-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Today I've read this article titled "
Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It"
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?article...
It contains a few arguments that are actually true and something everyone who's using Linux has thought/complained/or hoped for at least once. (I'll put myself mainly on the list of "packaging" and "audio" problems)
These are things often noticed immediately by newcomers to the GNU/Linux world, and I must admit that I'd often be happy to have better solutions than the currently existing "freedom of choice incompatibility happiness".
What's your opinion about the issues mentioned there?
Pb
* P.B. wrote, On 11/12/08 14:57:
Today I've read this article titled "
Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It"
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?article...
...
What's your opinion about the issues mentioned there?
I want ALSA with dmix. I don't want esd or pulse, and I hate it when I switch-user and the music stops.
As far as configuration files, I met some guys at SambaXP earlier this year who were working on group policies (by which they mean config files) being made available as part of the logon provider, which "config backends" being ultimately pluggable so that the group policy stuff could be plugged in.
The kernel ABI stability isn't much of a real problem in itself, because the kernel feature set isn't stable enough. Of course the ABI changes if the features change, just stick with the old kernel until you are ready for the new features and new ABI.
I like X11 and that a display is just a socket connection. I often kill sinful apps by * ssh in and kill * ssh and a couple of chvt * start a full-screen SDL app and quit * install a new keyboard layout but it annoys me how often my gnome desktop thinks I have CTRL or SHIFT stuck down when I don't.
Sam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I wasn't really talking about the *exact* issues the article mentions... More about how to deal with some of those "too many ways to do something - and in the end, some thing actually don't work at all" issues.
The following list is not a rant or complaint, it's just things that I've stumbled across several times and had to admit that the lack of convergence there.
Examples: *) alsa, jack, oss, esd, pulse, arts, ... Audio works for app#1, but not for app#2, maybe for app#3, etc... So far it's ok if you just want to play music, but if you start making or recording music... wohooo! (I hope that esd, oss and arts become extinct)
*) gconf: good idea, but only for gnome-apps
*) gnome-apps in KDE (and vice versa): ouch. e.g. File associations in Thunderbird running in KDE.
*) Printer settings Ever had to explain someone why there are several different printing dialogs, depending on which application you use for printing? (OpenOffice: gnome printing, Gwenview: KDE, Inkscape: /dev/lp0 ?)
- - Screen/graphic settings: Ever had to setup something like "dual screen" or change the refresh rate to a reasonable value? Which tool did you use, or did you manually edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf? Did your keyboard layout suddenly change to US afterwards, for no real reason?
- - Language settings: How many places and ways do you know to configure your keyboard layout ? :) Ever plugged an NTFS formatted disk with umlauts on en_US.UTF-8 via USB ?
As a developer myself I know that these things are there for a reason and I'm grateful for everything there is. Mostly I know how to get around these things. However, these things are unfortunately some arguments that I've often heard against Free Software.
I think it would be good to have reasonable replies to hold against it.
Pb
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 05:27:49PM +0100, P.B. wrote:
More about how to deal with some of those "too many ways to do something - and in the end, some thing actually don't work at all" issues.
That alledged problem exists only between the chair and keyboard of those who write those things.
Complaining about choice is probably the strongest signal one is an idiot.
*) gconf: good idea, but only for gnome-apps
False as stated. gconf is frontend independent. I'm writing an application (omnewrotate) which is a daemon only, that is IT HAS NO FSCKING GUI, and will likely use gconf.
Some EFL based applications in OpenMoko also use gconf.
Claiming gconf is only for gnome-apps is showing off ignorance of the matter.
*) Printer settings Ever had to explain someone why there are several different printing dialogs, depending on which application you use for printing? (OpenOffice: gnome printing, Gwenview: KDE, Inkscape: /dev/lp0 ?)
Send patches fixing those applications, or get someone else to do it faster (mybe by paying them, for instance).
- Screen/graphic settings:
Ever had to setup something like "dual screen" or change the refresh rate to a reasonable value? Which tool did you use, or did you manually edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf? Did your keyboard layout suddenly change to US afterwards, for no real reason?
Yes. Yes. Edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf. No, never.
- Language settings:
How many places and ways do you know to configure your keyboard layout ? :)
Please tell me how many ways you have to configure your keyboard using the user interfaces tipically provided by a GNOME desktop if you've never even heard of /etc/X11/xorg.conf. I can only think of one.
Ever plugged an NTFS formatted disk with umlauts on en_US.UTF-8 via USB ?
I don't give a crap about Windows, all my external disks are formatted with ext3.
around these things. However, these things are unfortunately some arguments that I've often heard against Free Software.
By idiots.
I think it would be good to have reasonable replies to hold against it.
Yes, «You're an idiot. Get over it!»
Rui
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:04:23PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
By idiots.
Personal insults and unchecked myopia hardly help matters, do they?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:18:00PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:04:23PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
By idiots.
Personal insults and unchecked myopia hardly help matters, do they?
