Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE said:
I'm not sure about that. In the past, the big companies tolerated a certain amount of copying, in order to help spreading their software among home users etc. ...
To continue a little bit on this line of thinking, (e.g. spreading the word,) it is imperative to give people the opportunity to try free software. The fact is however, that many of us are bound to use MS software, either because it was forced upon us, or because we need to deal with documents in that format, or simply because it not worth while to reboot your computer every time when you want to switch programs (in the case that you have to use MS software for some tasks, but would like to use free ones for others).
Unfortunately, the latter method has been hampered by the fact that many free tools are only running under Linux and Linux is "only" an operating system. That limits practically the freedom to use it the way I want.
I use Win4Lin at work, which gives me the freedom to switch between Windows and Linux, although the coexistence is not without problems. I am for example afraid to upgrade my kernel, because it means recompiling it and I am not sure if the new Version of Win4Lin will even work on my Debian system.
My point is: it would be great if the whole GNU/Linux system would be ported to Windows: Linux as a program running in Windows. That should be possible, just like any other port to a new machine, and would immediately allow access to the whole rich world of Linux applications. As a next step, cut-and-paste between Windows and Linux could be implemented making this a wonderful solution to benefit of many free software solutions. This approach has been taken by ETH Oberon, which exists as an OS in the form of Native Oberon and also as a Windows Program with almost identical behaviour, and the Windows version is just a port of to the Win API as the new machine.
Sure, I heard already many of the reasons why this is stupid: Linux is more stable and technically superior as an OS, so why use Windows, you can get all the tools in the world for Linux etc. --- However, I haven't seen any real solution yet for those who are forced to live with the MS "standard" for now. This solution would give a choice.
Cygwins approach to this is not exactly what I meant, because porting individual programs is still a big task and does not give all the benefits of a great system at once: you are still forced to do things the Windows way.
Win4Lin is the other way around and has the problem to be limited to run Win98 or older inside some versions of Linux. Even if someone comes up with a solution for Win2000 or even XP, there will always be a new system to catch up with, and it will always be behind. Apart, Win4Lin is not free software either. I sincerely believe that it would be easier and better to do this the other way around: Linux as a task in Windows. Once it works it is easy to be upward compatible.
Why I don't start this project myself? Because I am not a software engineer, e.g. not skilled enough for the task. I am just speaking as a technical user, interested to see free software succeed.
Why I am proposing this HERE? Because I think the right motivation behind such a task is important, and because I do not know a better place to suggest this. If at least some of the speakers of the free software community are behind this, it may actually happen.
- Josef
Josef Dalcolmo dalcolmo@vh-s.de writes:
My point is: it would be great if the whole GNU/Linux system would be ported to Windows: Linux as a program running in Windows. That should be possible, just like any other port to a new machine, and would immediately allow access to the whole rich world of Linux applications. As a next step, cut-and-paste between Windows and Linux could be implemented making this a wonderful solution to benefit of many free software solutions.
As far as I remembered, RMS was against porting free software on proprietary OS. If I remember correctly, the argument was: "Don't improve proprietary OS with our free software".
However, in my humble opinion, I see this step as a transition step towards a fully free world.
For example, people a reluctant to install Linux on their Windows machine. But now it is possible to install on it OpenOffice.org (or The Gimp) and to show them the power of free software. The last step is to pull them on GNU/Linux. I think they will be less against the move as they already know part of the applications.
What do you think of that?
And what about policy? If we provide free software for proprietary OS (like Windows), should we insist to put the source on the same package/CD? Should we put a prominent warning saying "this software is free software with the following 4 rights bla bla"[1]?
Best regards, david
[1] Of course, in that case, they could edit the source to suppress the warning. It would be thus an incentive to understand and get into the source, and thus its philosophy. ;)
My point is: it would be great if the whole GNU/Linux system would be ported to Windows: Linux as a program running in Windows. [...]
As far as I remembered, RMS was against porting free software on proprietary OS. If I remember correctly, the argument was: "Don't improve proprietary OS with our free software".
He is right. If users need bash, awk, perl etc to work, the won't press their employers to switch to a libre OS now that they have that stuff on windows.
