source, they will just take advantage of it. So other than userbase, I don't see how appealing to iPod users will improve LINUX or Open Source software in any way. The entire point of Open Source is improvement by community, starting with communication. Considering how iPod listeners tend to tune out the world around them, I somehow doubt they will embrace the LINUX community with open arms after they get their iPod and iTunes working in their LINUX installation, but rather will find ways to criticize it for not working as easily as Windows or Mac systems. In a society where the classic notion of "community" no longer exists, I find LINUX to be one of the last places to find fellow human beings who are working toward a common goal. Modern society at large seems to be against community, promoting independance mixed with conformity. Therefore I believe that introducing proprietary software or drivers into LINUX systems will eventually cause the end of the LINUX movement, due to a majority of users who contribute nothing.
I. Don't. Care.
That's what it comes down to for most people, me included. I do not care why Linux can't run the apps I need, work with the hardware I want, do the things I want to do, and Windows can. I really don't. All I care about is having my stuff work. If Linux can't do that, well too bad. I don't want to be a crusader, I don't want to have to compromise my computing just to try and make a point and force change. My computer is a tool, nothing more, I want it to do the tasks I set for it easily and quickly. I'll use the OS that enables that the best.
So if you think that the users need to demand change, I'm afraid you've got it backwards.
I thought the MP3 guys were trying to get people to pay for their licenses, even for Windows.
We shall never submit into economic obligation to a company of any size, or intent. Doing so, will put us, inevitably, into their pockets and the hidden obligations and incentives to favor the flow of capital vs. what we favor currently (something that actually works).
Companies of all sizes shall bow to us, respect what experts say, and conform to Open and monetarily unconditional standards. Not the other way round. We shall NEVER attempt to globally PAY for a license to conform to the GPL, so we may distribute the technology and risk people developing towards that technology with an uncertain future due to the possibility of it being nulled due to non-payment. The Company shall respect open standards, comply with them and honor the sole and most important benefits of any devices or implication of Communications.
If a Company want's to make their protocol proprietary. Then, that protocol ceases to exist or any tangible device relying on that protocol metaphorically vanishes from reality. That's the way I see it. Proprietary communications implementations are not documented, or understood; it also follows that no certainty may follow such as it being tested or researched. Whether or not the black box may demonstrate operability, it relies on religious philosophies for acceptance, such as "faith" and "blind acceptance". Why it might work, is only an additional and mysterious query to ponder. Who needs that noise? Either the Company demonstrates the quality of their ability, or it's safer to assume that the reason they don't want it displayed is becuase it's flawed.
Companies should be paying Open Source Developers, for freely doing their research and development!
Seriously, look at how many Linux users deride Windows and it's users and evangelize how much better Linux is. That right there is declaring that Linux should have a larger market share. If you tell me "You should use Linux it's better," you are saying you want the Linux population to grow. This is especially true for those that try to convert people online they've never met. It's one thing if you are trying to help a friend out because you know them and their needs and really think it'd be better, however it's a pure market-share grab when you try to get random people to convert.
I've encountered it many times, including many here on Slashdot. People will try to sell me on Linux, claim that it's better for me. They don't know me, they are just trying to spread Linux. Never works, of course, because no thought is given to if it can actually do what I want to do, but they try all the same (and often tell me I'm wrong for wanting to do what I want to do).
So what it comes down to is OSS users need to ask themselves what their stance is: Do you care if anyone other than yourself uses Linux? If the answer is no then great, you can and should try to keep it as whatever you like. However don't go pushing it on others in that case, unless you know them well and are sure it's what they also want. If the answer is yes, then you need to push for concessions to be made. To draw people in to the fold you need to make it attractive to them, and what they want may be real different form what you want.
I don't mind either view, what I mind are the self-contradictory people that want both. They want a hard-core, geek OS that isn't user friendly, doesn't support closed source. However they think that everyone should not just use that, but like using it. They essentially think that everyone should be a geek, which of course everyone is not. That just doesn't work. You can't demand that everyone change to be what you want.
That you need a PC to get your iPod connected to the iTunes store always seemed like a temporary measure. All it should really need is some kind of network connection. Like, er, Zune. Or a docking station that both recharged it and connected it to the mothership. Or a cellular network connection.
When the iPod came out, home routers were expensive and rare. But now everybody into home entertainment gear has one. And WiFi is everywhere. So it's no longer necessary for entertainment boxes to involve a PC.
This reduces the case for Linux iPod support.
beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon
I was never a good trekkie. I went and learned Romulan.
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
Linux and Windows ran on old peoples computers, back before cell phones. They used to use them spam each other porn and stock scams instead of just IM'ing their friends, taking pictures, pirating music, and downloading homework outsourced to China. Your parents may still have one LOL. ... wake up... the "iPod" generation doesn't give a damn about desktops, they just want it to work with ZERO fuss, and connect to all their devices which they DO care about. That means a bunch of dedicated devices, and probably a Mac laptop. New cellphones have more then enough power to do everything you need.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Linux sells itself with every restriction corporations place on people's capacity to do what they want with their own computer. This is the very fortunate 'negative space' Linux is, and will always be, situated within. Force nor 'strategic incorporation' of proprietary software should apply. If something else comes along that gives more of the freedom, quality and wealth of software I experience with Linux, I'll jump, and many others would too.
ESR should take _his_ mono-dimensional zeal off the shelf and lose a little religion. Linux is already an OS used gladly by millions - yes even luddites and artists - and more so day by day. Some have chosen it because it gives them more flexibility, customisability, performance, freedom, $VALUE than other OS's, other's because they simply feel more productive using it.
If you don't appreciate having freedom of movement and fine performance at the level of your personal computing device, or just don't think Linux swings with a pair of Adidas like OSX does, who gives a Flying Balmer.
To say it's soley the torch of nerd idealism these days is entertaining blindness... or opportunistic journalism born of a waning career.