Somehow, the definition of "idiot" applies more to those generic idiots than what your feeble attempt of a personal insult would apply to me.
I particularly like this definition of idiot:
Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Complaining about choice on Free Software is like complaining about being able to choose in an election.
Only idiots do it.
Rui
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:47:57PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:18:00PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:04:23PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
By idiots.
Personal insults and unchecked myopia hardly help matters, do they?
Somehow, the definition of "idiot" applies more to those generic idiots than what your feeble attempt of a personal insult would apply to me.
I wasn't trying to insult you.
Complaining about choice on Free Software is like complaining about being able to choose in an election.
Only idiots do it.
You entirely missed the point of my email. Calling someone an idiot is a personal remark, or an ad hominem if you like fancy words. It has absolutely no bearing on logical discussion and adds nothing constructive to the thread.
Don't do it. Don't be that guy.
I called you myopic because you seem to be operating under the delusion that the way you perceive the world is the only way to perceive the world and that anyone who does not share this position is either plain wrong or an idiot.
Don't do it. Don't be that guy.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:01:22PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 08:47:57PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:18:00PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:04:23PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
By idiots.
Personal insults and unchecked myopia hardly help matters, do they?
Somehow, the definition of "idiot" applies more to those generic idiots than what your feeble attempt of a personal insult would apply to me.
I wasn't trying to insult you.
So now you understand my usage of idiots? :)
Complaining about choice on Free Software is like complaining about being able to choose in an election.
Only idiots do it.
You entirely missed the point of my email. Calling someone an idiot is a personal remark, or an ad hominem if you like fancy words. It has absolutely no bearing on logical discussion and adds nothing constructive to the thread.
I've only seen idiots doing it. Intelligent people choose according to their preferences and at most say "nice, now if only it did fubar", and sometimes it eventually does.
I called you myopic because you seem to be operating under the delusion that the way you perceive the world is the only way to perceive the world and that anyone who does not share this position is either plain wrong or an idiot.
Don't do it. Don't be that guy.
I've only seen the argument of "many applications for X" on the mouth of bashers, so yeah, I view them as plain wrong idiots :)
Rui
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 09:15:54PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
I've only seen idiots doing it. Intelligent people choose according to their preferences and at most say "nice, now if only it did fubar", and sometimes it eventually does.
...
I've only seen the argument of "many applications for X" on the mouth of bashers, so yeah, I view them as plain wrong idiots :)
That's fine, and I'm not about to tell you not to think such a thing.
However, on a mailing list, or other place where intellectual discussion is the expected norm, hurling about personal insults or prejudiced value judgements isn't very productive and only contributes to the image of free software supporters being balkanized zealots.
If we're going to discuss something, lets do it with a wider perspective and an effort to understand and respect the opinions and perspectives of others.
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 20:47 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:18:00PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 06:04:23PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
By idiots.
Personal insults and unchecked myopia hardly help matters, do they?
Somehow, the definition of "idiot" applies more to those generic idiots than what your feeble attempt of a personal insult would apply to me.
I particularly like this definition of idiot:
Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Complaining about choice on Free Software is like complaining about being able to choose in an election.
Only idiots do it.
I guess only an idiot would confuse meaning of Idiot[1], with that of Ignorant[2].
...
[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot [2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant
@Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
I clearly see that you didn't get my point. Furthermore, your arguments and choice of language are neither helpful nor mature.
Unfortunately, you've missed that I wasn't complaining - I'm looking for answers and reasonable arguments to present to others who stumble across these things and do not have time or the technical background to understand - or even fix - it.
Most of your replies don't help anyone.
"I don't give a crap about Windows, all my external disks are
formatted with ext3."
Hm... guess what? My disks are all ext3, too! But what about other people, if they'd like to use their external disk to move data around?
- or -
(printer settings)
"Send patches fixing those applications, or get someone else to do
it faster (mybe by paying them, for instance)."
That's a nice, but unrealistic answer. We're not talking about a small fix for a single application here.
Please don't bother to reply unless you're willing to calm down a bit and offer useful, constructive approaches.
Pb
@Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
I clearly see that you didn't get my point. Furthermore, your arguments and choice of language are neither helpful nor mature.
I must agree.
Unfortunately, you've missed that I wasn't complaining - I'm looking for answers and reasonable arguments to present to others who stumble across these things and do not have time or the technical background to understand - or even fix - it.
To be honest, I am not sure what kind of answers you are looking for. Sam Liddicott did answer specific points, but as you say, people with little or no technical background will not understand them.
Many of the points raised in the article are points that a user will not see anyway. RPM or DEB? Not relevant, as long as there is a nice GUI that the user can use. Same thing for configuration files, all new users use GNOME or similar. You get a point and clickity interface for that.
I would say that the author of the article is nit picking, and hasn't raised any valid points. So I atleast cannot find what you wish to have answered. Maybe if you could ask something a bit more specific, then we could be in a position to have a better discussion.