So while it is good to give people some freedom even on proprietary OS, there are drawbacks. I personally think the balance is negative because people is not enjoying freedom but only the power of the tools (for example, most installations don't even have a compiler so people can't practically do anything with their tools but running them).
Employers will still be reporting to the press they only work with some-company proprietary tools and the advantage of individual users won't have any effect at all.
I explained the disadvantage because otherwise RMS' idea would look silly. It's not, unfortunately; I'll be happy to be convinced that the balance is positive.
And what about policy? If we provide free software for proprietary OS (like Windows), should we insist to put the source on the same package/CD?
If the proprietary distributors ships Libre tools, the source must definitely be there (as I already noted some time ago, magazines that do not include source code are on the borderline of legality [1])
Should we put a prominent warning saying "this software is free software with the following 4 rights bla bla"[1]?
This is already there in all GNU tools; well sort of, it's more focused on the no-warranty than on the all-freedom. It's quite boring a message, though.
[1] Of course, in that case, they could edit the source to suppress the warning. It would be thus an incentive to understand and get into the source, and thus its philosophy. ;)
The GPL (2c) forbids removing the warning if the original program has it.
/alessandro
Notes: [1] IANAL, though.
Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnu.org writes:
He is right. If users need bash, awk, perl etc to work, the won't press their employers to switch to a libre OS now that they have that stuff on windows.
[...]
(for example, most installations don't even have a compiler so people can't practically do anything with their tools but running them).
So it could be mandatory to have a compiler pre-installed on the machine (and the compiler would be installed if not present).
Employers will still be reporting to the press they only work with some-company proprietary tools and the advantage of individual users won't have any effect at all.
Unfortunalty probably true. :(
I explained the disadvantage because otherwise RMS' idea would look silly.
Yes. Thank you for doing that.
[me]
Should we put a prominent warning saying "this software is free software with the following 4 rights bla bla"[1]?
This is already there in all GNU tools; well sort of, it's more focused on the no-warranty than on the all-freedom. It's quite boring a message, though.
I was more thinking of a concise startup dialog which is not part of the legal stuff. Or maybe some text rolling at the bottom of the window. Or a text appearing if the user is doing nothing.
Notice that I don't won't to defend the idea of putting free software on Windows. It is just to have some arguments about the pros and cons.
Thank you for your post Alessandro, Best regards, d.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:59:34PM +0100, David Mentre wrote:
Notice that I don't won't to defend the idea of putting free software on Windows. It is just to have some arguments about the pros and cons.
I tend to open another line of arguments. Sometimes users see functionality of the tool in this case the computer. This means they are not bound by the platform, but by the tool for one task they use. As an example say encyption of E-Mail. If we can make a proprietory tools for a task go away and replace it with a Free Software one, this is a good step.
That sometimes means a tool for a task running on any platform will replace proprietory tools and create more freedom. To stay in the example: That you can use gnupg to some extend to encrypt mails on windows systems is an advantage even for users of GNU-Systems. However the FSFE will focus on GNU-Systems of course and the window port of gnupg was financially supported by a third party.
Bernhard
On Wed, 2001-10-31 at 14:00, David Mentre wrote:
Josef Dalcolmo dalcolmo@vh-s.de writes:
My point is: it would be great if the whole GNU/Linux system would be ported to Windows: Linux as a program running in Windows. That should be possible, just like any other port to a new machine, and would immediately allow access to the whole rich world of Linux applications. As a next step, cut-and-paste between Windows and Linux could be implemented making this a wonderful solution to benefit of many free software solutions.
As far as I remembered, RMS was against porting free software on proprietary OS. If I remember correctly, the argument was: "Don't improve proprietary OS with our free software".
I can understand that, but like it's normal with free software, someone found the need to do it and cygwin was born. You can check it out at http://sources.redhat.com/cygwin/. My use of cygwin was always to overcome windows limitations when I was forced to use windows (fortunately that doesn't happen any more and all my computer has is free software, hopefully - sometimes debian maintainers forget to check if the license is free...).
On Wed, 2001-10-31 at 15:27, Josef Dalcolmo wrote:
Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE said:
I'm not sure about that. In the past, the big companies tolerated a certain amount of copying, in order to help spreading their software among home users etc. ...