It will take somebody who's prepared to buy the rights for those technologies on behalf of the Linux community and then distribute them as a product.
Apple isn't selling the rights for those technologies to anybody. If anything, Linux actually has better third party support for iPod and relatd products than Windows at this point.
To get there, he says the Linux community will need to make "compromises." For starters: Linux believers will have to reach out beyond "self-absorbed" geeks who learn Klingon and attend science fiction conventions in their spare time.
All major Linux distributions permit, and even support, the use of proprietary drivers (e.g., for NVidia), proprietary CODECs (e.g., MPEG, RealNetworks), and proprietary programming platforms (e.g., Sun Java), under proprietary licenses. Vendors like RedHat and SuSE are even bundling for-pay applications with some of their distributions. And users are paying for those Linux distributions.
The fact that there aren't more proprietary codecs and drivers on Linux isn't the fault of "Linux believers". Linux believers are constantly "reaching out" to commercial companies, begging and pleading for drivers and applications to be ported to Linux, even closed source. I myself have been doing that for as long as Linux has been around. It's the lack of response from many vendors that has forced geeks to reverse engineer things and come up with their own solutions.
And it's the lack of response from commercial vendors, as well as their haphazard product lifecycles and support even on so-called "supported" platforms, that has caused people like me to increasingly prefer all-open-source solutions whenever we can get them. In the end, not having iPod support is less important than having to put up with yet another poorly supported driver or having to wait for months until a vendor gets around to updating a closed source library to work with the latest version of the OS.
In any case, if ESR's vision of the future is a sort of mix of commercial and open source software, with some commercial entity paying for licenses for proprietary functionality, that already exists: it's called an Apple Macintosh. And for what it is, it's not a bad compromise. But Linux users haven't moved en-masse to Macintosh because, to many people in the real world, iPod support is ultimately less important than reducing the various business risks associated with depending on vendors of proprietary software components.
my friend Rob Landley and I have done an analysis which we're going to publish very shortly suggesting that there is a critical window of vulnerability for changing the dominant operating system. And that is probably going to close in 2008.
I don't want to "change the dominant operating system", I want to see operating system dominance disappear completely. A world in which 90% of the machines run Linux is almost as bad as a world in which 90% of the machines run Windows or MacOS. The software industry should be built on a diversity of systems, unified through open standards, not a sequence of OS monocultures.
Eric Raymond has had some interesting points in the past, but in more recent times the only things I can recall him making news for:
1. Saying that the GPL was unnecessary
2. Cursing at Microsoft for daring to try and recruit him
3. Telling Linux people to give in and accept proprietary nonsense into their lifestyle.
The reason this "free software" stuff is working out so great is because we ignored his cries to abandon the GPL and ignored the BSD zealots who think that licenses that allow the marriage of proprietary software to free (libre) software is a good thing. Right now, free software is the ONLY enterprise left (outside of purely political groups like the ACLU and EFF) that is fighting for user's rights. That's CRITICALLY IMPORTANT in this new era, where the whole content industry wants to marry the government and control every single electronic device their holy content is capable of passing through. We need free software to say NO to the proprietary -- to push open standards and software freedom.
Eben Moglen pointed out in his Wizards of OS3 keynote speech that there is no technical enterprise remaining that does not understand what trouble they face with FREEDOM as their most DIRE competitor. So what, we should stop competing just for the purpose of temporarily accelerating our adoption?
I HAVE A BETTER IDEA. Let's stick to our principals, let the DRM-loving content and proprietary software industry go do their thing for about 5 years. Our biggest concern will be keeping their practice out of the law books. Throughout those five years, we will enjoy a gradual drainage of people who are UPSET by the fact that their hardware and software doesn't obey their commands -- that they've lost rights they enjoyed growing up -- that their DVD player no longer plays DVDs because someone on the other end of the planet hacked it and its player key has now been revoked. We win by standing in SHARP contrast, where we will be incredibly easy to make out. Every additional right the controllers try to grab results in a greater number of defectors.
In the end, the inevitable happens. Linux wins.
First of all: Part of the Linux success is narration. It is a project we can tell stories about.
Proprietary drivers? License them? Uhmmm. But of course it is really surprising how supralegal Linux users think. Why not just "take them".
For world domination we need:
a) easy migration tools which are open sourced
b) a windows compatibility layer
c) proper sound infrastructure
d) drivers which just work
e) standardisation of distributions
f) specialised user communities
g) *insert other crap gap argument*
The history of Linux is a history of technology gaps. But gaps of today will be closed tomorrow and other issues will be put forward. The real question is not what gaps exist but what markets should be approached. And here the fundamental issue is user communities. When say the group of sound engineers uses Linux software will be provided or emerge. Linux and open source have a huge potential in consulting driven business environments. Think of Youth Hostel management software, think of ERP-systems but here no real progress was made. Linux/Open Source has a originary user community in the former unix market, server market and internet infrastructure, including the CMS market, and cluster computing. Now, when you ask about expansion I would say cluster computing is used by professional 3D rendering specialists, so this could be the next intresting user community dominated by Linux solutions.
I agree with the parent: by showing the hardware vendors that the OSS community is a significant portion of their market, we can gain some clout and be able to take advantage of hardware. Who wouldn't love to be able to tinker with ATI or Nvidia drivers to get them to perform even better? And isn't it great that my newly bought Linksys WRT-54GL router has a OSS firmware replacement that has a SSH daemon and can run shell scripts?
We don't necessarily have to overthrow Microsoft for this, but simply demonstrate that it is advantageous for the hardware vendors to pay attention to us.
On the other hand, I also agree with the grandparent: the achievement of this objective should be done without compromise; otherwise we go down the slippery slope. RMS's philosophy is stringent and painful to follow, but I'm not sure that we can afford not to follow it.