Cheers, Alfred.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 03:21:16PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
@Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
I clearly see that you didn't get my point. Furthermore, your arguments and choice of language are neither helpful nor mature.
I must agree.
Oh you're one to speak... :)
I would say that the author of the article is nit picking, and hasn't raised any valid points.
Exactly.
Rui
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:26:42PM +0100, P.B. wrote:
@Rui Miguel Silva Seabra:
I clearly see that you didn't get my point. Furthermore, your arguments and choice of language are neither helpful nor mature.
I clearly see you didn't get my point either, it's a pointless no-problem you're worried about. You want to appease zealots and nitpickers.
If you think sincerity is neither helpful nor mature, what do you take nivity for?
Unfortunately, you've missed that I wasn't complaining
I didn't think you were complaining, I even tried to avoid using the word 'you' intentionally.
- I'm looking
for answers and reasonable arguments to present to others who stumble across these things and do not have time or the technical background to understand - or even fix - it.
But you're worried about unsolvable problems that only exist in the minds of those who want Windows for free. You don't have to convince everyone at any and all costs.
"I don't give a crap about Windows, all my external disks are
formatted with ext3."
Hm... guess what? My disks are all ext3, too! But what about other people, if they'd like to use their external disk to move data around?
I move data around in these disks.
(printer settings)
"Send patches fixing those applications, or get someone else to do
it faster (mybe by paying them, for instance)."
That's a nice, but unrealistic answer. We're not talking about a small fix for a single application here.
Printing's not nice in Windows either. A hundred different printers has almost as much different dialogs. And don't let me get started on how you go to "add local printer" for adding a printer on the other side of the country.
I don't see people whining about that.
What is a MAJOR problem with printing on GNU/Linux is the ammount of printers that simply don't work because they requires proprietary software.
Please don't bother to reply unless you're willing to calm down a bit and offer useful, constructive approaches.
You appear to think I am not calm because of a weird notion that people who don't agree and are quite frank to tell it in your face must surely be not calm.
Rui
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:50:26PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
If you think sincerity is neither helpful nor mature, what do you take nivity for?
Naivity (not sure if it exists, the property of being naive).
Rui
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:27 +0100, P.B. wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I wasn't really talking about the *exact* issues the article mentions... More about how to deal with some of those "too many ways to do something - and in the end, some thing actually don't work at all" issues.
The following list is not a rant or complaint, it's just things that I've stumbled across several times and had to admit that the lack of convergence there.
Examples: *) alsa, jack, oss, esd, pulse, arts, ... Audio works for app#1, but not for app#2, maybe for app#3, etc... So far it's ok if you just want to play music, but if you start making or recording music... wohooo! (I hope that esd, oss and arts become extinct)
IT just shows that the audio subsystem is not mature, and no one of the so far proposed and built one was good enoguh to make everybody just switch to it.
*) gconf: good idea, but only for gnome-apps
not really for gnome only
*) gnome-apps in KDE (and vice versa): ouch. e.g. File associations in Thunderbird running in KDE.
THE Desktop Environment is the desktop paradigm, it's like discussing about 2 different kernels. Do you complain also the we have too many kernels? Linux, freebsd,netbsd,openbsd,bsd-of-the-month,opensolaris, ....
*) Printer settings Ever had to explain someone why there are several different printing dialogs, depending on which application you use for printing? (OpenOffice: gnome printing, Gwenview: KDE, Inkscape: /dev/lp0 ?)
sore point, but getting better, you have to standardize on a desktop environment tho.
- Screen/graphic settings:
Ever had to setup something like "dual screen" or change the refresh rate to a reasonable value? Which tool did you use, or did you manually edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf? Did your keyboard layout suddenly change to US afterwards, for no real reason?
Use xrandr and live happy. I don't have to touch xorg.conf since long.
- Language settings:
How many places and ways do you know to configure your keyboard layout ? :)
how many do you use? 1
Ever plugged an NTFS formatted disk with umlauts on en_US.UTF-8 via USB ?
and ?
As a developer myself I know that these things are there for a reason and I'm grateful for everything there is. Mostly I know how to get around these things. However, these things are unfortunately some arguments that I've often heard against Free Software.
I think it would be good to have reasonable replies to hold against it.
I don't think you can have "reasonable" ones if the person making these remarks is simply interested in bashing like most that do. For those that ask sincerely you can simply reply that freedom comes with a cost, and sometimes this cost is a bit of inconsistency. Pretty much like in a democracy decision making is usually much slower then in a dictatorship.
Simo.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 8:14 PM, simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
For those that ask sincerely you can simply reply that freedom comes with a cost, and sometimes this cost is a bit of inconsistency.
Or better yet, point them to the inconsistencies of non-free systems; at that point freedom is not a cost, it's a premium.
