Maybe. I've never been the sort of advocate who thinks "everyone should be using "Linux" RIGHT NOW!!!one!". What I really like about GNU/Linux is that it's Free (as in Freedom, and beer) and that it's making steady progress to do more of the jobs that people need done.
I'm able to suggest it as a solution for some of my clients (when it will solve particular problems for them) and not others. People who are perfectly happy using Windows or MacOS, are not the folks I want to talk to about GNU/Linux.
So, I guess, as long as the software remains Free as in Freedom, I don't really care when it becomes popular with the "average" user.
You're comparing apples and oranges (or should I say lemons and strawberries?)
Microsoft "came of age" and created the consumer hardware market. Most hardware created isn't released to the public without a proprietary software driver written specifically for Windows. Whereas the GNU/Linux operating system is nearly the same age, and has progressed as far as it has with almost no support from the hardware manufacturing community.
That's all about to change though. Hardware manufacturers are beginning to wake up and realize that there is a growing demand for "open-source" drivers.
In two to five years, GNU/Linux will be supporting more hardware, faster, on many more platforms than Windows could ever dream of.
If the manufacturers of this wireless device provided specifications for this device to the Free/open-source Software community, a driver would have been written the next day.
This is not a "Linux" problem, per se, it's a problem that most hardware manufacturers don't support Free Software (yet). So, just chill with your current favorite OS for a while. In the coming year, the whole IT industry is going to change. Dell is selling computers with Ubuntu. This will give hardware manufacturers an incentive to release specs, or write "open-source" drivers themselves, and (not soon enough) hardware support under GNU/Linux will be better than any other operating system (considering GNU/Linux runs on so very many platforms).
The other thing to note is that change takes time. The geeks will always be on the front lines of technological progress, and the regular joe sixpack and jane boxwine may follow along sometime later.
Their threats are completely empty. Any legal action to assert their patents "rights" would end up with them looking a lot like SCO. IBM has been beating the shit out of SCO, and I'm sure they're up to the challenge of making Microsoft their bitch as well.
One begins to wonder if Microsoft has any idea what the hell they're doing anymore. I'm sure they have some nefarious strategy, but it sure seems like stupid mindless bumbling that's doing nothing but making people hate them more than they already do.
Sure, Microsoft, build yer bridges. I'll be happy to help burn them.
I for one will be happy when proprietary software creators "converge" on the idea that they should release all of their programs under the GPL or another sufficiently Free software license, with all that that entails.
"Open Source" is dead. Long live Free Software.
I've heard him speak at a few of the FSF Associate Member meetings, and I've even had conversation over dinner with him on one occasion, where he was telling the rest of us about the fledgling SFLC project. Just listening to him made me want to start law school (at Columbia, of course).
I'm convinced he's working with a larger percentage of his brain than the rest of us.
Creating the SFLC was a brilliant move, as was the drafting of the GPLv3.
1. The GNU project began in 1984 to create a unix-like Free Software operating system 2. They created the GNU GPL license to protect their work 3. Torvalds created the Linux kernel in 1991 and shortly thereafter licensed it as GPL
Torvalds did not create an operating system, he created a kernel. Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist. Without the continuing work of the FSF and the Software Freedom Law Center it would soon become impossible for non-Corporate entities to create Free/Open-source software.
People who write GNU/Linux tend to care about Freedom and give credit where credit is due.
Typical Stallman: factually correct, but.... was it necessary to say it in such an agressive way? Especially in Japan...
Typical/. troll. Quote the whole statement. What he said was:
In a country that is stupid enough to allow software patents, which I'm sad to say includes your country [Japan] and includes my country [USA], there's nothing we can do to prevent the danger that patent holders will use their patents to destroy Free Software, to drive it underground.
Stallman hasn't achieved all he has by being meek, or (gasp!) diplomatic. If he was a diplomat, we'd all be using Windows.
I was banned last night. Rather than whining to Blizzard, I've decided to remove WoW/Cedega from my computer (it was the only non-free software I used).
The whole issue reminded me why I don't choose to use proprietary software. I don't like to be treated poorly *and* pay for it at the same time.