We want clout with the hardware vendors, but we shouldn't compromise our principles to get that clout.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
As I see it, it is not in a competition. This whole battle of philosophies is a distraction. How does anyone suffer by either side succeeding?
Open source does what I want and if it doesn't I'm free to change the situation by contributing my own effort. If I lack the ability, hopefully my needs are common enough that civilization will contribute the effort for me.
With closed source, I can't contribute the solution, but other then that little is changed. If my problem is common enough, there will be money in solving it and the market will likely step up.
Whichever provides the solution to my problem, so be it, as long as the problem is solved.
It's true, if solving my problem requires spending no money and worrying about copyrights, then closed source is unlikely to provide my solution. But that's not a result of ethics or philosophies, just people solving their problems.
I think it's more of a symbiotic relationship. An awful lot of people writing open source are paying their bills writing closed source.
End of the day, I could care less if my mom can ever run an open source desktop. As long as she gets what she needs for a price she can afford, problem solved.
One would hope that you at least give the impression that some effort is involved. For the sake of the lady's feelings if nothing else.
...finally grew a brain.
Linux itself is just the kernel right? How does the iPod concern the kernel? Shouldn't he be preaching to Ubuntu or a popular linux distribution to do some kind of easy ipod integration and trendy marketting campaign?
When all freedom is outlawed only the outlaws have freedom
If Eric Raymond wants to give up some of his own money for this then fine. But I, and I hope few others, don't really care if a bunch of ipod using dopes run linux or not. Linux isn't going to save the world, it's just an OS.
No need to beat Microsoft, Microsoft will beat itself. Let's consider all the people using computers in the world. Now discard the stupid "clicks and screensavers" kind. Now we have the intelligent users, i.e. the ones worth caring for. The few remaining ones using Windows NT, like myself, are moving towards Linux (and would GTFO no matter what - even if Linux and *BSD didn't exist) when Windows DRM (Vista) comes out. So just wait patiently and let the problem solve by itself.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
A lot of people here seem quite opposed to the idea that Linux becoming mainstream has tangible benefits and in fact seem to believe that it will actually hurt the application of Linux towards their interests.
I don't agree with this belief.
First consider the supposed drawbacks, the main being that the move towards increase usability for the masses will cripple the technical user. However, Apple has already successfully done the opposite with OS X, creating an OS usable for the technical user without compromising usability for the masses. Now I personally find the OS X interface a little constraining when I do technical work on a Mac but I consider this a good sign rather than a bad sign. With Apple, where a user friendly operating system tried to become technical, when the two considerations come into conflict the usability aspect wins. With Linux, where the core constituent is technical (particularly due to the grassroots developer base) I believe that when the two come into conflict that the technical user will win out.
Moreover, the nature of Linux means one can largely ignore the eye-candy one doesn't like. I don't use graphical file browsers nor many other graphical applications for routine tasks (copying files, extracting tarballs, burning CDs), however, when a task comes up for which I don't know the command line tools I'll often start with a graphical tool just to get a feel for the process. I'm not aware of any instance (other than Gnome removing the terminal from the context menu) where a push towards greater usability has harmed the technical user (btw the gnome thing just needs nautilus-open-terminal).
As for benefits, they are numerous, the biggest being involved in the future of the internet. How much of the internet and consumer devices are being built around DRM-loaded music stores and proprietary codecs and technologies? It's already happening, iTunes under Linux? Maybe using some pseudo-legal project or wine (haven't tried), Linux users are finding themselves locked out of a lot of places the internet is going and are being forced to make some very serious compromises if they want to go along for the ride. I feel the only way to combat this 1) Legisation mandating all formats and technologies be open (like that's going to happen) or 2) Linux acquires a significant marketshare. In addition by spreading Linux to people who aren't fully aware of FLOSS we start spreading some of those ideas to a wider audience and showing them they can succeed. Heck, maybe we give some of these developers stuck re-implementing proprietary wheels something more productive to do with their time.
Is some level of compromise necessary currently? I'd hazard no just because I think with google installing proprietary codecs like lame should be simple enought for any user technically advanced enough to use Linux on a regular basis as to not justify sacrificing our ideals. However, in the end and as Linux usability improves further a little pragmatism in select cases might do a lot more to service freedom than a strict adherance to open source principals.
I stole this Sig
ESR Says: I view comprising with the proprietary codec vendors as a tactical move designed to get us larger end user market shares, so that in the end we can push more things to the open.
I don't believe OSS needs nor wants a greater share of those particular markets. What OSS stands for is the differentiator and I wouldn't suggest compromising those principles in any significant way.
The Linux/BSD camp and OSS is the last outpost of computer freedom and here we find ESR campaigning on behalf of Satan himself.
While it is nice to have OSS entertainment solutions on these last, truly free operating systems, enabling proprietary, DRM'd entertainment streams for its own sake is neither part nor parcel the purpose. I wouldn't advocate selling the family farm just so I could could access iTunes natively but that is what Raymond proposes.
Raymond is not alone in his opinion I would note. Torvalds himself is, or at least was, an advocate for DRM support in Linux. The question becomes whether or not the 'Community'would even want an increased share of the market that Raymond proposes.
The 'Community' looks at Linux/BSD and OSS with the realization that what has been collectively created is of such value that one cannot put a price on it, therefore it is given away for free. The markets Raymond would cater to simply views the work product as obtainable on the cheap.
They will contribute nothing, they understand nothing, yet would be found demanding in their multitudes when not lost in their decisions or asleep in their responsibilities and ESR surmises therein an equitable trade?
Currently the smart ones are moving into the 'Community' having realized that Window/Mac owns them in absolute terms and have opted for computational freedom. These are the people the will embrace and bolster the Community in a positive way for they understand the unvarnished exploitation emanating from that which is Microsoft/Apple and wish to leave it behind.
