In the latest episode of LugRadio, Eric S. Raymond suggests that the Linux community need to start integrating more proprietary software in order to get market share. ESR points to proprietary multimedia codecs as an example of somewhere where Linux distributions should step away from free-software rhetoric in order to get more users, with the aim of bringing those users back to open source later on and to gain more influence with manufacturers and music/movie/media distributors to make Linux a properly supported platform.
Crazy sod! They should NOT implement prop stuff unless nessecary. And support efforts to make an FOSS alternative that can hadle the formats.
Edited 2006-10-23 21:25
It’s illegal to make a FOSS alternative to those codecs. That’s the problem.
And it’s not one of those hazy areas like DeCSS.
Fortunately not everywhere.
Desktop linuxes should either include integration or a single-click “We don’t support this” installer button that carries most of what EasyUbuntu/Automatix does.
I’ll have to listen to his podcast, but I’m intrigued as to how he plans to sell the idea to North America where IP law is unfriendly to open source codec decoding.
I don’t see the problem.
Of course, we must include non-FLOSS software to the extent it is necessary to solve issues easily. It’d be nicer if it wasn’t necessary, but if you want to do 3D with a nVidia card you really need proprietary drivers until useful open source drivers are available.
It might not give a good feeling inside, but at least it’ll work.
… But here comes the real problem.
If we accept closed source 3D drivers, we accept that nVidia has a right not to release their GPU’s spec and as a result, that there will never be good open source drivers for nVidia GPUs. (ATI’s r300 driver is well, semi OK)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m using the nVidia drivers on all my workstation and I greatly appreciate nVidia’s excellent Linux support.
-However-, I -do- understand the huge underlaying problem we/I’m creating:
A. There will never be 3D capable OSS drivers as long as nVidia doesn’t release the specs.
B. nVidia can choose to stop producing Linux drivers leaving us in the cold.
BTW, nVidia itself is not the problem. Intel and Microsoft (among others) are blocking nVidia from opening (at least part of) their drivers.
– Gilboa
In one side, people who won’t touch anything that it doesn’t have a “GPL” in the license name, like firmware, or who think that GFDL documentation must be exclused from the main distro repository
In the other side, people who ask us to “step away from free software rethoric” and suggest that we start including propietary codecs by default (nevermind that XP can’t play a DVD out-of-the-box)
I’m sure there’s a middle somewhere, where most of the real-world people lives. But both Stallman and ESR seem to live in a parallel world, ego-world. They seem to want programmers to behave as they want, when software is all about freedom and liberalism: Allow people to do whatever they want to do. No matter what it is, as long as it’s what people want’s it’s fine.
Personally I’m a bit sick of those “software leaders”. Linus Torvalds at least doesn’t pretends to be a super-leader that wants to impose other people his ideology, he just manages a software project and people only listens him when he takes a decision that affects to that project (that happens to get into the news because the project is linux, not for other reason).
Stallman and ESR, on the other hand…”programmers should do $FOO”, “programmers should do $BAR”…bah.
ESR isn’t demanding, he is merely suggesting. You can’t blame him for suggesting the obvious. He’s saying “ought to do” and not “must do”.
That Linux distros should contain more proprietary software is an interesting subject that requires input from people who work on and sell distros, but “ESR” and Bruce Perens and anyone else who has a lot of opinion on something they have no material input on does not merit my click.
For years I have read the strange and unusual rantings of Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. Time and time again, I ask the people who give them voice to explain to me why these people are important — what their contributions have been. No one has been able to answer this question reasonably; all I hear are some mutterings about being the Debian project leader for a few weeks, or about Fetchmail or license regulation.
These people are nothing more than self-aggrandizing ego monkeys who use the press to maintain their false image of importance. They do not do research and publish benchmarks; they do not conduct interviews and write meaningful articles; they do not investigate claims or expose corruption and fraud; they do not write a significant body of code; they do not contribute money or bandwidth; they do not help anyone but themselves. They ensure nothing but their profitable future as consultants, author sponsors, paid speakers, and speech-givers.
I do not care what “ESR” thinks, says, or writes. His opinion does not hold any value simply because he uttered it. He is neither a business expert nor an expert on Linux distributions; he is merely a very loud man who uses big words to trick people into thinking that he is smarter than everyone else. Don’t fall for his tricks, and don’t give him the attention he craves.