All this discussion seems to imply that the GNU system is different than Mac OS X or Windows, meaning that those are the kingdom of 'everything works' while on GNU things get stuck more often. My experience is different: all of them have serious issues. Last year I got tired of hearing these complaints against GNU and decided to test OS X deeply. My findings are described in 3 posts on my blog (http://maffulli.net/2008/10/02/mac-os-x-vs-gnu-my-personal-summary-13/ and following *-23 *-33). In short, OS X has many inconsistencies and real annoyances (not counting the fact it's DRM filled), like missing drivers or A/V codecs (whose setup is so much easier in most GNU/Linux distros.)
It's better to ignore the FUD and fire up the keyboards to promote the good features and the *consistencies* of the GNU systems.
/stef
simo wrote:
Examples: *) alsa, jack, oss, esd, pulse, arts, ... [...]
IT just shows that the audio subsystem is not mature, and no one of the so far proposed and built one was good enoguh to make everybody just switch to it.
I think with Alsa, Jack & pulseaudio things should be fine. As far as I know, both pulseaudio and jack rely on alsa underneith, so there's no competition there. Jack is for low-latency and pulse is, let's say, for the desktop. Jack and Pulse and rather young, and there's a lot happening in those corners.
*) gconf: good idea, but only for gnome-apps
not really for gnome only
Sorry. I've only seen gnome apps using it so far, which led the assumption. my bad.
*) gnome-apps in KDE (and vice versa): ouch. e.g. File associations in Thunderbird running in KDE.
THE Desktop Environment is the desktop paradigm, it's like discussing about 2 different kernels. Do you complain also the we have too many kernels? Linux, freebsd,netbsd,openbsd,bsd-of-the-month,opensolaris, ....
*) Printer settings Ever had to explain someone why there are several different printing dialogs, depending on which application you use for printing? (OpenOffice: gnome printing, Gwenview: KDE, Inkscape: /dev/lp0 ?)
sore point, but getting better, you have to standardize on a desktop environment tho.
And probably also in the developer toolkits. Not a trivial thing to make. And a lot of communication to be done, I guess.
How many places and ways do you know to configure your keyboard layout ? :)
- Language settings:
how many do you use? 1
Sorry. I shouldn't have brought keyboard layout as example, but rather language-settings in general. I'll just bring 2 examples:
- my KDE system settings say that *no* keyboard layout is configured, although I'm using a german keyboard and it's working fine. I know why, but it shows some lack of correlation.
- database, apache and shell: If you're only dealing with English, you're lucky. There are several different environment variables in the right scopes to be set properly in order to get special characters working properly across such a system. Even if you use UTF8. I've done it and I know I'll have to search the web for it if I have to do it again, because even if you've been through this, it's tough to remember.
Ever plugged an NTFS formatted disk with umlauts on en_US.UTF-8 via USB ?
and ?
Files with umlauts can't be copied. One might think that if you're using UTF8 it's fine, but it's not. I know how to fix it, but I'd say it's a no-go for a computer novice.
I don't think you can have "reasonable" ones if the person making these remarks is simply interested in bashing like most that do.
Sure, but that's something to avoid anyway: If you meet a troll of basher, it's a waste of time arguing at all.
For those that ask sincerely you can simply reply that freedom comes with a cost, and sometimes this cost is a bit of inconsistency. Pretty much like in a democracy decision making is usually much slower then in a dictatorship.
That's what I currently explain to them. Using some examples from the "real world" often helps, but I'd like some of the issues I've mentioned to be "reminders from the past", and not something which is here to stay. Things are already getting better.
Pb
2008/12/12 P.B. pb@fsfe.org:
simo wrote:
IT just shows that the audio subsystem is not mature, and no one of the so far proposed and built one was good enoguh to make everybody just switch to it.
I think with Alsa, Jack & pulseaudio things should be fine. As far as I know, both pulseaudio and jack rely on alsa underneith, so there's no competition there. Jack is for low-latency and pulse is, let's say, for the desktop. Jack and Pulse and rather young, and there's a lot happening in those corners.
Sound on Linux has been a complete mess as far back as I can remember. Every new solution claims to solve all the problems of the previous solutions and provide backward compatibility, and fails on both.
e.g. at present sound in Wine on Ubuntu is a PITA, because PulseAudio's ALSA support is lacking and no-one's coming forward to write an entire new PulseAudio backend for Wine itself. The obvious answer is to fix the ALSA support in Pulse, but this appears to be a Simple Matter Of Programming, i.e. not that easy. Result: no sound in Wine unless you disable Pulse and use ALSA instead, i.e. an imposition on the end-user that should surely be fixed if at all possible.
- database, apache and shell:
If you're only dealing with English, you're lucky. There are several different environment variables in the right scopes to be set properly in order to get special characters working properly across such a system. Even if you use UTF8. I've done it and I know I'll have to search the web for it if I have to do it again, because even if you've been through this, it's tough to remember.
Yes, internationalisation is a mess. Too many apps get US-ASCII working and everything else is an afterthought, even if the app is UTF-8 clean.