Perhaps Raymond should switch to Microsoft or Apple for his eargasms and orgasms for they are reasonably good at that. Their OS and software fully embrace DRM and License management, Trusted computing and all the rest. Since he thinks it's all champagne and cherries, let ESR sit on the couch in front of his bought and paid for, duly licensed loaner entertainment Kiosk, credit card in hand so that he may be sold out, enslaved, censored, surveilled, databased and targeted. That is after all, the market.
While Raymond frets we're not mainstream enough, the rest of us will happily do without for we wasn't buying that crap anyway.
Or, would he be more credible as a leader and visionary if he could spell, or at least use spellchecker! "Comprimise" ??? No! Compromise, not such a hot idea either.
The real problem is that people like Eric Raymond are too cowardly to break a few laws. Don't we all download music and movies? So what's the big deal about downloading a non-apple approved application that interfaces with an ipod?
last I heard, Vista wasn't going to be released as an upgrade, and the install process would be hardware specific images. Microsoft's biggest customers are OEMs, who are desparet for something to move units with. Besides, with 95% of the market, Microsoft can say to hell with inertia. I mean, what are you gonna do, buy a Mac? Not when Dell'll sell you an entire computer with a 19" flat panel for less than $500 dollars.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ok, sometimes community it seems like something that every one are ok with decitions and every one is united, but it doesn't always like that.
How can you convince a community to pay a lot of money for a license that not every one will use, that's why the community development works in fact. No everyone want's the same thing.
What about using standards? That doens't give you more market? Or standars aren't installables in propietary applications?, that sounds like monopoly to me.
ghostbar page.
Well, you can't really get any support from vendors until a large number of people are using Linux actively. Right now, it's on servers, and virtually nobody uses it as a desktop machine outside of uber-geeks and a few of their family. That's tiiiiny. That number is so small that any hardware CEO that decides to spend any significant amount of money on the Linux market should be fired.
You're not going to get that kind of market share until it's easy to use (I put a DVD movie in the drive, and it plays).
Personally, I think that Linux will always be relegated to geeks and hobbysists and geek hobbyists. I don't see it solving any significant problems that Windows has, because Windows is so mature at this point. There's very little reason for the average person to use it, other than saving a hundred bucks. Most sane people aren't going to put themselves through that for $100, and if they do, then they are the kind of people who wouldn't shovel out a few hundred bucks for a new video card, anyway.
Ok ok, you can't have some hardware working in Linux but is Linux developers fold?
It's funny that here says that need compromise from Linux community, but isn't needed any kind of compromise from hardware makers, they do drivers for Windows (and for MacOS too), why not for Linux and FreeBSD?
Oh yeah, right, community folds...
ghostbar page.
I'll leave it to you and Jesse Berst to predict that, dingleberry.
an ill wind that blows no good
I totally agree. Linux will desktop distros will eventually disappear if they don't find away to stay connected with what the large majority of computer users care about. They care about using the software and devices that they want, and they are more than willing to "pay" for the priviledge. Why, because they don't give a toss about software ideology!
Mac OS X has won much sympathy from Windows users since it moved to a BSD core. Tragically at the current pace the average computer user will never get such a chance with Linux as fades into Minix like obscurity.
Over and out: realist linux admin.
Well for one most open source programs are free so if you are giving your software away for free and still loseing to microsoft, doesn't that mean there is something seriously wrong with your software?
Correct. To be more precise, mine is a PowerBook 165C .
IF the PS3 is a huge success, it could bring the "iPod" generation with it over to linux...
Does anybody really care what ESR says? He's a legend in his own mind...
> 'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'
It seems he advocates reaching beyond noun-verb agreement as well... and he's not much for making pronouns agree either.
I have created a group for discussing the programming of an open-source media player. It is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/media-player
Except grandparent didn't talk about one single device, but several.
Consider 80% worked (very optimistic). That would make the probability of having 5 devices ALL working as low as
He points out
"we need to be prepared to go to the rights holders for these proprietary codecs and say, we'll give you money, give us a license; and this is something that the Linux community has a huge antipathy to doing because we've got all this idealism about open source"
So he knows what sets linux and all open source software apart, "idealism" is all about not compromising, its what gives open source its reputation, a reputation that sets linux apart from the commercial "beasts" that sponge peoples money and ideas. Open source doesnt bend knee to other companies asking for handmedowns of their technology. Open source stands on its own two feet and speaks for itself (even if it is shorter in stature than the rest). Shelling out money for closed drivers may be ok for those wanting a quick fix but it intrinsically hurts open source. But hey lets listen to this guy how about we get licences for as many programs/technologies/codecs/etc? Suddenly 80-90% of your software is closed, but hey, the users are happy, right, is this really what "open source" wants to do?
The guy does have some interesting points. And I know that the Linux desktop community does need to change and adapt. I'm not saying we have to pay for Linux. I am saying there is a change needed.
Linux should be under it's own License and not GPL.
Linux needs a Foundation whose sole purpose is to acquire the licenses needed to propel it onto the desktop more rapidly. It will be supported by corporate grants, linux community, and finally donations from the companies profiting off the Linux kernel.
\
if you are saying that "Linux must adopt these things." Linux doesnt have do anything it isn't told to do by the software.
I have no problem with some distros (like Novell Linux Desktop) shipping with some proprietary software. That is the right of Novell to do something like this.
I have no problem with my personal choice not to use proprietary software.
In the end, if the market is not ready for fully open source solutions and still needs some transitional time, that is fine. That does not tell *me* what I am supposed to run, nor will I tell other people.
If ESR feels the way he does, the first thing he should do is get out of the Fedora community...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I think this could be the crux of the problem. Open source developers are at leisure to develop what they like, without the relentless drive for profits. However, the flow of benefit to them is much slower, and harder to pay rent/mortgage with.
... but I'm still here - it's the Big Red Fox, and I support the theme behind it.