You know, first off, it’s rather funny that you would write so much about someone you proclaim not to care about.
Apart from that, it’s rather sad that instead of attacking his argument you chose to attack ESR. You know, even if he is an a**hole, as you claim, that doesn’t automatically invalidate his argument, now does it?
And unfortunately his argument strikes me as quite sensible, though I’m someone many people around here would probably label a free software zealot.
And unfortunately his argument strikes me as quite sensible, though I’m someone many people around here would probably label a free software zealot
It’s so sensible that distros already do it for years, and that when it’s not done, is because the software providers don’t want to deal with distros.
I don’t know if I’d lump Perens in there, but you’re quite right about ESR.
…then they’d be right.
Its not though, and it never was. Marketshare is the goal of some distributors, such as Redhat and Novell, and there are advantages to them including proprietary stuff, as Novell is well aware of… and disadvantages, as Redhat realizes.
This is just more “I know whats best for Linux” rehtoric. In reality its more like “I know whats best for MY goals for Linux”.
If people really cared about the GPL they would remove all non-GPL’d software from all distro’s.
As it is, the distros sell out all the time by including BSD licensed software, and MPL etc etc
If people really cared about the GPL they would remove all non-GPL’d software from all distro’s.
Not even Richard Stallman cares just about GPL.
People care about free software.
Richard Stallman and the FSF prefer GPL, but there are a number of free software licences listed on the FSF site, including the ones you mentioned
Richard Stallman and the FSF prefer GPL, but there are a number of free software licences listed on the FSF site, including the ones you mentioned
Yeah. But they think Firefox is proprietary and not free:
“The developers note that the official binaries on http://mozilla.org/ are definitely proprietary; they contain additional freedom-subtracted software (talkback functionality, artwork, etc) therefore only the source tarball is free software. (Also, the Mozilla Foundation requires that users of their binaries agree to a contract before running them.)”
http://directory.fsf.org/firefox.html
FSF thinks Firefox is proprietary and not free:
The developers note that the official binaries on mozilla.org are definitely proprietary; they contain additional freedom-subtracted software (talkback functionality, artwork, etc) therefore only the source tarball is free software.
What’s wrong with stating the fact?
Talkback is propreitary. It is stated so in “Firefox FAQ” published by mozilla.org, not by me. Even if we are to ignore the artwork problem (which we shouldn’t), it’s plain truth that mozilla.org Windows binary of Firefox is propreitary software.
http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/faq#talkback
In the latest episode of LugRadio, Eric S. Raymond speaks to us from a defeatist’s panic room in the mid-1990s.
Future to Eric: Free Software, or “open source” as you’ll come to call it, has changed the expectations individuals and businesses have about software, and its effect will be a continuation of the unravelling of the whole proprietary lock-in model that you seem so eager to pander to. Those proprietary codecs are proprietary precisely because their owners are willing to use the unethical, monopoly-building tool that is the patent which not only undermines Free Software but all software, open and proprietary, as well as mathematics and the scientific disciplines.
So, Eric, why don’t you work towards the abolition of software patents and the promotion of genuinely free audio and video standards, so that we can encourage the same revolution in content as we have in software, or is sucking up to some corporate fashion merely an extension of your “it’s just business” agenda, and just plain easier than doing the right thing, too?
And doing the right thing means I have to use crappy open source drivers for my nVidia card?
All he’s saying is that we OUGHT to include proprietary software IF we want a greater marketshare (or a useful product).
Linux would be useless for most users without the proprietary drivers from nVidia and other companies.
Yes, I’d prefer open source solutions but they are not yet ready. Until then we must include proprietary software. That’s all he’s saying.
At some point you just have to accept that there are at least two groups of people that use linux: people that use linux for religious purposes, and people that use linux because they feel it best permits them to use their computer the way that they desire. I don’t think that this represents the actual granularity, but I think this generalization offers a good way of viewing two collectives that are never going to see eye-to-eye when it comes to these issues. See, I agree that I would rather have a functional something than a free nothing. I would willingly support a commercial, proprietary ISV market for Linux if it meant that I would not have to use Windows for various engineering applications where there is either no alternative for Linux or it sucks so badly that someone would tell me I should spend the next six years of my life contributing to it just so that I can do what I want. I support the idea of free software completely, and anything that I can release as such I always do, but I do not care that NVIDIA’s drivers are binary blobs, and I tried unsuccessfully to make a case to port certain game titles to Linux (on my own time, unpaid) unsuccessfully, and they would have been naturally closed.
