Taking Linux advocacy to the "mainstream" tech press

[rowinggolfer]

I appreciate suggestions, but I'm not likely to do anything that overlaps the back-catalog. There are too many other new ideas in my queue already.

OK, we wouldn't want any repetitive programming on the twit network would we

BTW - I think I've learnt more about Randall Schwartz on this forum than I have from all the floss/insight podcasts. I think I actually like him more now.

[RandalSchwartz]

OK, we wouldn't want any repetitive programming on the twit network would we

Hey, if the Daily Giz Wiz can do 600 different "gadget of the day" podcasts so far, there's no way I'm repeating a topic in the first 50 episodes of FLOSS!

[Gomer_X]

My point to Gomer_X was that I don't think FF adoption does all that much for Linux in terms of promoting it in front of the mainstream user. I'm not speaking as a developer, or about developers.

The point that an open source development model creates better software (for users and developers) really is the key issue. Most people won't believe it without proof because Bill Gates has been telling them for decades that software is only good if it has been paid for.

Say one of the people in your office starts complaining about Windows XP on their home computer and you suggest they try Ubuntu. They're concerned that something that costs nothing can't be any good. Does the fact that they've been running Firefox for 2 years help you to convince them to use Ubuntu? I say it does because they have proof tht free software can be better.

[rfquerin]

Say one of the people in your office starts complaining about Windows XP on their home computer and you suggest they try Ubuntu. They're concerned that something that costs nothing can't be any good. Does the fact that they've been running Firefox for 2 years help you to convince them to use Ubuntu? I say it does because they have proof tht free software can be better.

You are probably right. And just to be clear, I actually did suggest Ubuntu to a co-worker over a year ago for an old pc he was running Win98 on at home. I burnt him a LiveCD (Gutsy I believe) and he came in the next day speechless. He's not a heavy tech guy at all. He's older than me (mid-60's actually) and comfortable with using PC applications but not at all computer saavy otherwise. And it all worked great for him. He couldn't believe that something available for nothing could work so well. He was impressed. And I was quite a happy camper. I'm not sure if FF helped me out there, but who cares.

[rowinggolfer]

Does the fact that they've been running Firefox for 2 years help you to convince them to use Ubuntu?

Speaking personally, as one who has 100% bought into the linux desktop, I can confirm that familiarity with both firefox and thunderbird made moving away from the windows platform easier.

For me, freedom is important for 2 reasons.
1. My data isn't vendor locked or DRM'd - that has happened way too often to me already.
2. If I buy a piece of software, I want to own it. Simply having a license to use it isn't sufficient for me, and if that means only on one computer, completely intolerable. I also want access to the source code to make changes so it suits my needs, and also because all software has bugs.

However, where I am confused, and where I think a lot of the unease about free (as in speech) software in the developer space stems from, is the demand that I should be allowed to distribute copies without the consent of the author and/or publisher. To distribute copies to people with skills to help me modify the program to suit my needs is one thing, but to other end-users? I think that demand causes problems.
I think that demand is why we get called hippies and communists.

Whoops, I've drifted way off topic. Sorry.

moderator please delete if this has disrupted the thread.

[rfquerin]

To distribute copies to people with skills to help me modify the program to suit my needs is one thing, but to other end-users? I think that demand causes problems.
I think that demand is why we get called hippies and communists.

Oops. Someone just stepped in it... and he wasn't wearing sandals.

If sharing knowledge freely get's me called a hippie or a communist so what. That doesn't mean it's not a great idea.

[Tsuroerusu]

Does the fact that they've been running Firefox for 2 years help you to convince them to use Ubuntu?

Speaking personally, as one who has 100% bought into the linux desktop, I can confirm that familiarity with both firefox and thunderbird made moving away from the windows platform easier.

Yeah, it was the same for me back in 2004. Having Firefox and Thunderbird on Windows made things infinitely easier. Because I just installed those, had Firefox import all my settings from IE, and Thunderbird import all my settings and email from Outlook Express, then I just grabbed the FF and TB data directories, put them on a CD and slaughtered Windows, and I had most of my stuff.