Files with umlauts can't be copied. One might think that if you're using UTF8 it's fine, but it's not. I know how to fix it, but I'd say it's a no-go for a computer novice.
This one's a very real problem for me too. It's silly to presume a homogenous ext3-supporting environment.
That's what I currently explain to them. Using some examples from the "real world" often helps, but I'd like some of the issues I've mentioned to be "reminders from the past", and not something which is here to stay. Things are already getting better.
Acknowledging broken things are broken is a first step. "Sorry, we know it sucks, we're working hard on it."
- d.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:57 PM, P.B. pb@fsfe.org wrote:
Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It"
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?article...
It contains a few arguments that are actually true and something everyone who's using Linux has thought/complained/or hoped for at least once. (I'll put myself mainly on the list of "packaging" and "audio" problems)
These are things often noticed immediately by newcomers to the GNU/Linux world, and I must admit that I'd often be happy to have better solutions than the currently existing "freedom of choice incompatibility happiness".
What's your opinion about the issues mentioned there?
Linux is just a kernel. Everything on top of it are meshed into an OS though having different ways to really allow different solutions (flavours) for individuals and organisations.
I find that the article is not really providing good grounds on what's _really_ wrong with Linux. It sounds like the article is saying, "different methods (flavours) is wrong." Is he implying that the Linux kernel and related OS should be a one-size-fits-all?
I can agree that there should be certain standards in the kernel.
KwangErn
KwangErn Liew wrote:
Linux is just a kernel. Everything on top of it are meshed into an OS though having different ways to really allow different solutions (flavours) for individuals and organisations.
We know this. However, for most people out there the whole OS and everything that's not Mac or Windows is "Linux". :)
I find that the article is not really providing good grounds on what's _really_ wrong with Linux. It sounds like the article is saying, "different methods (flavours) is wrong." Is he implying that the Linux kernel and related OS should be a one-size-fits-all?
Not sure, but the reason why I've mentioned this article here is, that it proves certain "impressions" people get from using GNU/Linux.
It's sad but true that people often don't see what's better, but only complain about what's cumbersome for them (which is often due to lack of knowhow). But there *is* a reason why people often get this impression and I think it's important to be aware of this.
Pb
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM, P.B. pb@fsfe.org wrote:
KwangErn Liew wrote:
Linux is just a kernel. Everything on top of it are meshed into an OS though having different ways to really allow different solutions (flavours) for individuals and organisations.
We know this. However, for most people out there the whole OS and everything that's not Mac or Windows is "Linux". :)
Unfortunate yes, and I even have a hard time explaining Linux and its distributions. Not even mentioning about what WM and DE are and a whole lot of other things.
I learnt that we should rather spin it the other way around, and categorise different use cases and built distros just for those groups of people. It's not an easy feat and I don't think anyone has solved that well enough just yet. Ubuntu is getting there, but still has alot of issues to sort out.
I find that the article is not really providing good grounds on what's _really_ wrong with Linux. It sounds like the article is saying, "different methods (flavours) is wrong." Is he implying that the Linux kernel and related OS should be a one-size-fits-all?
Not sure, but the reason why I've mentioned this article here is, that it proves certain "impressions" people get from using GNU/Linux.
We have to change that - somehow.
It's sad but true that people often don't see what's better, but only complain about what's cumbersome for them (which is often due to lack of knowhow). But there *is* a reason why people often get this impression and I think it's important to be aware of this.
Agreed.
KwangErn
2008/12/12 KwangErn Liew ke.liew@gmail.com:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:55 PM, P.B. pb@fsfe.org wrote:
We know this. However, for most people out there the whole OS and everything that's not Mac or Windows is "Linux". :)
Unfortunate yes, and I even have a hard time explaining Linux and its distributions. Not even mentioning about what WM and DE are and a whole lot of other things.
I frequently just suggest "Ubuntu" - it'll do as a gateway drug to the wonderful world of free software after all ;-)
Perhaps comparisons to the many versions of Windows, all of which are different?
Firefox is an excellent example of free software that also happens to be utterly superior. "This is to Windows what Firefox is to IE." Perhaps that's promising a bit much ;-)
- d.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 04:52:13PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
Firefox is an excellent example of free software that also happens to be utterly superior. "This is to Windows what Firefox is to IE." Perhaps that's promising a bit much ;-)
An amusing example, given that Firefox is technically non-free.
2008/12/12 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
An amusing example, given that Firefox is technically non-free.
Yes, and GNU/Linux isn't free unless it's running on an FPGA you programmed yourself by hand.
- d.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 05:45:41PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/12 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
An amusing example, given that Firefox is technically non-free.
Yes, and GNU/Linux isn't free unless it's running on an FPGA you programmed yourself by hand.
Erm, what? Firstly, GNU/Linux isn't a single bit of software, it's the name of a computing platform, so I'm not sure how your analogy holds. Firefox is non-free because you cannot modify the artwork and must seek permission if you intend to distribute it under the name Firefox.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 05:54:06PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 05:45:41PM +0000, David Gerard wrote:
2008/12/12 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
An amusing example, given that Firefox is technically non-free.