However there are people that are just in this for software freedom, and quite honestly, probably see anyone that is willing to accept proprietary software as the “enemy.” I’ve used Linux for like ten years plus or minus a year, and they’ve never been willing to accept my view, and I’ve never really cared about their view because it strikes me as too dogmatic. I don’t expect it to ever change, and probably no one else should either.
At some point you just have to accept that there are at least two groups of people that use linux: people that use linux for religious purposes, and people that use linux because they feel it best permits them to use their computer the way that they desire.
Whilst I don’t share your view of the fight for software freedom as a “religion” (and even if it is, in North America a war was fought for freedom in the late 1700s*, so “the religion of freedom” can’t be all bad), you’ve forgotten at least a single third group – people that use linux for “religious” purposes (AND) because they feel it best permits them to use their computer the way that they desire.
*Someday I might just write a book about how it all went wrong.
It perplexes me that you conflate the analogue of religious freedom with what is really the opposite of freedom. In fact what you want if I am to take that you self-subscribe to the aforementioned radicalism–note you are not really fighting for anything if you are simply ascribing to some radical software freedom ideology–is religious homogeneity. The view of religious freedom is the one of tolerance: tolerating that others believe certain things and make decisions that you do not agree with, because they have the liberty to do so.
It perplexes me that you conflate the analogue of religious freedom with what is really the opposite of freedom. In fact what you want if I am to take that you self-subscribe to the aforementioned radicalism–note you are not really fighting for anything if you are simply ascribing to some radical software freedom ideology–is religious homogeneity. The view of religious freedom is the one of tolerance: tolerating that others believe certain things and make decisions that you do not agree with, because they have the liberty to do so.
Software freedom equates perfectly with “religious” freedom. Note that I wasn’t the one who favoured bringing the word “religion” into it at all – people on this site mostly seem to use the word to mean “something which I don’t agree with which must be a load of crap, because I think it is, so there.”
Nevertheless, continuing the analogy: In modern times “religious freedom” is about “being able to profess the religion you want to without interference” (in some countries you can add “or none at all”).
However in former times, as now with software, what you might call “religious freedom” was at least as much about “being able to participate in the religion without artificial barriers, like Bibles being printed only in Latin, which confine the use, understanding, and application of religion to a priestly elite”.) In the software world, advocacy of free (or at least open source) software is a direct analogue of that freedom; in the wider technology world, opposition to DRM is also a direct analogue.
Damn that Latin King James Bible. As per Roeld v. James, we can see the Supreme Court upheld that no religious body within the United States could rely on a text nor rituals written or conducted within Latin because only the “priestly elite” could participate. No, wait, that didn’t happen. It’s a good thing too, otherwise we’d have to storm some of those pesky Catholic chuches and teach them the meaning of religious freedom.
Thanks for that incomprehensible and contentless post. Oh, and by the way, the King James isn’t in Latin.
That would be called sarcasm. Might I suggest that you learn how to read, since you failed numerous times to bother to respond to what I wrote, choosing to instead go off on your own into make-believe-land.
That would be called sarcasm.
Or more properly, ignorance.
Might I suggest that you learn how to read, since you failed numerous times to bother to respond to what I wrote, choosing to instead go off on your own into make-believe-land.
Wow. That was quite impressive. One of these days I really MUST learn how to see reality backwards.
And THAT was how you do sarcasm.
Those proprietary codecs are proprietary precisely because their owners are willing to use the unethical, monopoly-building tool that is the patent which not only undermines Free Software but all software, open and proprietary, as well as mathematics and the scientific disciplines.
Patents are the source of great wealth because they reward those who come up with new ideas.
Those who are against patents are invariably thieves who prefer to steal the hard work of others because they are incapable of coming up with patentable ideas themselves.
Patents are the source of great wealth because they reward those who come up with new ideas.
Those who are against patents are invariably thieves who prefer to steal the hard work of others because they are incapable of coming up with patentable ideas themselves.
Wow. There’s simply no shades of grey in your world, is there?