Let's presume an OS, an Office suite, FireFox, and your choice of some drivers to make peripheral devices work take a certain quantity of time. Without the business driven financing to focus full time hours, these will be more unfocused, and the time required could swing all over the map depending upon the development power behind it.
I fall right in the midline class of users just barely at the edge, pondering a decision. After a little research and an extra case of soda, I dived into Firefox. Something is a little sour with flash,
I support OpenOffice, and use it when I work on our remote accounting server... except Timberline doesn't export to OpenOffice. I support the theme behind it, so I try to use it.
I'll try out an experimental Linux box in the medium future, and see what happens. But I want the experience to be at least halfway to pleasant. I've seen just enough horrifying things here that I'm nervous. I'll take a "hybrid" Free core with Closed addons if that's what it takes to get me started when the pure alternative balks too badly. Then one by one, *starting with a usable system*, I can begin swapping towards purity, just as I begin swapping browsers and calc apps. I'm for the philosophy, but I have to achieve full functions first.
--TaoPhoenix
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
what i like about OSS and Gnu/Linus is choice and possibilities. I always tell people that linux can run on stuff like an iPod up to most of the fastest supercomputers in the world, and i love that. what does suck is that some aspects of desktop linux make it harder for someone to say "yea, i love open source and all that, but i'd really like to be able to watch DRM-crippled content without jumping through hoops, or see nootices that it is illegal to watch dvds". sure, i think there are some distros with an mp3 and dvd license, but why cant i just install debian, drop the necessary codecs in something liche /usr/local/codecs, and all my apps work, a bit like directshow filters (i think?). it's my choice whether i i drop deCSS there, or some licensed commercial codec. (i'm running suse 10 on my laptop, and mplayer plays .wmvs fine, but totem and noatun still chockes on .mp3s, and because i installed 3rd party rpms, suse's whole update-thing is utterly confused) /usr/drivers/non-free and open source drivers in /usr/drivers/free , and be done with it?
the specific complain about iPods is nonsense, or will at least soon be a thing of the past. with DBUS it seems that there's going to be a common messaging bus for linux desktops now, and i bet that the applications will come and improve, and include ipods or whatever media player is hip now. it's just that the infrastructure is so twisted.
same thing with wifi and drivers in general: sure, ndiswrapper is an ugly hack, but why can't i just dump binary drivers in
I have my problems with closed source/open source and therefore with Linspire to a certain degree but I was always willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Then I heard Carmony speak on some podcast treating those who didnt agree in very condescending terms as well as having Rob Enderle speak at Linspire's weekend jamboree. Apart from comedic value of hearing his drivel, any CEOe who believes that the Linux community has something to learn from Enderle.....Im wary off.
No. It's very relevant. And I took rhetoric. Raymond's beliefs influence, obviously, his strategy, which is deeply offensive to most of us here. He's now irrelevant, I'd say, to the community, and it's quite appropriate if, as the article suggests, he ends up working with/for Linspire. And are we positive he didn't get recruited by microsoft?
Sorry. I've been using Linux for over a decade now, and I've gain a bit of frustration and disillusionment about it.
I will always use Linux or some variant. I have long learned that an open system that needs a little tinkering is far better than a closed system that does everyting "out of the box." For one reason, it is only "out of the box" once, but the day in and day out problems are for as long as you have it.
I don't think we need to compromise, because the things that we would be compromising do no one any good. DRM in any form is against the consumer. We, in the Linux camp, should never sell out. It is better to fail remaining true, than to succeed and sell out.
It all comes down to getting the message out. We need people to understand *why* they need to boycott iTunes, not compromise and let iTunes steal your legal rights.
I don't think that we, the men and women in the street and development community are going to go to the proprietory codec providers (and the like).
But I see Redhat and Suse et al. doing something along these lines. Why not?
They just need to figure out the politics.
I am convinced this ESR is a complete dumbass. What a bullshitting feel-gooder. Here's why I think this.
Win over the iPod generation? Since when were we the iPod generation? You mean the generation that can't communicate worth a damn, one earbud hanging out? You mean the generation that consumes the latest craze without thinking twice? We don't need to convince anyone of anything other than making them learn about the computers they use! I say make everyone a hacker! We must stop creating and catering to people who want things to "just work". Those kind of people probably want the government or voting machines to "just work" too.
Why? It makes sense for Intel or ATI to open driver sources so Linux users will buy their hardware, but why would Apple release the source code to an Application like Logic Pro, for which they can charge a huge sum because it's a unique proprietary product?
You're damn right we do. I'd say, "Fuck your license. Not only can make a product at least as good ourselves, but we'll be able to find out exactly what's happening behind the cute little windows and icons if we like. This is not just about the fact that we can see or use the code on Linux. This is about our freedom to compute and our right to know what our machines are computing. As if we can't live without them!
More stereotyping of "geeks". As if these geeks, as defined, are the only people who use Linux. I don't attend Sci-Fi conventions or collect anime. Believe it or not, I use Linux for reasons other than technological novelty!
No it won't. It will take people's realization that there are other products than iPods and/or Apple's use of a standard, open, easy-to-understand driver for their iPods. Or we'll just learn to hack it and we'll be done with it.
Linux doesn't need market share, because Linux is free. And I do mean as in beer. It does not exist to take over the market. It exists to combat the freedoms that our current market apprehends.
Gee, I wonder why they did that.
Why should we seek to dethrone operating systems? That goal would incite war among distributions to create a commercialized, shiny-button OS that doesn't even resemble Linux. If that happens - if Linux somehow morphed into some strange half-breed - those who want something that embodies Linux's current philosophies will create a new Linux. If
I don't speak Klingon and I don't attend science fiction conventions at all. Nor have I ever done so. I'm not a programmer, I'm just an advanced user. I'm a surprisingly normal, well-adjusted 35-year-old female. I use Linux because I happen to like it. Hence, I find the attitude in this article highly offensive. It's like saying all black people love fried chicken and watermelon.