For me, freedom is important for 2 reasons.
1. My data isn't vendor locked or DRM'd - that has happened way too often to me already.

Agreed, I don't like a program holding my data hostage.

2. If I buy a piece of software, I want to own it. Simply having a license to use it isn't sufficient for me, and if that means only on one computer, completely intolerable. I also want access to the source code to make changes so it suits my needs, and also because all software has bugs.

Technically, you don't own the free software that you may have downloaded. However it's still quite a bit different from Windows. With Microsoft's licensing, Microsoft owns both the copyrights and the specific copy of Windows that you may have. With say a GPLed program, you don't own the copyrights, but the specific copy of the program is yours, which is why "selling free software" makes complete sense.

However, where I am confused, and where I think a lot of the unease about free (as in speech) software in the developer space stems from, is the demand that I should be allowed to distribute copies without the consent of the author and/or publisher. To distribute copies to people with skills to help me modify the program to suit my needs is one thing, but to other end-users? I think that demand causes problems.

First of all, I think you've gotten a bunch of things mixed up and mangled together. There are no "demands" or obligations for you to redistribute a free program you might have. Let's say you have a copy of Fedora 9 on a DVD, and I ask you for a copy of it, you can refuse to give me a copy, that's perfectly fine, there is nothing in the GPL or any free software license that forces you to participate in the (re-)distribution of free software. Now if you gave me a copy of the binaries, then you are obligated to provide me the source code as well, or (Under GPLv3 and onwards) refer me to a place where I can get the source code (For example, a Fedora respin could refer to Fedora's source RPMs instead of providing a set of source RPMs directly), this is to make sure I have the same freedoms that you do.

I think that demand is why we get called hippies and communists.

Noun

communism (plural communisms)
1. Any political philosophy or ideology advocating holding the production of resources collectively.
2. Any political social system that implements a communist political philosophy.
3. The international socialist society where classes and the state no longer exist.

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/communism

Saying that (Not saying you do, but some people do) free software is communism, literally makes no sense at all. First of all, like I mentioned earlier, you could go out and collect a massive amount of free software, and keep it all for yourself, you never would have to give a copy to your neighbor if you didn't want to. Communism refers to a societal scenario where there are no inequalities.
(Oh, and in case anybody in here cringes because of what I just mentioned, you might be affected by some cold war propaganda, I can inform you that communism is not necessarily totalitarian or undemocratic. It can be, but so can capitalism or anything else, just look at Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, both of whom were fiercely anti-communist.)

To distribute copies to people with skills to help me modify the program to suit my needs is one thing, but to other end-users? I think that demand causes problems.
I think that demand is why we get called hippies and communists.

Oops. Someone just stepped in it... and he wasn't wearing sandals.

If sharing knowledge freely get's me called a hippie or a communist so what. That doesn't mean it's not a great idea.

I call it liberty!

[rowinggolfer]

However, where I am confused,

First of all, I think you've gotten a bunch of things mixed up and mangled together.

As I admitted, I am confused, but thanks for clarifying a few things for me Tsuroerusu.

But.. I still don't get how a developer is supposed to meet his overheads and feed his family. I see the FSF effectively say "by customising your code, other peoples code, and supporting the customers".

OK, so let's take an example.
Richard Stallman and David Mackenzie are the authors of 'ls'.
let's say that Richard Stallman decides to feed his family by supporting and modifying 'ls'. He could run into problems if someone modifies the code without letting him know how and why they have done so.
He could find himself unable to support the version of ls which his end-users may be using.
How would he know that they are using a version of ls which has been 'corrupted' (for want of a better phrase).

Also, I am no developer, but I do know that developing and releasing a project is a very consuming task. I have a couple of programs 'out there' and I do not care how people use these, but I would be hugely interested in any modifications made. Is it too much to ask that any modifications be reported back to me?

I guess I could make my code so badly organised and documented that no-one would modify it? but that is clearly not best practice.

where's the middle ground here.... what am I missing?