Patents are fine. They serve a purpose in much the same way copyrights serve a purpose for creative works.
Patents have no business being applied to software. Software is a creative work. You don’t patent storylines, guitar rifts or watercolor paintings. Creative works are already protected by copyright law, and should by no means be a tool for preventing competitive creative works.
Patents have no business being applied to abstract ideas. Should Britanica be able to patent the idea of cataloguing information on a variety of disparate topics arranged in an easily referenceable manner and enforce licensing fees from any other encyclopedia producer? Should Tim Berners-Lee have patented a method for defining an communications interface across digital networks allowing for the simplified access and retrieval of specially formatted documents allowing for the unified presentation of information and content? Of course the fact that he didn’t hasn’t stopped other people from trying to patent the concept of hyperlinking web pages.
So in your world, it’s perfectly justified that Microsoft should pay $500M to some clown who patented the concept of automatically launching helper applications, that RIM had their business threatened and were extorted out of $450M to some holding company that bought a barely-utilized patent for delivering text-based pages, even while those patents were being systematically revoked by the patent office? Apple was justified in trying to prevent any other company from producing GUI-based applications? Amazon can use legal means to prevent other online resellers from retaining customer information to prevent simplified checkout?
So you consider me a thief then because I object to abusive patent processes, despite the fact I believe in the objective of patents for truly innovative creations. Like my grams used to say, when you point your finger at someone, you have three others pointing back at you.
The word that you were looking for is “troll.” As in “you really are a troll, aren’t you?” Though I object to patents, his position was obviously intentionally aggressive to win those negative mod points.
Most physical tasks are describable as algorithms implemented in mechanical form, with the general purpose computer simply alleviating the need for mechanical engineering to express otherwise purely logical and state-oriented operations. If the general purpose computer did not exist, that is exactly what we would be doing–it is what we did after all. Software is not like a story or a play, it is like a company policy or a description of actions given to an employee to perform at an assembly line.
The details of the software implementation itself is curiously covered by copyright, but it is the process being implemented that typically falls under software patents. The distinction of course being that I can create a program that uses shadow volumes but if I use Carmack’s Reverse to implement it then Creative Labs thinks that it owns a piece of my ass, and if I distribute Doom 3 id thinks it owns a piece of my ass.
Anyway, I don’t like patents in general rather than specifically in terms of software, and I am clearly no thief. Intellectual property protections have gotten out of hand, and become as much a weapon against creativity as an incentive.
(I must learn to proofread instead of just writing stream-of-consciousness because I sometimes neglect to finish sentences, which is far more annoying than the typos that otherwise litter my posts.)
Edited 2006-10-24 14:06
He could at least pair this with promotion of open codecs on proprietary platforms.
Preparing an easy to use, well tested and stable, codec pack including OGM and dirac for Windows and evangelising installing it by default to system vendors would do much more to promotion of free software goals that first trying to boost linux market share by bending your attitude towards proprietary codecs.
Actually in Poland some commercial radio stations switched to OGG without much evangelising. They still get critical voices because installing those codecs could be improved on windows.
Let’s forget about the messenger and think about the message for a second.
1: the world would be a better place if all codecs could be FOSS, if there was no DRM, if all graphics cards came with a FOSS driver and/or full specs that allow one to be created, if software patents either did not exist, etc. etc. etc.
2: It would be cool if I could play my iTunes/WMV/??? songs, watch DVDs, use my 3D hardware to its fullest, enjoy Cleartype-like font rendering, have reliable sleep/hibernation on my laptop, etc. etc. under Linux, legally.
We can’t have both 1 and 2. And, different, reasonable people can pick different trade-offs on the imaginary line between 1 and 2.
What I think everybody must understand though is that the best guy/gal to fight for #1 may not be your friendly distro provider.
In fact, there’s an argument to be made for why licensing restricted formats/signing NDAs/etc. may be the quickest way to get to #1. An improved end-user experience leads to wider adoption of Linux and other “alternative” OSs and platforms, which leads to a heightened perception of the advantages of “freeness”, which potentially leads to much broader and more vocal support for unencumbered formats, etc. etc.
Just my 5pm $.0000002 worth…
1: the world would be a better place if all codecs could be FOSS, if there was no DRM, if all graphics cards came with a FOSS driver and/or full specs that allow one to be created, if software patents either did not exist, etc. etc. etc.