Re:If KDE is so advanced, why gnome?
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
Is it also your opinion that people should drive one type of car, eat one type of ice cream, and carpenters should all use hammers exclusively?
Competition drives innovation. What about this notion of picking the right tool for the job? I prefer KDE personally, but I recommend GNOME for many of my clients. Why? Because GNOME does some things better than KDE, and vice versa. I am glad that I have a choice of 15 (or more) popular X window managers. That means I can pick the software that will best suit the needs of my clients.
Why do people want "linux" to be "popular" in exchange for being free, versatile, and enjoyable? Isn't there an exceedingly popular operating system or two for these people?
I just don't get it. Are software developers out there bleeding from the ears because it's so damned difficult to write programs for GNU/Linux? How come some people can create useful and freedom-respecting programs and others can't (and instead spend their time complaining)?
Ok, so this is a troll, but I was provoked!
Re:Let's just have one Linux desktop
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Competition and choice is great.
Yes, it is.
It's also a barrier to entry for commercial software.
Are we creating Free Software for the users? or the developers of commercial software? Personally, I'd rather have freedom, and a wide array of options than a wide array of commercial (and most probably non-free) software. I don't care if commercial software developers have a hard time fitting in. Some will make the effort, and some won't. Either way, I won't use their products if they restrict my freedom to do as I like with it.
And given that it's unrealistic to have all software be free, let's make it easier for linux adoption to take place.
All software doesn't need to be free. But conversely, all software shouldn't be non-free either. Each user should be able to choose from a wide variety of options to best suit their own needs. And in my opinion, Free Software cares more about the user than non-free software. What good would wide "linux" adoption be if all the "linux" users were saddled by hundreds of non-free software package licenses? I care about the adoption of software freedom, not your interpretation of "linux".
All the whining about how choice is good and it makes better products distracts from a more important factor. All the competing options make incompatability and confusion unavoidable.
It sounds as though you're a software developer who hasn't got a real handle on the Free Software/Open-source development model, and therefore you're finding it hard to become rich and famous... Or perhaps you submitted a patch and have had it rejected, or something. Anyway, your OP seems like ax grinding.
Join in the fun, or use a commercial (non-free) OS. But don't try to reduce the choice that other's enjoy.
I've seen a demonstration of AJAX at a conference, and it has some interesting features, but my concerns about it are:
1. I hate JavaScript. 2. I'm not sure how accessible applications built with it are. Meaning that if someone is blind and using a screen reader, or even someone with a non-standard browser, is trying to use the application, will they be able to?
Anyone with experience with AJAX and accessibility please comment.
The whole idea of "open-source" is that you don't *need* to rely on any supplier, you can allocate some of your resources, and take care of your own software needs/wants.
If you follow Stallman doctrine, then you are less free than me because I have the freedom to choose open source or closed source.
First, your "fun" was not obvious. To me it seemed like a half-hearted effort to make a counterpoint about a subject that you don't fully understand.
the whole concept of software making you more free or less free based on source is beyond ridiculous
Secondly, it seems you are thinking of the whole issue of software freedom on a personal level, which does not give one the benefit of the big picture. Sure, to most individual computer users, the availability of source code doesn't make much difference at all. But when you are talking about communities, cities, counties, states, and countries, the notion of software freedom becomes a lot more relevant. Software is an essential part of many technological societies these days. That's why thousands of people around the world don't share your view of the triviality of access to source code and software freedom in general. Look at the bigger picture once in a while.
but it's always fun watching the stallman drones try to explain their cult to me.
And it's always fun watching people with an insufficient grasp of the topic at hand make excuses for failures in making coherent counterpoints.
I put the word "Linux" in quotes in my posts to indicate (perhaps not very well) that the parent post uses the term Linux to mean the entire OS, which I believe is incorrect.
You're right. The Linux kernel was not developed by GNU, but when most people say/write "Linux", they're talking about GNU/Linux.
The man is quite simply incapable of functioning in standard human society
Let's assume that you and I *are* capable of functioning in a "standard human society." Then, lets put his acheivements and yours and mine on a list side by side.