Yes, and GNU/Linux isn't free unless it's running on an FPGA you programmed yourself by hand.
Erm, what? Firstly, GNU/Linux isn't a single bit of software, it's the name of a computing platform, so I'm not sure how your analogy holds. Firefox is non-free because you cannot modify the artwork and must seek permission if you intend to distribute it under the name Firefox.
You're not free to exploit the trademark, but that doesn't make Firefox non-free software, just non-free-trademark.
Replace the trademarks and you get the same browser with a different name and a different look, or if you want to exploit the trademark (to say you have the fancyiest browser around, or whatever reason) they ask you some (pretty unreasonable, AFAICT) conditions.
Mozilla Foundation stupidly makes it harder for distributions to ship their flagship browser as originally branded.
The kernel called Linux is not Free Software as distributed by Linus, though, since it contains non-Free Software code.
Remember that trademark is ortogonal to copyright.
Rui
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:12:35AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Erm, what? Firstly, GNU/Linux isn't a single bit of software, it's the name of a computing platform, so I'm not sure how your analogy holds. Firefox is non-free because you cannot modify the artwork and must seek permission if you intend to distribute it under the name Firefox.
Remember that trademark is ortogonal to copyright.
I am well aware of this. Because they will not let you use the artwork or name without permission, and because you cannot modify the artwork, the interlinking of trademark law and copyright law mean that Firefox is non-free by default.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:31:08AM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:12:35AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Erm, what? Firstly, GNU/Linux isn't a single bit of software, it's the name of a computing platform, so I'm not sure how your analogy holds. Firefox is non-free because you cannot modify the artwork and must seek permission if you intend to distribute it under the name Firefox.
Remember that trademark is ortogonal to copyright.
I am well aware of this. Because they will not let you use the artwork or name without permission, and because you cannot modify the artwork, the interlinking of trademark law and copyright law mean that Firefox is non-free by default.
Yes, you can modify the artwork. In a high level summary, if you change the artwork or some features, you can't call it firefox.
What does that have to do with: 1. running the program for any purpose 2. being able to study and modify it 3. being able to distribute copies 4. being able to distribute modified copies?
All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software. You just can't *call* it Firefox, but being able to call the program whatever you want is not one of the software freedoms.
Rui
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, you can modify the artwork.
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
What does that have to do with:
- running the program for any purpose
- being able to study and modify it
- being able to distribute copies
- being able to distribute modified copies?
You can't distribute modified copies.
All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software.
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
You just can't *call* it Firefox, but being able to call the program whatever you want is not one of the software freedoms.
You have misunderstood the issue at hand.
Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, you can modify the artwork.
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
What does that have to do with:
- running the program for any purpose
- being able to study and modify it
- being able to distribute copies
- being able to distribute modified copies?
You can't distribute modified copies.
All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software.
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
It is renamed as iceweasel for trademark reasons
the trademark reasoning goes as follows
If you change the work (art or code) then you must submit it to the mozilla organisation for approval, after all it is covered by their mark.
Debian wanted to be independent to change images and code, as asthetics and security patches arrived.
Debian is precluded from doing so and calling it FF.
Therefore at night the iceweasels come!
This is the issue at hand, nothing else from the Debian side, now .... if on the other hand you were the FSF.
From the FSF perspective the promotion of non free plugins gets FF declared non free.
How simple is this matter really, very imo, but then I am kind of aware of all the angles. ;-)
Regards,
Paul
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 09:12:48AM +0000, Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix - wrote:
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
It is renamed as iceweasel for trademark reasons
Yes, but it is in non-free because the artwork cannot be modified.
This is the issue at hand, nothing else from the Debian side,
False. The artwork cannot be modified.
2008/12/13 Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 09:12:48AM +0000, Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix - wrote:
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
It is renamed as iceweasel for trademark reasons
Yes, but it is in non-free because the artwork cannot be modified.
This is the issue at hand, nothing else from the Debian side,
False. The artwork cannot be modified.
It's clear to me the only ethically defensible path is to strictly advocate only telnetting directly to port 80 for web browsing. Anything less is prone to corruption. And anyone who has not yet discovered software freedom who says this is too hard is just too lazy to deserve to know about software freedom.
- d.
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 08:38 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, you can modify the artwork.
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
This is plainly false, as long as you don't use the trademarks you can.
What does that have to do with:
- running the program for any purpose
- being able to study and modify it
- being able to distribute copies
- being able to distribute modified copies?
You can't distribute modified copies.
False, all you need is to remove the trademarks, might not be fun, but it doesn't stop you to change the functionality of the program in a ny way you want.
All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software.
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
Debian has its own concept of Free or non-Free, they are free to have their own, but it is not universally accepted so please avoid judging free or non-free out of the scope of the Debian project with their metric and sell that as the Revealed Truth.
You just can't *call* it Firefox, but being able to call the program whatever you want is not one of the software freedoms.