2: It would be cool if I could play my iTunes/WMV/??? songs, watch DVDs, use my 3D hardware to its fullest, enjoy Cleartype-like font rendering, have reliable sleep/hibernation on my laptop, etc. etc. under Linux, legally.
We can’t have both 1 and 2.
Why not? They said we couldn’t write free software. And we did. Then they said we couldn’t write free software that was the equal of proprietary software. And we did. Then they said FOSS TCO could never equal (much less beat) that of proprietary software. And it did. Then they said we could never write GUI’s that rivalled commercial offerings, and we did. They said we could never write business-grade office applications. And we did. Then they said…
(Do you see a pattern here?)
Edited 2006-10-24 00:03
“In fact, there’s an argument to be made for why licensing restricted formats/signing NDAs/etc. may be the quickest way to get to #1. An improved end-user experience leads to wider adoption of Linux and other “alternative” OSs and platforms, which leads to a heightened perception of the advantages of “freeness”, which potentially leads to much broader and more vocal support for unencumbered formats, etc. etc. ”
I think there’s much truth in this, but also great risks. I wouldn’t like to see GNU/Linux become yet another proprietary software platform. My (current) take in this issue is:
1) Include as many non-free drivers and codecs as possible *as long as* they are freely downloadable. Don’t let anyone make money by charging for proprietary software, as Linspire’s CNR system does.
2) Make it easy for end users to install them. Don’t make them feel they are being punished for using them.
3) At the same time, inform them of which drivers, codecs and formats are proprietary, why this is undesirable and which are the free alternatives in each case. Tell them which hardware vendors are more cooperative with FOSS. A centralised website for all this information would be best.
Just my 2 cents, but it’s fine by me if folks want to run proprietary stuff and fine if they don’t want to run it. Each to their own, live and let live. Software grandees who can’t understand that don’t get my vote.
It’s often not so straightforward, though. The key word here is “integration”. It’s one thing to have proprietary stuff that can be left out to begin with or ripped out later with no ill effects, but quite another to “integrate” it at such a low level that it cannot be removed without major foobars. This is the old Microsoft lock-in trick and very bad news, imho.
Since business (and certainly the IT business) is fundamentally predatory, the “integration” issue is always going to need careful watching.
This is the old Microsoft lock-in trick and very bad news, imho.
Few people seem to care about platform “lock-in” in the real world. Perhaps it is more important what the platform can do for them. Sometimes, tech people tend to forget that.
Few people seem to care about platform “lock-in” in the real world. Perhaps it is more important what the platform can do for them. Sometimes, tech people tend to forget that
You have no experience of the real world then.
Actually, a lot of people and companies care about platform “lock-in”, because support is rarely the dream people on forums like this one say it is.
Tech people are the more exposed to the problems caused by platform lock-in, which, most of the time, come down to money spent.
You have no experience of the real world then.
Rrrrright. It must be my imagination, then, that (for example) most normal non-tech people that I know could care less what kind of computer they have and merely want to use them to browse the Web and read mail. You’re really kidding yourself if you think they waste time thinking about platform lock-in. Only geeks do that.
They would if they realised that the (unnecessary) cost of locked in pseudo standards is passed on them ultimately.
Unless they steall softwares of course.
They would if they realised that the (unnecessary) cost of locked in pseudo standards is passed on them ultimately.
Nah, I disagree. The TCO of proprietary and open source products is nearly identical. And since the average time that most people hold onto a computer seems to be somewhere around 5-6 years, long-term cost savings just aren’t a significant factor.
Few people seem to care about platform “lock-in” in the real world.
Like most things, people only care about what hits them in the genitals, when it hits them. Thanks to the ubiquity of Microsoft (and the almost supernatural ability of Apple (or maybe just Steve Jobs) to come back from the brink), proprietary software lock-in isn’t going to cause the majority of people pain for quite a long time (despite the ironic fact that their empire ha been built on a hardware platform which almost completely lacks lock-in). However, some of us have been burnt by proprietary lock in – or rather the consequences of it when the company that owns the technology loses focus, changes direction, or just plain disappears – long before “Trusted” Computing was a light in Bill Gates’ eye. And we won’t go for lock in ever again if it all possible.