Mr. Raymond is trying to tell us what's so wrong with Linux and the Linux community, but he just proved he was both ignorant and bigoted on both subjects. Bigotry is for fools and I don't suffer fools gladly. Nor do I find ignorance pleasant.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/eric-buys- an-ipod
Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
>"'... self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions ...'"
I will tear out his intestines with my teeth!!!
"Libertarians aren't worried about whether we get screwed over in the process"
Of course, state enforcement of copyright and patents are inherently incompatible with a consistent libertarian point of view.
"Anyhow, I'll side with RMS on this one."
Same here. If there are legal issues hampering the adoption and development of free software we need to get the laws rewritten.
if we'd start doing this, greedy bastards would start using the linux market for profit - and then we'd end up like windows users, paying 20$ for every f****ing hello world program
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
as the only with this 'News' which is new is that ESR said it, start with thinking in one's own brain instead of being a follower of the next best geek who proved to have some overly whacky points of view. I know they might get even whackier once he realizes being in the news is no longer for him, but he states the obvious. Numerous articles on slashdot dealt with iPods, alpha geeks moving to macs and stuff.
And even contrary to that: I as a developer I used Linux, because it was the cheapest UNIXoid. Which in turn I used because it had the best developer tools back then (e.g. editor with replaces-regexp, bash). That is not so much an issue with a Java IDE now. But was it Java IDEs that changed the focus from "developers make for developers" to "make a windows alternative"? No, it was the focus change, Linuxers wanted to go for the Desktop (of Joe Sixpack, that is). And so all that has been discussed back then. No news here. Yes, Apple is still ahead in attractiveness.
Please stop sticking to ESR's mouth. Facing technology some corp. wants to have exclusively is how we new the business worked for 30 years (sorry, more would sound ridiculous at my age) and dealing with that is what all the FSF/GNU/Linux/EFF/... was about. And all the time it said what is right and why:
Because once customers realize "codex xyz nails me down - I feel raped by the industry" then they would say, Linuxers raped me, too. And what was DRM, patents and most of IP aspects for?
Reigning over customers possibilities of use!
I know this will hurt my karma, but: I have the impression ESR says this stuff to be in the news. Theo de Raadt says stuff to not be in the news or accidentally behaves the way he does. There is a credibility issue for me already and it does not contradict what my mind faces after carefully thinking issues over.
It's more like we need to gain lots of market share now so that we could put pressure on them more effectively later.
This reminds me of a politician who says he needs more power in order to achieve his goals, and that compromises have to be made to get that power. If you have paid any attention recently or in the past, you know it doesn't work that way. Once 'there', things develop their own dynamics and your goals are gone quicker then you can say 'power corrupts'. I don't know if the analogy carries that far, but I still think it's a very very bad idea.Besides, who put old walruss face in charge? Learning Klingon? Is he really so deluded to think we're all like him?
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Agreed. There's no point in Linux (or any other Free Software) acting like Windows/OS X. It exists for a different reason, and that reason is enough for those who understand. There will always be those mainstream folks who don't get what is on offer; that won't change. At best, we can stick to our guns, and slowly change public opinion, winning over companies with new sales models, convincing politians and educators etc. that Free Software is better in PRINCIPLE for society. At that point, it will be mainstream, and average folk will take it because it's the norm, not because they chose it. They take windows now, for no other reason except that it is what's offered. The principles of Free Software will win out eventually, because they are undeniably right, just as the principle of not enslaving others won out, because it was undeniably right, despite mainstream culture thinking it was OK at one time.
Linux can even handle that wireless connection. Just the manufacturers don't care to let you.
And that's not even true. There are a number of manufacturers that have released driver source code that was then used by community projects to develop good drivers. Atheros for CardBus comes to mind, as does ZyDAS for USB devices. Sure, there are still some manufacturers who CBA, but the fact is, you have a choice. You can buy a product of a manufacturer who cares :)
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
I wonder if people realize that the "lowest common denominator" of two fractions is always 1? This phrase is an intermingling of "greatest common denominator" and "lowest common multiple".
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
gave a crap what this guy has to say.
Forget ESR, forget joe user if he doesn't care for Linux.
Long live Free software, long live RMS.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Coincidentally there's a recent video of an Ubuntu team member discussing how the distro plans to handle proprietary multimedia codecs at http://www.ubuntuvideo.com/
Yes, but do we want to be influenced by businesses, or end users? Linux has always been about the end users. Maybe it's time for a bottom -> up approach so we don't end up with a corporate-controlled OS like Windows.
Spinoza said that we often argue over matters of taste, not out of a desire to control what others like & don't like, but out of the understandable and very human desire that other people love what we love.
I love Linux and want other people to love it as well; but it is not the software or the functionality that I love; it's the freeness. It's the fact that it arises from humans sharing ideas and advancements with each other. This is, I believe, a draft model for how a cooperative civilization might work. I love linux on principle
Some codecs/drivers/snazzy video effects and games aren't going to sway me.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
'Linux believers will have to reach out beyond self-absorbed geeks who learns Klingon and attends science fiction conventions in his spare time.'"
They'll also have to reach out to people who actually know what subject/verb agreements are.
Macintosh is the new Linux.
....you can't choose either. What was your point again?
What Linux does wrong, is that most communities scoff at users who ask 'retarded' questions (like, Where's Wordpad?). Linux needs:
Of course, this isn't only a problem on the software side - we need hardware developers working hand-in-hand with Linux, as they do with Windows (and, to some extent, Mac).
Just my $0.02
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price.
Frankly, I think this is probably the smartest thing that they could do. No, I don't like it, but then I'm not overly fond of a lot of the intellectual property laws either. However, I think that given the nature of the intellectual property laws, it is a completely unavoidable step. Somethings you simply cannot develop an open source equivalent of because the existing patents just have it locked down too tightly. Anything you might try to do will step on someone's patent.