You have misunderstood the issue at hand.
That's just your opinion, not all people agree with the Debian view, nor on Firefox, nor on the GFDL to name a few.
Now consider that you cannot change any Free Software program name into Coca-Cola and redistribute it. Does it mean they are all non-Free because there is at least one modification you can't make ?
Or would you consider the Firefox code free if they distributed their source code normally under the name Foobar, and then used the Firefox brand only for their binary distribution ? Would it make any difference ? If so what would that be? And if not why not ?
Simo.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:32:32AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 08:38 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, you can modify the artwork.
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
This is plainly false, as long as you don't use the trademarks you can.
False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.
What does that have to do with:
- running the program for any purpose
- being able to study and modify it
- being able to distribute copies
- being able to distribute modified copies?
You can't distribute modified copies.
False, all you need is to remove the trademarks, might not be fun, but it doesn't stop you to change the functionality of the program in a ny way you want.
False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.
All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software.
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
Debian has its own concept of Free or non-Free, they are free to have their own, but it is not universally accepted so please avoid judging free or non-free out of the scope of the Debian project with their metric and sell that as the Revealed Truth.
You're implying that your definition is more true.
You just can't *call* it Firefox, but being able to call the program whatever you want is not one of the software freedoms.
You have misunderstood the issue at hand.
That's just your opinion, not all people agree with the Debian view, nor on Firefox, nor on the GFDL to name a few.
No, I am stating a fact.
The original message had misunderstood that you cannot modify the Firefox logo.
Now consider that you cannot change any Free Software program name into Coca-Cola and redistribute it. Does it mean they are all non-Free because there is at least one modification you can't make ?
Of course not.
The ImageMagick cannot be modified, thus is non-free. Same thing.
Or would you consider the Firefox code free if they distributed their source code normally under the name Foobar, and then used the Firefox brand only for their binary distribution ? Would it make any difference ? If so what would that be? And if not why not ?
Firefox is the name of the software when branded as Firefox.
When branded as Firefox, with the logo and the name, the software is non-free.
This thread is bringing to mind the phrase:
"We're not out to destroy GNU/Linux. That will be a completely unintentional side effect."
- d.
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 16:16 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.
This seems to be a matter of semantics. You cannot modify the Firefox logo, but you CAN replace it. The software itself is free, as you redistribute it as you wish, as long as it is unbranded. It is the brand, not the software, that is, unfortunately, non-free.
Firefox is the name of the software when branded as Firefox.
When branded as Firefox, with the logo and the name, the software is non-free.
It depends whether you believe that the software includes the logo and the name. Evidently, people's opinions differ on that point. I personally believe that the freedom of the software is based upon the freedom of the source, not upon the freedom of brand.
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 04:16:11PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:32:32AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 08:38 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, you can modify the artwork.
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
This is plainly false, as long as you don't use the trademarks you can.
False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.
I'm not defending what the Mozilla Foundation is doing, Trademarks are a tricky business, but you're confusing issues. As long as you confuse trademark law with copyright law, and artwork with code, you'll just make mistakes like those of your reasoning.
The original message had misunderstood that you cannot modify the Firefox logo.
Because of a trademark issue, not because of a copyright issue. If you replace the artwork you get the same software.
Now consider that you cannot change any Free Software program name into Coca-Cola and redistribute it. Does it mean they are all non-Free because there is at least one modification you can't make ?
Of course not.
But it's the same problem, you can't use the Coca-Cola logo on any Free Software, is it no longer free now?
Firefox is the name of the software when branded as Firefox. When branded as Firefox, with the logo and the name, the software is non-free.
The small hassle of removing the logo and the name corrects that, and some distributions do that, as such, you're making much ado about nothing.
ATI and NVidia proprietary drivers worry me much more.
Rui
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 16:16 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:32:32AM -0500, simo wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 08:38 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 12:39:55AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, you can modify the artwork.
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
This is plainly false, as long as you don't use the trademarks you can.
False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.
I think you do not understand Trademark law.
What does that have to do with:
- running the program for any purpose
- being able to study and modify it
- being able to distribute copies
- being able to distribute modified copies?
You can't distribute modified copies.
False, all you need is to remove the trademarks, might not be fun, but it doesn't stop you to change the functionality of the program in a ny way you want.
False. You cannot modify the Firefox logo.
As above.
All of those are allowed, so it is Free Software.
Wrong. Why is Firefox not in Debian main? Because it is non-free.
Debian has its own concept of Free or non-Free, they are free to have their own, but it is not universally accepted so please avoid judging free or non-free out of the scope of the Debian project with their metric and sell that as the Revealed Truth.
You're implying that your definition is more true.
No, unlike you I recognize others may have different point of view, and I do not try to impose my belief like a zealot does.
You just can't *call* it Firefox, but being able to call the program whatever you want is not one of the software freedoms.
You have misunderstood the issue at hand.