Would you still stand by your statement then?
Could it be that you simply don't like him for some reason, and therefore dismiss him and his methods and acheivements?
If you follow Stallman doctrine, then you are less free than me because I have the freedom to choose open source or closed source.
No. I still have the freedom to chose free or proprietary (even though I probably wouldn't choose the latter). So we're even there. But if you choose a proprietary package, and I choose a free package then I then have more freedom than you do.
Now if there is no corresponding free package to any given proprietary package, I still have the freedom to not chose to use any package at all. My short-term ability to do certain tasks with my computer may be reduced, but then I could always write a program to do what the non-free software does, or hire someone to write it. Wereas you cannot make a non-free program free, nor is it likely that you would be able to pay the non-free software maker to give you your freedom back.
You just need to think of your freedom on a broader level. That's level is where RMS and the FSF is at, so most people don't grok the significance.
I think that's a big stretch - there are advocates of Free Software, but it seems that the majority of contributors could give two craps about the free part. For some it's a calling, for others it's a hobby, and for some (not all, as you imply) it's about protecting freedoms. SOME of the F/OSS contributors work for the reason you state, but I would hazard a guess that these people are NOT the majority of contributors.
I was talking about the Free Software movement. *Everyone* who is part of the Free Software movement cares about software freedom. The people who "could give two..." are not part of the Free Software movement per se. They're more likely interested in "Open Source". There is a difference. The former group cares about the *freedom* the software provides, the latter group cares more about the development model and other technical aspects.
"Idealistic integrity" being another way of saying "zealotry", I'd completely disagree, at least here in the US. We have a LOT of people on both sides of the aisle who are steadfast and true to their beliefs. No one seems to be winning, least of all the majority of people who are somewhere in the middle of an issue.
Sure, call it zealotry if you like. An objectionable status quo isn't changed by people who resign themselves to go wherever the wind blows them. Positive (and negative) social changes are made by people and groups who stand steadfast in support of their beliefs. Let's look at some historical zealots: Ghandi, MLK Jr., The unknown rebel at Tienanmen square in 1989, RMS and the FSF. There are others of course who wanted to take things away from people, and they always fall out on the bad side of history. "Zealotry" is a bad thing only when the zealot is trying to take something from someone else. Consult your local dictionary.
To quote Jim Hightower, "There's nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos".
Well, (a) you don't know that someone else wouldn't have stepped into those sandals and done the job in their absence and (b) it doesn't matter anyway. The strength of Linux is in its creators, not in its evangelizers or protectors. If it works, it will become popular despite the petulant behaviors of others.
a.) You don't know that someone would have.
b.) You're wrong here. The strength of "Linux" comes from the contributors of course, but each contributor is adding to the effort of others. The momentum is provided by the GPLs guarantee that people can't simply use the code selfishly. People who use, and redistribute GPLed code must give back to the community, thereby propelling the whole community forward. This is how the "Linux" community got to where it is today.
Calling someone an especially undersocialized nerd is Insightful?
Last time I checked, RMS spoke several languages, and has visited heads of state and thousands of people in many countries across the globe. Also, he seems to be the unwaivering center of a worldwide socio-political movement to protect your freedom and mine, sometimes at the cost of looking foolish to people who don't understand what he's doing.
You don't seem to understand that the Free Software movement is a sociopolitical movement that cares more about freedom than about mainstream popularity. Strange concept in this day and age right?
I respect RMS because he has never waivered from his ideals, even though people running "Linux", think he's a crazy person. He doesn't let fear of perception goad him into giving over his integrity. He and the FSF are not just trying to become popular, they're trying to protect your freedom and mine.
IMO idealistic integrity is in too short supply in the world these days.
So, it's great that you like "Linux", but remember that without RMS and the FSF and their allies, your "Linux" would not exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. I've never been the sort of advocate who thinks "everyone should be using "Linux" RIGHT NOW!!!one!". What I really like about GNU/Linux is that it's Free (as in Freedom, and beer) and that it's making steady progress to do more of the jobs that people need done.
