thelinuxlink.net

Hey guys,

I'm a long time listener to tllts, I just wanted to register on the forum to leave some possitive feed back and to show a bit of encouragement. Anyway your last episode was interesting but you didn't really talk about Freespire (the new Linspire community distro) as was advertised for the episode. I think that this distro has the potential to bring a lot of people to Linux, I agree with Pat on this one.

I enjoyed the interview with the editor from the Linux mag, perhaps a little dry but still interesting. For me he didn't appear to be fired up and excited by Linux (especially Linux's chance on the desktop) maybe time has just started to grind him down.

Thanks guys for making me laugh out loud on the way to work. By the way I'm from England and I think your show is better than Lug Radio!

Keep up the good work!

p.s. Do other listeners support the inclusion of non free software in Linux distros? Also is this the way forward for Linux on the desktop? Discuss

John

I think it is a good issue ... maybe one for a future show? It is not clear what the consequences are, for including non free software. Is it the beginning of the end? The slippery slide into corporate domination?

Maybe we are better just getting that stuff from the unofficial sites? But maybe that is also a bit problematic?

Maybe Richard Stallman could debate with the Novel SuSE guys?

John Mills wrote:p.s. Do other listeners support the inclusion of non free software in Linux distros? Also is this the way forward for Linux on the desktop? Discuss

Personally, I don't mind "non-free" software being part of a Linux distro... but after I pay for that software I want to be able to use it the way I want and do what I want with it (copy it, alter it, share it with a family member, etc).

Just like owning a car. A car costs money, but once I buy that car, if I want to jack up the back end and put some mag wheels on it and install a big-ass spoiler, then I should have the right to do so.

Judland wrote:Personally, I don't mind "non-free" software being part of a Linux distro... but after I pay for that software I want to be able to use it the way I want and do what I want with it (copy it, alter it, share it with a family member, etc).

Yeah I'm of the same opinion, although some codecs I "might" pay for, depending on the situation, DivX I don't really have that much against except that they're proprietary.

Judland wrote:Just like owning a car. A car costs money, but once I buy that car, if I want to jack up the back end and put some mag wheels on it and install a big-ass spoiler, then I should have the right to do so.

ROFL

cveres wrote:I think it is a good issue ... maybe one for a future show? It is not clear what the consequences are, for including non free software. Is it the beginning of the end? The slippery slide into corporate domination?

Maybe Richard Stallman could debate with the Novel SuSE guys?

It is hard to know if there is really only one side or the other. Richard Stallman is on the far end of the spectrum as a person who wants to be able to use the hardware of a computer with complete freedom. Microsoft is on the other far end of the spectrum as a company that would like you to only use a computer with the aid of their software as the go between for the user and the hardware functions.

I don't know if we have any other examples in our lives that compare to computer hardware and software. When I get into my car I don't think about the fact that Ford is the owner of the code that runs the computer in my car so the engine runs at the proper idle, and the warning lights function properly. As far as I know, I am not free to change that code and there by change the way my car functions. I also don't think about the fact that if I get into a wreck there are certain parts that I can only get from Ford. Yet the car is not completely closed and proprietary, because I can buy new windshields and windows from others manufacturers. I can install new stereo systems from other venders. I can even pull out some of the Ford parts like the seats and recover them with a cloth of my choice if I want too. However, some alterations would void my warrantee on the car or at least certain parts of the car. But after the warrantee expires, what do I care?

Has closed designs and parts for other aspects of our lives hurt our freedoms? We often don't even have choice or freedom in some other areas of our lives like our utility company of choice or our local phone company, or even our cable company. Have these looses of freedom hurt our lives?

This sounds like a debate that is best discussed over pitchers of beer, then forgotten the next morning.

I too find the car analogy compelling .. but I am not sure your analogy is accurate.

Imagine if you bought a car and you were not allowed to have it serviced anywhere except at the factory. For huge prices. When the factory is ready, not when you need it. And they only service what they want.

Suppose the steering wheel kept falling off. But you couldn't get anyone else to fix it. You have to take some glue stick from the factory and wait until you can upgrade to the next model for some more cash.

You also mention the code that controls the tuning .. actually you can change that as far as I know .. to increase performance. Of course you usually void warranty if you alter the car in any way.

You are right though, software brings with it a whole host of new issues.

In general I agree with Stallman ... because there really are alternative business models that open source has shown us. Do we want to dilute the progress that has been made, with proprietary inclusions? I don't know.

Another key issue is having a choice.

I can either choose to buy the Mandriva boxed set that has proprietary software already to go, or I can choose to download the free version and handle the proprietary issues myself.

We've got to keep choice as part of the equation.

cveres wrote:In general I agree with Stallman ... because there really are alternative business models that open source has shown us. Do we want to dilute the progress that has been made, with proprietary inclusions? I don't know.

Richard Stallman during an interview on The Screen Savers in 2000:
"Many freedoms are important for society, even if not everybody is gonna choose to excercise them, maybe your mother is not gonna choose to learn to make even simple changes, but it's essential just as freedom of the press is essential, not everybody writes articles for publication, but it's essential for everybody to have this freedom, freedom to share and change the software you use, is an essential freedom that everybody should always have, for all published software."

Another thing he said during that interview:
"Price is irrelevant, the freedom to sell copies is part of the essential freedom, if you're not allowed to sell copies it's not free software."

I think those things makes perfect sense.