That's just your opinion, not all people agree with the Debian view, nor on Firefox, nor on the GFDL to name a few.
No, I am stating a fact.
Zealotry, that's the only thing you are really stating with this behavior.
The original message had misunderstood that you cannot modify the Firefox logo.
The Free Software definition is about software, whether a non-functional part of the software can be modified or not isn't really on the table. Moreover the prohibition to modify the logo comes from trademark law, and is not something you can change even with a license, much less a copyright license.
Now consider that you cannot change any Free Software program name into Coca-Cola and redistribute it. Does it mean they are all non-Free because there is at least one modification you can't make ?
Of course not.
Then you admit restrictions on how a program or its artwork can be modified ...
The ImageMagick cannot be modified, thus is non-free. Same thing.
As far as I know the ImageMagick license is GPL compatible therefore it must be a free software license ...
Or would you consider the Firefox code free if they distributed their source code normally under the name Foobar, and then used the Firefox brand only for their binary distribution ? Would it make any difference ? If so what would that be? And if not why not ?
Firefox is the name of the software when branded as Firefox.
So the software is different if you change the name ? Curious, in my book a rose is a rose even if you call it another way ...
When branded as Firefox, with the logo and the name, the software is non-free.
Ok so we have that any free software can be transformed into non-free software by simply adding a trademarked name ... how lame an argument.
Simo.
2008/12/13 simo simo.sorce@xsec.it:
The Free Software definition is about software, whether a non-functional part of the software can be modified or not isn't really on the table. Moreover the prohibition to modify the logo comes from trademark law, and is not something you can change even with a license, much less a copyright license.
Not to mention Red Hat. Obviously Noel would never under any circumstances encourage anyone to move from Windows to Red Hat.
- d.
2008/12/13 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/12/13 simo simo.sorce@xsec.it:
The Free Software definition is about software, whether a non-functional part of the software can be modified or not isn't really on the table. Moreover the prohibition to modify the logo comes from trademark law, and is not something you can change even with a license, much less a copyright license.
Not to mention Red Hat. Obviously Noel would never under any circumstances encourage anyone to move from Windows to Red Hat.
(Noah, not Noel, sorry.)
- d.
simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 08:38 +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
No, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute.
This is plainly false, as long as you don't use the trademarks you can.
Here's the complete artwork license in the Mozilla Firefox source tree:-
You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the Firefox name or logo.
For more information, see: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html
Source: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/670cb792e94a/other-licenses/brand...
So, it only speaks of trademarks and doesn't grant *any* permissions. As it stands, you cannot modify the artwork and redistribute and this is intentional: you do not have the freedom to redistribute modified versions of what is called Mozilla Firefox - it is not free software. Happily, you can cut lumps out and call that free software, but that means only a subset of Firefox is free software.
Some of my previous summaries of this topic:- http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/debian#iceweasel http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/debian#iceweasel
Regards,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 02:55:03PM +0100, P.B. wrote:
KwangErn Liew wrote:
Linux is just a kernel. Everything on top of it are meshed into an OS though having different ways to really allow different solutions (flavours) for individuals and organisations.
We know this. However, for most people out there the whole OS and everything that's not Mac or Windows is "Linux". :)
That's because neither Microsoft nor Apple make the mistake of calling they're OS's the kernel name.
Not sure, but the reason why I've mentioned this article here is, that it proves certain "impressions" people get from using GNU/Linux.
It seems a rip-off of the paid-to-troll «Linux Hater».
It's sad but true that people often don't see what's better, but only complain about what's cumbersome for them (which is often due to lack of knowhow). But there *is* a reason why people often get this impression and I think it's important to be aware of this.
Lack of know-how? Hell, those don't even have a know or a how! :)
It's either people who won't be able to solve a problem on their Windows h4x0r3d b0x3ns or those who never installed plain out of the box Windows on their shiny new laptop and compare the support of a fine-tunned tailored Windows version for that hardware with the support a generic operating system provides, or those who troll.
In this regard, GNU/Linux distributions support more hardware out-of-the-box than any other operating system (and this was independently verified by Microsoft, as Greg KH so frequently says, even though he just call's it "Linux".
Rui
"P.B." pb@fsfe.org wrote:
Fixing Linux: What's Broken And What To Do About It" http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?article...
[...]
It contains a few arguments that are actually true and something everyone who's using Linux has thought/complained/or hoped for at least once.
Indeed, it contains very few arguments. All of the complaints seem to reduce to some combination of:-
1. we offer a choice (distributions, for example);
2. some proprietary providers fail to support choice (kernel ABI);
3. local configuration error or system problem (the author's X11 problems).
We need to address these by:-
1. providing good comparisons and information at the points where they are most helpful - standardisation is no more likely than Apple and Microsoft agreeing on a common GUI and packaging system with each other and/or GNU/Linux distributors;
2. obsoleting proprietary providers;
3. making people aware that bizarre errors or problems like those X11 ones are not expected normal operation.
Regards,