That said, I think that once people realize that allowing the OS community to use their patent is in their best interest, I think you'll see a rush to allow licenseing at little or no cost. The ultimate issue here is that who ever lets the OS community have a license, is likely to see their particular widget become the de facto standard. VHS has proven that you don't have to be superior, just first. LP's, 8-tracks, cassettes, and CD's have proven that people will change formats, but that it's a dang slow process. Becoming the de facto standard should be quite profitable.
2 cents,
QueenB
HDGary secures my bank
I've never written anything about ESR before because I didn't care. I use Linux because it's what works best for me (less hassle with software install, every software can work with every other software with no compatibility issue, liberty to do what I want with my software, less hassle w/spyware/virus/trojan, no nickle and diming to death to get tools into the OS), not because ESR makes points. Even though it may be handy sometimes, I don't think that using certain codecs, fonts, plugins, or proprietary software of any kind will in itself attract more end users, and I could care less about it myself. I don't think more end users that work in an environment where these things are essential will benefit Linux.
However I think ESR is trying to motivate something grander, a sea-change in such end users' way of thinking. Proprietary software can embrace, extend, and extinguish free (gratis) software quite easily, and the GPL is designed to stand its ground against this. Users can be forged in such a way as well.
If GNU/Linux provides an environment in which users can use both proprietary and OSS alongside one another, then such users may see the advantage of OSS in that it is simply more capable. The end user will see that there is no squabbling over who can use what format with what software, what year you may install certain software in, which application controls what file associations, annoying greyed out pro-only features, general proprietary software hassles that the average end users encounter daily that OSS does not deal with. These are some of the reasons I use OSS, and end users can be introduced to these same exact reasons as well in the right environment.
I'm not talking about setting someone up with LiteStep and OSS-only in Windows and still letting them run IE7 and Office or whatever. I'm talking about immersing the end user in a Gnome or KDE environment, tailoring it to them (Windows shortcuts enabled on default, prominent Documents, Control Center, and Firefox icons, etc). The end user needs to experience how simple and beneficial these environments can be.
When I was using Windows, I thought "Gee, these Linux geeks seem to think virtual desktops are important. I guess I'll try them out!" and downloaded various freeware tools to enable such things in Windows 2000. I got applications that wouldn't maximize properly, dialogs popping up on the wrong virutal desktop, disappearing icons, and other oddities, and I thought "This is crap!" because I didn't get to work in an environment that was designed to handle such things.
Another scenario: I never thought installing Windows software was so simple, next, I agree, next next un-check everything next. However adults that I set up computers for are dumbfounded and would pay me to do something so trivial, especially because they're scared of screwing up their system or installing spyware. If you show them Firefox or OpenOffice install under Windows, they wouldn't see any advantage, they still have various check-boxes and "next" and "I agree" steps to take.
However, installing these with Synaptic or something similar is light years easier and would make such end users less nervous about installing software since there are no such worry-inducing confirmations to make, or post-install cleanups (deleting/replacing various icons, disabling user nagging dialogs, etc).
Twinstiq, game news
I mean, ESR has always been on the "convenience before values" side of the coin in the Free Software / Open Source struggle.
Whenever you feel "tempted by the dark side", all you need to do is remember, it was convenience and conformism which got us to this pathetic point in the software industry.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
This has so many factual errors and stupid assumptions, that I just had to reboot my brain.
First of all, there *is* a Joe User friendly distro, and not only it isn't unpopular, it's the MOST POPULAR at the moment. It's called Ubuntu.
Second, the Catholic Church has a very long tradition of compromising on values.
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh!!!
BZZT. Wrong. Apple doesn't sell the technology for "working with an iPod", except through ports of iTunes. And it couldn't be easier to run iTunes on Linux than it is today. iTunes is built on a platform-independant toolkit, already runs on UNIX (OS X) and Windows, and all the codecs are in it... but working with an iPod doesn't require any proprietary codecs. The native codecs on the iPod are all open standards... it's only the iTunes Music Store encryption that requires proprietary code... but even there, you don't need proprietary codecs to play AAC files.
However, reverse-engineering the tools to install MP3 and MP4 (AAC) music to play on the iPod and distributing them hasn't gotten anyone sued yet. You don't need to reverse-engineer any codecs at all to do that.
The reason is Linux' tiny desktop market share. There's no upside for Apple in porting iTunes to Linux. Look, it's hard enough to get software companies to port software to Apple's operating system, and it's way ahead of Linux on the desktop. If there's even a dozen commercial packages for Linux of use to the general public, I'd be amazed. The only ones I know of are video games...
It's something the Linux community has an antipathy to doing because there's no benefit to the Linux community to being able to buy music from the "also ran" music stores, because that still won't let you play the music from them on your iPod... and because there's not a lot of money in the Linux community.
They'd do better financing licensed ports of business software, so that people could use Linux at work and have it filter down to the home. That was one of the big advantages Microsoft had, historically... run Windows at home, and take home your copy of Office from work. At different times Microsoft's winked at or even promoted this kind of "piracy"... because it spread both Windows and Office everywhere.
It's hard to imagine Apple as being "not comfortable with Open Source".
ESR's right, here, Linux needs to gain market share if it's going to be taken seriously enough to make ports of software like iTunes seem worthwhile. But ports of codecs that Windows-only media software uses isn't going to help anyone but Microsoft.
What they want me to pay, I find perfectly reasonable, and the level of support they provide, I find to be perfectly acceptable. Hence, why I don't care. If the price was one I couldn't afford, or the level of support was unacceptable, I'd probably be looking elsewhere. However $150 for an upgrade every 4+ years is a price I'm easily willing to pay. Their support is good too, patches are regularly issued and automatically applied and equally important they have a massive central knowledge base I can search that has answers to just about any question I've ever come up with.