Edited 2006-10-24 13:27
I agree. Great comments.
Why, thankyou! I’d mod you up five if that didn’t count as self-aggrandizement 😉
>it’s fine by me if folks want to run proprietary stuff and fine if they don’t want to run it. Each to their own, live and let live.
I would argree with you if we would have this options. But unfortunately we don’t have it. We can’t use or write Free Software to run our hardware, we can’t write software which play DVDs or other media files, we cant write Free Software to communicate with people from the “other side”, etc.
If we create a market where this freedom is possible I’m with your “live and let live” but until this happens we haven’t the opportunity to make this decision so we have to fight for our freedom to “live and let live”. Today our opponent (the porprietary world) just live but don’t let live.
Edited 2006-10-24 11:40
Personally, I don’t have a dog in this fight but … a few observations. Increased market share would probably result in greater platform investment by developers (for example. proprietary firms creating better drivers, more games, more ported software, increased ubiquity, etc), which would probably result in greater choice for end-users. Does the fact that source code is available and is GPL’d translate into greater freedom? Perhaps to some people. But, to others who don’t care about source code, the converse is true: Wider availability of drivers and other software might be a more valuable standard of freedom. ESR is apparently talking about the latter. I don’t have a problem with either standard.
It’s not rhetoric. It’s licensing obligations.
Why does everyone insist on modding NotParker down?
from the modding down screen:
“Yes, this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language
Yes, this comment is off-topic
Yes, this comment is spam or includes advertisements”
NotParker’s previous post did not meet ANY of these requirements… So why is he modded down?
It doesn’t matter if you agree with what he says, I don’t, but it’s his opinion and it is at least a good conversation starter.
Probably because the option “User is a troll” doesn’t exist…
/+1 Funny.
Notparker_posting_script.bat
=======================
CUT HERE
=======================
@echo off
REM “%1 Thread subject.”
:Start
echo SUBJECT: IE 7 rules, %1 sucks!
echo IE7 is reclaiming market share for IE.
echo Couple that with Firefox’s dreadful reputation for security and Firefox 2.0’s meagre enhancements has let users know that they are just a front for Googles ads and have no intention of adding anymore important features … they are too busy tracking down 1000’s of security bugs.
echo IE7 is the new cool browser … Firefox is old and tired and full of security holes.
echo And here the IE7 team does a great, great job on new features for IE and getting them out in a timely and stable manner.
echo Wait until IE8 next year! Then you’ll get really depressed!
goto Start
=======================
CUT HERE
=======================
– Gilboa
I wonder why “^CTerminate batch job (Y/N)? y” doesn’t work in his case…
Edited 2006-10-24 06:28
You’re right; it should be added, imo.
Look better. The word “thieves”.
Yes it’s such a bad word. So bad that I have to mod you down too.
A lot of people here are jerks.
So bad that I have to mod you down too.
Feel free to do that, buddy. Apparently you think that calling people with a certain position regarding patents thieves is not a personal attack or offensive language.
A lot of people here are jerks.
Surely! Moreover, your post and behavior are perfect examples of this.
Because if you disagree with a certain class of individual, you are spreading “FUD.”
Frankly I’d just like to see the moderation system go away altogether.
Because if you disagree with a certain class of individual, you are spreading “FUD.”
There is a big difference between “disagreeing with someone” and “spreading FUD”. NotParker is expert at the latter.
Why does everyone insist on modding NotParker down?
from the modding down screen:
“Yes, this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language
Yes, this comment is off-topic
Yes, this comment is spam or includes advertisements”
NotParker’s previous post did not meet ANY of these requirements… So why is he modded down?
It doesn’t matter if you agree with what he says, I don’t, but it’s his opinion and it is at least a good conversation starter.
Hmm, no I have to disagree there. I would describe most of his posts as “a clear and deliberate insult, trolling post, or argument-starter”.
“Patents have no business being applied to software. Software is a creative work.”
“…despite the fact I believe in the objective of patents for truly innovative creations”
So it’s ok to patent an innovative creation, but not software, because software is a creative work? I’m a little confused.
Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of a patent that you feel is justified (in any context or industry)?
What are most valued merits of open source? Portability, stability, security, and inspectability at least. If closed-source codecs were written in a language that uses virtual machine (like Java) then at least portability and security could be easily reached. And how big problem is stability with such small pieces of software like codecs?