John Mills wrote:I enjoyed the interview with the editor from the Linux mag, perhaps a little dry but still interesting. For me he didn't appear to be fired up and excited by Linux (especially Linux's chance on the desktop) maybe time has just started to grind him down.

As I've said before (many times), Linux is on my desktop, and that's all I care about. People ask when Linux will own the desktop as if it's our only goal. I don't see why we're so focused on Linux on the desktop. As has been discussed (many times) on the show, the more we change Linux to appeal to the average desktop user, the more we have to give up in freedom and functionality.

Personally I think having 10% of the desktop market would be fine. Microsoft is already being impacted by Linux and we own only a fraction of the desktop. Same with Apple. They've only got a minority share, but Microsoft still has to take them seriously.

Linux needs to be a good OS. If it gets to be popular, fine. Popularity isn't our only goal, or even our primary goal.

Gomer_X wrote:As I've said before (many times), Linux is on my desktop, and that's all I care about. People ask when Linux will own the desktop as if it's our only goal. I don't see why we're so focused on Linux on the desktop. As has been discussed (many times) on the show, the more we change Linux to appeal to the average desktop user, the more we have to give up in freedom and functionality.

So true, let the Macheads dumb down their freaking OS so even Dann's dog could use it.

Gomer_X wrote:Personally I think having 10% of the desktop market would be fine. Microsoft is already being impacted by Linux and we own only a fraction of the desktop. Same with Apple. They've only got a minority share, but Microsoft still has to take them seriously.

Couldn't agree more, 10% of the market would probably be good enough to get some of the big-name apps ported to Linux, and then if we can maintain that 10% market share, I think it will expand dynamically, as Microsoft continue to force people to upgrade and have security issues (I just don't buy the thing about Vista being that much more secure) I think a lot of people will start to look for alternative, be it one of uncle Steve's freaking Macs or the goodness of Linux, Free Software and Open Source. 'Ey for some people, maybe even *BSD would be a great solution

Gomer_X wrote:Linux needs to be a good OS. If it gets to be popular, fine. Popularity isn't our only goal, or even our primary goal.

Couldn't agree more, I think that if we as a community ('ey I might not be a programmer, but when I put my mind to it I can write tutorials and stuff, I didn't get the best english grade in my high school class for nothing ) can get Linux mature enough to gain 10 - 15% of the market, I think it's so good that, that market share will just continue to expand dynamically, because one thing Free Software and Open Source never stops doing is innovating, thanks to XGL (And likely the Xegl of the future) and Compiz being so modular we can get all sorts of cool plugins for that system, and 'ey some of them might even be useful
The zoom stuff of XGL is useful to people with vision issues and that sort of stuff.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Richard Stallman during an interview on The Screen Savers in 2000:
"Many freedoms are important for society, even if not everybody is gonna choose to excercise them, maybe your mother is not gonna choose to learn to make even simple changes, but it's essential just as freedom of the press is essential, not everybody writes articles for publication, but it's essential for everybody to have this freedom, freedom to share and change the software you use, is an essential freedom that everybody should always have, for all published software."

Another thing he said during that interview:
"Price is irrelevant, the freedom to sell copies is part of the essential freedom, if you're not allowed to sell copies it's not free software."

I think those things makes perfect sense.

Wow, all that talk about freedom, yet I remember that episode well when our favorite hosts were not free to call Linux, "Linux", but instead had to bow to Stallman taking away their freedom and forcing them to say, "Gnu/Linux".

I guess freedom is okay as long as you do it Stallman's way. He is free to take away or limit your freedoms if you would like the opportunity to talk to him.

While on the topic of freedom. What if we did not concern ourselves with proprietary software, and instead concerned ourselves with free and open formats for our data. If our data is always contained in formats that are completely open and well documented, then who cares if we use proprietary software. Open source developers could easily develope free and open programs which could deal with the data or play the media file. There would not be an issue of transfering a document from OpenOffice to Word to Wordperfect. You could exchange data and information you had created with anyone freely. In my opinion this should be our focus. I don't care if my parents use Linux, but I should not have trouble opening anything that they create using proprietary software when I'm using Linux. Codecs seem to be killing multimedia on Linux, not proprietary software. Document formating keeps offices running Word and Excel instead of switching to OpenOffice or KOffice.

Steve
mowestusa

mowestusa wrote:Wow, all that talk about freedom, yet I remember that episode well when our favorite hosts were not free to call Linux, "Linux", but instead had to bow to Stallman taking away their freedom and forcing them to say, "Gnu/Linux".

I guess freedom is okay as long as you do it Stallman's way. He is free to take away or limit your freedoms if you would like the opportunity to talk to him.

Try and view it from Stallman's point, you start a movement and sets out to write a C compiler, and almost a whole OS, for the sake of other people's freedom to freely use a computer and then a bunch of guys comes around and not gives you the slighest bit of credit. I can understand why he likes the term GNU/Linux, it can be confusing for new users to get their heads around, but I think that just giving the guy a little credit for the insane amount of work which I'm sure he put his heart and spirit into, by the name of the software is not a big deal.

mowestusa wrote: I guess freedom is okay as long as you do it Stallman's way. He is free to take away or limit your freedoms if you would like the opportunity to talk to him.

To quote (more or less) our president "dictatorship is OK as long as I'm the dictator." RMS is for freedom as long as you like doing things his way.

I agree that he's accomplished great things and give him credit for what he's done. I will continue to say that it's the fact that open source is a better business model that will ultimately destroy proprietary software. The free software ideology doesn't change that many people's minds. Having better software is what will change people's minds.