That's enough to keep me happy, especially given that all my programs run. Like I said, you want me to switch? You need to do better. Price is thus far the only advantage that I've seen and really, $150 just isn't worth it given the amount of time I need to spend. I support computers professionally, I don't want to do it at home. I just want my shit to work.
You can fight the good fight if you want, I won't tell you you're wrong, but I'm not signing up. My computer is a tool, it's not politics, so I'm very pragmatic about it. My question is what lets me do the most of what I want with the lest cost, economic and non-economic. At this point, Windows is the answer.
Last two paragraphs:
Does it not seem like slowly the GPL is having its ideals re-evaluated, and the writing on the wall is being changed? I'm not a big idealist personally, buts lets not forget what makes FOSS different from proprietry software, and let us stay as pigs and not become men.
In the good old days, ESR used to be an open source hero, with this bazaar thing. However, ever since he got kicked out of HP, I didn't see any sensible word comming from his mouth. Did he get hit by a hammer? Who knows ... For the free software community, ESR is de facto a persona non grata now. The point is not market share or convenience. The point is freedom. If his idealism is gone, he should buy a Windows PC again or (better) a Mac and shut the fuck up. Sadly, he's not alone. Fluendo is also discrediting the free software community with their MP3 license. We don't want this. This is acknowledging and encouraging software patents and DRM systems. As Matthew Szulik from Red Hat said 5 years ago on Capitol Hill: "I appear before you today as Winston Churchill said, 'only to fight while there is a chance, so we don't have to fight when there is none.'". Surrendering is the worst possible alternative. We just have to have patience and diligence. Time will inevitably come.
While I've finally got wireless working most of the time on this box (now, for instance), and this is with a driver the manufacturer is actively supporting an OpenSource development team on, and I also can play DVDs (and any other multimedia) on this box anytime I please, I'm finding while on the average, it isn't that much harder to set up Linux solutions than it is on Windoze. . . if one is working with a box for a living, one does NOT need to spend hours to weeks (it took me 6 weeks to find out how to set up backups to mobile rack and DVD) every time I want to add new functionality to my system.
In the case of backups, it took me 6 weeks and writing a custom script to get working. Somebody who reads my how-to piece (haven't rewritten the script to work correctly with HAL yet, so no URL) can set up backups in a couple of hours.
That's the problem that has to be fixed in Linux to make it reasonable as a mass-market OS. Some stuff in Linux is already better, GUI installers are a good example. A Windows box with a missing DLL will simply tell the user a DLL is missing and with luck, will dump you back to the OS and YOU get to track it down and try to install it. . . an automated Linux installer will find the dependency, install it, then install your app.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I never got the Atheros AWLL4030 USB plugin working in Linux via ndiswrapper or even the commercial linuxant version, and it took me longer than I want to think about getting my D-Link USB plugin running, despite the fact that Ralink actively works with the OpenSource development team that writes Linux drivers for it. Ralink DOES want people to use the wireless devices based on their chips to work.
I'm not exactly inexperienced, I've been writing about Linux for money for over a year.
Getting my generic USB mass storage camera working was a nightmare, despite gphoto's alleged support for mass storage cameras. Though in fairness, all I had to do in SLED10 was open the photo app and tell it to load, I almost fell out of my chair when it did exactly that. THAT is how a Linux app is supposed to work. Mass storage is mass storage. . . and has nothing to do with vendor proprietary anything.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The ipod is a peice of crap that will soon be outpaced by better designed, non-proprietary solutions.
Witness the groth of MP3 players as a whole and the movement from proprietary formatted flash drives to known fat32 format. it's not open, but it is accessble. Same with digital cameras. Just about every digital device now talks thru a standard USB communication protocol and if it stores data, it appears as a usb mass storage drive. If is is a music player it has a playlist that is human readable text. Why, oh why must they control the loading and unloading of music or data to the device. If I buy it, I want to be able to dump my own content to it, just like with a USB pen drive, but bigger.
Why is iPod the issue? I use my iPod on Linux, without any problem... OK, it's not officially supported, but he could choose a better example (graphic drivers, printer drivers...).
... and becoming relevant.
/. id has been duly recorded.
Ignore them at your commercial peril.
Oh yeah, they have good memories also.
Your
Have a good day.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So all the other server OSes have only 5% marketshare?
You should not trust all what you read, honestly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Put in card reader.
Connect to Linux machine.
Enjoy.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It only shows that if you want freedom you have to get involved and fight for it in your little niche.
Education is what is needed, people in many places and positions of political influence are beggining to get it, people like ESR are throwing all their reputation and credibility away defending the unnecessary.
ESR is calling for compromissing principles for the sake of comfort.
Shame really, he should know better.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... that somebody defending coherently his pronciples is considered a failure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
By ignoring the situation you are supporting the status quo.
Don't pretend that by doing nothing you are not influencing the outcome.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And one day the lack of choice will bite you. You can't mpdify the programs you use. You can't fix them. You can't manipulate your own data in a way convenient to you.
The history of IT is loitered of examples of how propietary applications make your life more difficult.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
what branch of microsoft/apple did you say you work for? as a linux user i am in awe of the stupidity of those who buy themselves unknowingly/unwittingly into the closed loop of i-pod muzak - mind you the USA is a country reknown the world over for rejecting evolution and for being bible basher's - so stupidity in the muzak buying public is only to be expected. - grow up - it will pass, just as the dozen's of other fads have. p.s. - did you know that microsoft make more money of each mac sold than do apple! - rock on linux - don't pay that microsoft tax on every pc sold in the world - poor design in the first place - bottle-necks built in - the sooner we move onto something else the better - surely we can move past the awful 'wimp' interface - another bad idea - check out 'silicon valley pirates' - one rich idiot steals another rich idiots idea and we are all stuck with the crap that's left - no wonder one rich idiot has retired and gone into 'aids' - now where did that come from? - but that's another load of crap
/me pushes a 300W soldering iron into each eyeball