[dann]

[
OK, so let's take an example.
Richard Stallman and David Mackenzie are the authors of 'ls'.
let's say that Richard Stallman decides to feed his family by supporting and modifying 'ls'. He could run into problems if someone modifies the code without letting him know how and why they have done so.
He could find himself unable to support the version of ls which his end-users may be using.
How would he know that they are using a version of ls which has been 'corrupted' (for want of a better phrase).

Two points here: 1) Since ls is under the gpl, the version of ls that they are using would have the source code available so that Stallman or whoever could provide custom support. 2) If they hired him on to tailer ls to their needs and did not give him the version of ls they were using, but instead just said hey, we want ls to do this; and he did that; it would be on them for not supplying the proper version. It would not be the developers fault.

You can sell free software; but more to the point it is more economical to sell support or customization capabilities than the actual software itself. This model predicates itself upon the fact that the majority of programming jobs are inhouse; custom jobs; not creating shrink wrap software to sell on a shelf. Developing such software and releasing the code to the public benefits not only the public; but the company who produced it through the "thousands of eyes" philosophy.

So yeah, it would be difficult for say Joe Programmer to make a living off of an application he developed and decided to sell on his own. This application would have to be something he or she could provide support and/or customizations for. There are clear cases of this (i.e.; webmin) but by and large this type of software development and sale is the thin crust on the top, the 2% or something like that (I believe that is what Eben Moglen said).

[rowinggolfer]

So yeah, it would be difficult for say Joe Programmer to make a living off of an application he developed and decided to sell on his own. This application would have to be something he or she could provide support and/or customizations for. There are clear cases of this (i.e.; webmin) but by and large this type of software development and sale is the thin crust on the top, the 2% or something like that (I believe that is what Eben Moglen said).

OK, I can see what you're saying, that's what I feared and I think it's a shame.
Is it the case that the era of small projects is over?

[RandalSchwartz]

Is it the case that the era of small projects is over?

No, it's just at the same place it has always been.

You have to be innovative and interesting and well-publicized with your better-than-average quality product. If you do that, you can give away your core product as source, and provide customization and training at a price.

The only difference in the open-source era is that you should figure out how to create a community around the product so that your product gets better when more people use it. That is, if you are into open-source, but not into community building, you're not going to make a living at this.

Look at 37signals as a successful example. Small team, doing something they were doing anyway, opened up Rails as source, learned how to build a community around it, and are now living well off producing trainings and conferences and doing direct support. That should be your model. I'm working similarly to promote Seaside (http://seaside.st). Luckily, I don't even have to be the developer.

[rowinggolfer]

That is, if you are into open-source, but not into community building, you're not going to make a living at this.

this was a eureka moment for me.

I apologise to Pat if i took this topic off-thread, but I am massively grateful to Dann and Randal in particular for clarifying things for me.

I use one hell of a lot of open source, but don't feel part of the communities for most of the projects. I need to change that. I give a few donations here and there, but that's probably not enough. I still feel humbled by the quality of software I am using.

I do so wish that there was more of this type of debate in the mainstream technical press. This is a hugely important but difficult concept to grasp.

right... I'm off to bed. I've set my alarm in case I doze off before 1:30am. I feel the need to tune in to the gang and Randall on the show later.

For fellow cranks listeners - it's ironic that in my time zone the show finishes at threethirty n'est ce pas?

[Chess]

I have to say that was one great interview with Randal.

Randal, you are a stand-up guy to come on the show and give some perspective to these issues. And I agree completely with Randal's point about the specialized TWiT shows not really having much impact since they already cater to a specialized crowd. I am really not that concerned about anti-Linux rants on a Windows-specific podcast or an Apple-specific podcast; it's par for the course, and it's not any different than the anti-Windows or anti-Apple rants you hear on Linux podcasts. Everybody preaches to their choir.

Anyway, it's really great to see someone like Randal not only jump in to these forums and participate in a very interesting discussion, but also come on the show and talk about it.

Great job, TLLTS guys and thanks again to Randal.

[diggsIt]

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/howtochangeautooil

[RandalSchwartz]

http://www.doityourself.com/stry/howtochangeautooil

Looks like it requires a lot of tools I don't have, and would use only for this task. Jiffy Lube is still the best.