To continue a little bit on this line of thinking, (e.g. spreading the word,) it is imperative to give people the opportunity to try free software. The fact is however, that many of us are bound to use MS software, either because it was forced upon us, or because we need to deal with documents in that format, or simply because it not worth while to reboot your computer every time when you want to switch programs (in the case that you have to use MS software for some tasks, but would like to use free ones for others).
You attack the problem by the wrong way IMHO. The problem is: you are forced to use windows while you want to use linux. Ask yourself why: because you use software on windows that is not interoperable with that on linux (cosed data format). Solution: push for open standards, or better, push for free (as in freedom) data formats for your data.
Running linux in windows is not a solution, you will be forced to use forever this non-free/free mixed solution.
One of the battles to fight is to have free data formats so that you are able to really own your data and be able to make whatever you want with your own data.
Just now lot of people are hostages of Microsoft, just because they do not really own their data, not because there is not a free alternative for their software.
Just now lot of people are hostages of Microsoft, just because they do not really own their data, not because there is not a free alternative for their software.
I totally agree with this. And there are some very ugly drawback to have GNU/linux runned under M$ Win32. People would refer to GNU/Linux as "that good stuff" that runs under Win32 (thanks M$). "That good stuff" could become very popular itself rather than bringing users to the GNU/linux "native implementation" and this linked-to-proprietary-software could be leading in the main system development (what about DirectXFree86? ActiveBonobo? EmacsPad?).
The risk is that we would finally have GNU/Linux hostage of Microsoft. Who ever wants to get the last GNU/Linux Service Pack in FSFDN?
Guillaume PONCE http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
Le Mercredi 31 Octobre 2001 16:05, vous avez écrit :
One of the battles to fight is to have free data formats so that you are able to really own your data and be able to make whatever you want with your own data.
A french report has been done on this for the french administration. The free data format they want to use is based on XML.
http://www.internet.gouv.fr/francais/textesref/rapcarcenac/sommaire.htm [In French Sorry]
Josef Dalcolmo dalcolmo@vh-s.de writes:
Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE said:
I'm not sure about that. In the past, the big companies tolerated a certain amount of copying, in order to help spreading their software among home users etc. ...
To continue a little bit on this line of thinking, (e.g. spreading the word,) it is imperative to give people the opportunity to try free software. The fact is however, that many of us are bound to use MS software,
"bound"?
either because it was forced upon us,
"forced"?
or because we need to deal with documents in that format,
"need"?
or simply because it not worth while to reboot your computer every time when you want to switch programs
Ah, I think this comes much closer to the point: It's more or less just laziness. Maybe you should read Kant's "What is Enlightenment?"---most of it is still relevant today (see for example, http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/what-is-enlightenment.txt).
I still have to meet someone who is actually *forced* to use proprietary software. People make decisions and claim that, as a consequence, they are forced to use proprietary software. Maybe it's time to question the decisions.
Unfortunately, the latter method has been hampered by the fact that many free tools are only running under Linux and Linux is "only" an operating system.
This is not true. For example, the GCC release criteria listed many platforms on which GCC should run, most of them using proprietary operating systems.
My point is: it would be great if the whole GNU/Linux system would be ported to Windows: Linux as a program running in Windows.
I think Microsoft is selling something like GNU/Interix, and there is Cygwin.
Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE said:
I still have to meet someone who is actually *forced* to use proprietary software. People make decisions and claim that, as a consequence, they are forced to use proprietary software. Maybe it's time to question the decisions.
Well, I am not forced to do any particular job either, but if my employer demands from me to use a particular piece of software, then it might come down to the choice between the job and the principle. So I thought my wording of "forced", "need" etc. is not entirely unjustified.
You are right of course, that it does come down to the choices we make. I tried to argue for making it easier for people to make the choice of using free software, because as Kant already realized, few of us are actually willing to accept the discomfort of acting in an enlightened way.
So, if you intend to say that people should get enlightened, that is noble, but in terms of numbers you have lost your cause, at least for the time being. I try to be a bit more pragmatic.
Even though many tools have been ported to proprietary operating systems, I see from the response on this mailing list that the sentiment of the majority in the free software community is against the idea of Linux on Windows. I hope that this is really working in that community's favour, but I don't believe that yet - the reason being exactly this: most people do not care about enlightenment.
- Josef