Eric S. Raymond suggests that the Linux community need to start integrating more proprietary software in order to get market share.
Do we actually want more market share??
Maybe not primarily but 3 facts needs to be faced here:
1. with advent of DRM/AACS it will be probably impossible to play any future digital media on pure OSS systems both legal and *technicall* wise.
2. Inability to play digital media is a show stopper in 99% Destkop settings.
3. Linux Desktop either gets critical mass now or world get’s locked in with MS for another 5-10 years. This may be lethal for linux adoption as its marketing efforts already show signs of loosing steam.
Edited 2006-10-24 10:31
Maybe not primarily but 3 facts needs to be faced here:
1. with advent of DRM/AACS it will be probably impossible to play any future digital media on pure OSS systems both legal and *technicall* wise
Which is not a fact, but a supposition, like the “probably” shows. And one based on nothing at that.
2. Inability to play digital media is a show stopper in 99% Destkop settings
Then the backlash will be huge on DRM, like it was on divx.
If that’s true, backlash will be huge on PlayForSure too.
3. Linux Desktop either gets critical mass now or world get’s locked in with MS for another 5-10 years. This may be lethal for linux adoption as its marketing efforts already show signs of loosing steam
People used to say that 5 years ago too, and Linux desktop had far fewer users then …
It’s lame how these guys always come as out of date or always act like “the Linux community” was the culprit for the situation.
People like ESR are sorry guys that seem like they forgot what happens in FOSS world.
Distros would be glad to include any proprietary anything if they could. But the target is not the distros.
When people are asking for MS Office, Photoshop, multimedia codecs, I’m sorry to have to tell someone like ESR that it is not distros fault they are not available, it’s the companies that produce them that don’t want to make these available on Linux.
Fortunately, for things like multimedia codecs, the latest FFMPeg/MPlayer was out some days ago, with new free (speech) codecs (like some WM3 ones).
I’ll let ESR rant like we were 5 years ago, and go on with my Linux life where I’ve none of his problems (like he had with printing).
When people are asking for MS Office, Photoshop, multimedia codecs, I’m sorry to have to tell someone like ESR that it is not distros fault they are not available, it’s the companies that produce them that don’t want to make these available on Linux.
Exactly!
When there are no products available, how can somebody else “allow” or “deny” their inclusion or support in distributions?
For example there is this fully legal DVD player software for Linux, LinDVD if I remember correctly, but nobody can use it because they are not selling it. (they are selling it just to companied doing set-top boxes and similar devices)
So as an end user I don’t even have the option of “allowing” or “denying” that software on my system, from my point of view it doesn’t exist
It requres compiling a kernel module. I gues supporting that solution would eat all the profits.
It requres compiling a kernel module
Technically or legally?
Sounds a bit weird since other players can do it without kernel module if the necessary DVD library is present (which could be illegal in some countries)
So I’ve to assume it is a legal requirement, however I don’t see why decryption would have to implemented in the kernel.
I gues supporting that solution would eat all the profits.
Might be. Seems to work for other companies
When there just have been a two years vulnerability on Linux with NVidia hardware which was known but only fixable by either installing an open-source driver (which doesn’t work on my hardware) or installing a beta driver.
There are vulnerability on open-source software as well, but people really concerned can do something about it, for closed-source, well..
IDIOT!
ESR seems to think that Linux is all about trying to make the most popular operating system ever. When really, it’s much more about making the most popular open source operating system ever.
Imagine a world where we all follow his advice and embrace every proprietary driver and application and kernel hack available. Now pretend that these proprietary additions convince every grandma and grandpa that they should switch to Linux (which is just one of the big holes in his argument) and Linux wins a dominant market share.
So now, we’ve pretty much entered the fantasy world ESR is living in. Look around. What’s wrong with this world… WE HAVEN’T ACHIEVED ANYTHING! All we’ve done is replaced one set of proprietary crap (Windows) with a new set of proprietary crap (ESR-Linux). What the hell good is that?
ESR has forgotten why Linux matters at all. he wants to dump the only thing that is really important about Linux in order to win market share. What an utter waste of time; there’s already a really good proprietary operating system in existence… it’s called Windows.
Sean