I'm able to suggest it as a solution for some of my clients (when it will solve particular problems for them) and not others. People who are perfectly happy using Windows or MacOS, are not the folks I want to talk to about GNU/Linux.
So, I guess, as long as the software remains Free as in Freedom, I don't really care when it becomes popular with the "average" user.
You're comparing apples and oranges (or should I say lemons and strawberries?)
Microsoft "came of age" and created the consumer hardware market. Most hardware created isn't released to the public without a proprietary software driver written specifically for Windows. Whereas the GNU/Linux operating system is nearly the same age, and has progressed as far as it has with almost no support from the hardware manufacturing community.
That's all about to change though. Hardware manufacturers are beginning to wake up and realize that there is a growing demand for "open-source" drivers.
In two to five years, GNU/Linux will be supporting more hardware, faster, on many more platforms than Windows could ever dream of.
If the manufacturers of this wireless device provided specifications for this device to the Free/open-source Software community, a driver would have been written the next day.
This is not a "Linux" problem, per se, it's a problem that most hardware manufacturers don't support Free Software (yet). So, just chill with your current favorite OS for a while. In the coming year, the whole IT industry is going to change. Dell is selling computers with Ubuntu. This will give hardware manufacturers an incentive to release specs, or write "open-source" drivers themselves, and (not soon enough) hardware support under GNU/Linux will be better than any other operating system (considering GNU/Linux runs on so very many platforms).
The other thing to note is that change takes time. The geeks will always be on the front lines of technological progress, and the regular joe sixpack and jane boxwine may follow along sometime later.
See the "Sue me first" article... http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/21/22 9219
Their threats are completely empty. Any legal action to assert their patents "rights" would end up with them looking a lot like SCO. IBM has been beating the shit out of SCO, and I'm sure they're up to the challenge of making Microsoft their bitch as well.
One begins to wonder if Microsoft has any idea what the hell they're doing anymore. I'm sure they have some nefarious strategy, but it sure seems like stupid mindless bumbling that's doing nothing but making people hate them more than they already do.
Sure, Microsoft, build yer bridges. I'll be happy to help burn them.
I for one will be happy when proprietary software creators "converge" on the idea that they should release all of their programs under the GPL or another sufficiently Free software license, with all that that entails. "Open Source" is dead. Long live Free Software.
I've heard him speak at a few of the FSF Associate Member meetings, and I've even had conversation over dinner with him on one occasion, where he was telling the rest of us about the fledgling SFLC project. Just listening to him made me want to start law school (at Columbia, of course).
I'm convinced he's working with a larger percentage of his brain than the rest of us.
Creating the SFLC was a brilliant move, as was the drafting of the GPLv3.
Best of luck, Eben!
HAHAHAHAHAHA ahahahahahaa hahahahaha hahaha
wheeeeew, man, only use a Windows installer once, that's hilarious. Thanks for the laugh of the day.
The facts are simple:
1. The GNU project began in 1984 to create a unix-like Free Software operating system
2. They created the GNU GPL license to protect their work
3. Torvalds created the Linux kernel in 1991 and shortly thereafter licensed it as GPL
Torvalds did not create an operating system, he created a kernel. Without the FSF and the GNU project "Linux" would not exist. Without the continuing work of the FSF and the Software Freedom Law Center it would soon become impossible for non-Corporate entities to create Free/Open-source software.
People who write GNU/Linux tend to care about Freedom and give credit where credit is due.
So, by your logic, bad law, or bad software idea patents (there aren't any good ones) should stand if it's no inconvenience to you...
Gee Thanks!
Go SFLC!
I was banned last night. Rather than whining to Blizzard, I've decided to remove WoW/Cedega from my computer (it was the only non-free software I used).
The whole issue reminded me why I don't choose to use proprietary software. I don't like to be treated poorly *and* pay for it at the same time.
The EULA on all of the programs that I use is very simple.
Here's a summary:
Welcome to the beauty of the GNU GPL.
Is it also your opinion that people should drive one type of car, eat one type of ice cream, and carpenters should all use hammers exclusively?
