[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 1:17 am, Simon Waters wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > WE MUST TALK ABOUT FREEDOM - continually. > > That could get tedious ;) Well, at least not hide from it. :-) > > If you learn nothing else about GNU, remember this: > > GNU is primarily concerned with tomorrow, not today. We suffer the > > inconvenience now on behalf of those who will benefit from retaining our > > freedoms into tomorrow. > > I really don't see the inconvenience any more. Neither do I, in everyday usage. People do complain about 3D though. TBH, 3D, internal modems and suspend to disk are the only problems I come across and of those, only suspend to disk is actually an inconvenience to me. It's getting better but there are a lot of old laptops out there. > I'm pretty much accepting that all general purposes operating systems > have their issues. Every time I touch Windows (or MacOSX) I'm surprised > at the extensive shortcomings these platforms have. (Try developing on OSX - the shortcomings become millstones!) > Matt moans at the lack of a Flash player that supports the latest > elements of flash, but I left Windows for the lack of Icon programming > language (amongst other issues). Interesting - I left for the lack of a free C compiler, inability to share or even access source code, system security holes the size of a small planet and a complete lack of reliability. Oh and the small matters of installation footprint, inbuilt obsolescence leading to forced hardware upgrades, the Redmond Tax (which is the only reason I bought a Mac) and desperation to actually find something that worked! I only considered 'free' as in beer initially - it's using free software that has made me understand free as in speech. > Although I note that both Windows and > MacOSX now have Icon. Since leaving, only OSX has made up any ground on the reasons I moved to GNU/Linux. In some areas (like forced upgrades) Windows has only got worse. I resent having to upgrade my hardware just to run the current version of a particular OS - and when you are developing, you do need a current version. It's part of the cost of that shrink-wrapped Windows software. > In that sense, source code availability is perhaps the major > differentiating feature remaining. Absolutely - it is free software that makes the biggest difference because it underlies so many of the more visible differences. The reason we have no lock-in is that the source code can be changed to prevent it. The reason we have no inbuilt obsolescence is that the source code can be scaled down to the most feeble hardware. The freedom of the source code, rather than just it's low price, means we don't have to have the same overheads of keeping up with the latest CPU hardware and overheads cost money so we can develop code for less cost, often with no cost at all. We've succeeded in the battle against hardware upgrades within the PC in the sense of the equipment needed for a common server, now it's time to look at 3D, peripherals and laptops. It's stuff like pilot-link that can do with funding - we have to test with a variety of real peripheral hardware and hardware always costs real money. Same story with internal modems, 3D and suspend to disk - these are secrets that can only be cracked if the proprietor opens up or we spend enough time with enough devices to break it down. There does need to be a change of mood in free software that any code which deals with peripheral or secret hardware should be FUNDED. Make a donation to pilot-link or embedded Debian etc. Let the developers buy some more test hardware so that we can fix bugs that only show up on those devices. Projects that consume real resources to maintain their freedom have different needs to the latest version of Apache or PHP. We do need to encourage free software users to value free as in speech more than free as in beer. It doesn't require mega-bucks, just £10 now and then, monthly if you can afford it. e.g. All the GNU Press books have their complete content on the web - but I've purchased four GNU Press books that duplicate the online content, as a contribution. Little things, done by enough people, make a big difference. If you value the FSF, make a donation and help them fight things like the licence infringements in the Sony DRM farce. Or try FFII, or AFFS, gnu.org, sourceforge, KDE, Gnome, gnucash, whoever. Donating to KDE could help kpilot, to gnome could help gnome-pilot etc. Delays in testing devices with kpilot, evolution and gnome-pilot are holding up the next release of pilot-link - funds could make it easier to fix the bugs by ensuring developers have access to the full range of devices. This is practical support - it's not about paying for software or suddenly being faced with a EULA and a bill. It's voluntary and that makes it all the more valuable. > What I could do with is easier selection of hardware, i.e. finding out > what is really supported well, and what isn't Money talks. It's rare to find a Tux on a hardware minimum spec box - it can be found on USB and network kit but there is still far too much secret hardware around - especially laptops, 3D and peripherals. The more developers have these devices, the more progress will be made. > > Compromise is unacceptable. > > Only if you feel it is a point of principal for you. (principle) True - it is most definitely a point of principle for me. I think it comes from trying my hand at development - licence issues become personal. > $ vrms > No non-free packages installed on derek! rms would be proud. :-) > Reading the discussion one could be led to think that MP3 players are > not available, when in fact most distros have perfectly fine MP3 > players. Redhat removed MP3 players from their distros because they were > worried about the legal issues, mostly due to the position on software > patents in the US, of course being free software projects outside of > Redhat they didn't disappear because Redhat didn't ship them. True - and MP3 is a dubious patent, as you know: > Although to be honest, how a process of encoding spectral transforms for > compression of sound can get a patent these days is a bit of a mystery, When a free software alternative exists, it seems daft to risk a patent lawsuit. No matter how dubious the patent, the fact is that mp3 is everywhere and this makes it a lucrative target for anyone without scruples. There are millions upon millions of easy targets for someone to sue over MP3 - there are precious few people or organisations that could leap to your defence and fund the immensely costly court battle (probably in the US) to defeat a nefarious patent infringement case. The basic problem with patents is three-fold: 1. They are transferable - which makes them commodities with asset value. 2. The asset value can only be realised in court. 3. If you protect your patent - and win - it becomes even more valuable. When companies are up against it, it's only good business to realise the value of your assets to keep the company afloat. That means that the most likely business to sue over a patent is a company that is getting desperate for ready cash (or their agents). They won't go after the big names that can afford to defend themselves (and likely win), they go after the small fry who cannot afford to either dump the patented stuff or fight their corner. The awkward thing for us is that the more free software eats into the monopoly of proprietary systems, the more companies are going to be struggling with cash flow and the more likely they are to want to realise their patent assets. So we need to make it as easy as possible to switch away from patented stuff to free software alternatives. That needs users to switch to the "inferior" free software alternative so that it can be improved and the thread goes back to square one. :-) Ben, I do hope you are following this. There is a very good reason why you SHOULD use the "inferior" free software alternative. Forget your selfish reasons and embrace the wider view. There is more at stake than your self-interest. It is not fanatical to think anything free software is automatically better than anything proprietary. It makes real, commercial, sense. The evidence is all around you and the logic is irrefutable. Free software is ALWAYS better - it's better than nothing at all, it's miles better than proprietary. > The free software movement is quite healthy, but the bigger threat I > think is this desparate desire by content providers to control content > and formats via patents/DRM etc. Which again leads into MP3 issues - after all, the ability to rip CD audio data into a viable, compressed, format is the reason Sony wanted DRM. If Sony or TimeWarner could persuade the owner(s) of the MP3 patent to sell it to them, we would see a whole new threat. Ogg cannot now be patented. It is a safe house in a world of threats. > Possibly the right thing to do, is kick them when we can. Definitely - don't encourage patented programs or formats. The more people use an alternative, the less the power (and therefore value) of the patent. We have to undermine the commercial value of existing software patents as well as fight the creation of new ones and their movement into new areas. (Note: I only talk of software patents - I do realise that hardware (like a Palm) is patented hardware and requires a real, financial, cost to develop.) -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpax7jrsqE0F.pgp
Description: PGP signature