Competition drives innovation. What about this notion of picking the right tool for the job? I prefer KDE personally, but I recommend GNOME for many of my clients. Why? Because GNOME does some things better than KDE, and vice versa. I am glad that I have a choice of 15 (or more) popular X window managers. That means I can pick the software that will best suit the needs of my clients.
Why do people want "linux" to be "popular" in exchange for being free, versatile, and enjoyable? Isn't there an exceedingly popular operating system or two for these people?
I just don't get it. Are software developers out there bleeding from the ears because it's so damned difficult to write programs for GNU/Linux? How come some people can create useful and freedom-respecting programs and others can't (and instead spend their time complaining)?
Ok, so this is a troll, but I was provoked!
Yes, it is.
Are we creating Free Software for the users? or the developers of commercial software? Personally, I'd rather have freedom, and a wide array of options than a wide array of commercial (and most probably non-free) software. I don't care if commercial software developers have a hard time fitting in. Some will make the effort, and some won't. Either way, I won't use their products if they restrict my freedom to do as I like with it.
All software doesn't need to be free. But conversely, all software shouldn't be non-free either. Each user should be able to choose from a wide variety of options to best suit their own needs. And in my opinion, Free Software cares more about the user than non-free software. What good would wide "linux" adoption be if all the "linux" users were saddled by hundreds of non-free software package licenses? I care about the adoption of software freedom, not your interpretation of "linux".
It sounds as though you're a software developer who hasn't got a real handle on the Free Software/Open-source development model, and therefore you're finding it hard to become rich and famous... Or perhaps you submitted a patch and have had it rejected, or something. Anyway, your OP seems like ax grinding.
Join in the fun, or use a commercial (non-free) OS. But don't try to reduce the choice that other's enjoy.
I've seen a demonstration of AJAX at a conference, and it has some interesting features, but my concerns about it are:
1. I hate JavaScript.
2. I'm not sure how accessible applications built with it are. Meaning that if someone is blind and using a screen reader, or even someone with a non-standard browser, is trying to use the application, will they be able to?
Anyone with experience with AJAX and accessibility please comment.
The whole idea of "open-source" is that you don't *need* to rely on any supplier, you can allocate some of your resources, and take care of your own software needs/wants.
But you probably knew this already.
First, your "fun" was not obvious. To me it seemed like a half-hearted effort to make a counterpoint about a subject that you don't fully understand.
Secondly, it seems you are thinking of the whole issue of software freedom on a personal level, which does not give one the benefit of the big picture. Sure, to most individual computer users, the availability of source code doesn't make much difference at all. But when you are talking about communities, cities, counties, states, and countries, the notion of software freedom becomes a lot more relevant. Software is an essential part of many technological societies these days. That's why thousands of people around the world don't share your view of the triviality of access to source code and software freedom in general. Look at the bigger picture once in a while.
And it's always fun watching people with an insufficient grasp of the topic at hand make excuses for failures in making coherent counterpoints.
I put the word "Linux" in quotes in my posts to indicate (perhaps not very well) that the parent post uses the term Linux to mean the entire OS, which I believe is incorrect.
You're right. The Linux kernel was not developed by GNU, but when most people say/write "Linux", they're talking about GNU/Linux.
Calling someone an especially undersocialized nerd is Insightful?
Last time I checked, RMS spoke several languages, and has visited heads of state and thousands of people in many countries across the globe. Also, he seems to be the unwaivering center of a worldwide socio-political movement to protect your freedom and mine, sometimes at the cost of looking foolish to people who don't understand what he's doing.
You don't seem to understand that the Free Software movement is a sociopolitical movement that cares more about freedom than about mainstream popularity. Strange concept in this day and age right?
I respect RMS because he has never waivered from his ideals, even though people running "Linux", think he's a crazy person. He doesn't let fear of perception goad him into giving over his integrity. He and the FSF are not just trying to become popular, they're trying to protect your freedom and mine.
IMO idealistic integrity is in too short supply in the world these days.
So, it's great that you like "Linux", but remember that without RMS and the FSF and their allies, your "Linux" would not exist.
Switch to any non-commercial flavor of GNU/Linux. Get your work done in peace and quiet.
I intend to ignore it for far longer than that.