[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 12:15 am, Matt Lee wrote: > I have nothing much to quote on the subject, so here's a fresh email. > > For me, the move to a completely free computing environment will take > a long while, I understand the work-related issues - I'm self-employed and have no say in what software my client uses. Home use can be separate. > but for now I am happy to have my personal laptop > running Ubuntu, practically right now That and the lack of non-free on that machine is good news. I was getting seriously worried about your free software usage! > , I rely on my Mac OS X running > iMac to get certain things done, one of those is listening to MP3 > files - something at CNUK, we deal with a lot.. Why? Because that's > what artists deal with... the majority of our userbase is a Mac OS X > running, MP3 using, QuickTime loving group of folks, Again, work related - understandable. However: > who don't really > know much of free software, Sounds like a unique opportunity to me. I'll talk about freedom to anyone who asks. If it's relevant to that individual, I'll tell them all they want to know. Don't be shy about your allegiance. People value honesty and if they discover some time later that you have different priorities, they can be unimpressed. If they know up-front and have the opportunity to get (logical, sensible, robust) answers to all their questions, you earn their respect. Respect goes a long, long way in customer and community relations. > maybe they've heard of Firefox, and quite > a few even use it, but to them, reaching a large audience is something > they DO get from MP3 music, and so we have a requirement to be able to > listen to it. Fine - no reason for you to have your own music for your own listening in a work-related format, especially when ogg players are available for your work machine, should you have time to play them at work. > watch Flash (not so important, I'll concur), listen to MP3/drive my > iPod (maybe it's selfish to have an iPod, but when you have a lot of > MP3 and MPEG-4 music, it's great), See, that's my problem here. Work is fine and if you really want to listen to work related music that is already in mp3, that's bearable. (Especially if you don't have access to the original media.) But your own files, to me, should reflect your true beliefs. It's about carrying through with your personality. > I've yet to find an editor, besides Emacs that I really like. I'm all > for suggestions, it should be a GNOME application, with Emacs > keybindings and have syntax highlighting. (I hate emacs so wouldn't use an editor that had those keybindings so can't help. Sorry.) > I think the main problem with free software these days is actually one > of marketing and brand awareness. Newflash. We have no marketing, we have no brand. A philosophy and ideology of freedom don't sit well with a single brand identity. That's why we have a dozen major distributions and literally hundreds of smaller ones. We are each free to make our own personal distribution and there is neither a need nor a desire to reduce that choice. Take window managers / desktop environments. The main two are fundamentally different in design, architecture, even language. That's GOOD. Lots of people have tried to push for a single GNU/Linux desktop but that effort is misplaced. We need at least two excellent window managers / desktop environments because that is in the nature of freedom - choice. > Firefox is free software, but > actually the majority of users of it are using the non-free binaries > from Mozilla's website, and yet in only a year, it's all over the > press... Depends which parts of the press you read. This goes back to the original thread: Basically, you would like bums at keyboards - mainstream publicity, TV adverts, press reviews, celebrity GNU/Linux advocates etc. In short, a fad. All this achieves is yet more unknown binaries in usage - and at a very high monetary and ideological cost - playing to the media costs LOTS of cash. I want to talk about freedom, I want permanence, durability, choice, alternatives, flexibility. I want people to use the freedoms that they have been granted. I want users to have the understanding and knowledge to contribute. I want ALL users to understand WHY GNU/Linux exists, what it does, what it means to them and what they need to do to ensure if continues. Freedom involves responsibility and accountability. No one is free if the expression of that freedom reduces the freedom of others. To be free, we have a responsibility to ensure our freedoms are maintained for those who follow and for those around us now. Linux(TM) is unimportant. GNU is what matters and it matters most in the minds of individuals, not the soundbites of the masses. > yet, GNU? Nowhere, really. "Linux" gets a mention, as does > "open source", but there's no mention of what's really going on, who > these people are, etc. Because these topics are not deemed suitable for mainstream news - these are interpersonal issues, ideological issues. These things don't convert easily into soundbites and press releases. It's hard and all the more reason for us to support those organisations that make such an effort - like FFII, FSF etc. > Part of the reason my involvement with the FSF has wained was that > internally, it was very very difficult to get things done, or to make > progress. I'm glad, in a way. Look at Gnome - the effort required to achieve a consensus makes the results more durable. > They *should* have a nicely modern, easy to use, attractive > website.. do it with CSS so not to upset the die hard Lynx lot, but it > can be done. That is not what matters. You're following the publicity-mad crowd and not engaging your brain. Gloss doesn't matter, the outward appearance is not the principle motivation. You've put form above function - as Mac users often do. The reasons behind GNU are more important than the appearance of GNU. Those who cannot see past the exterior are not going to want to engage their brain either, let's talk to those who are ready to listen. Put away the cosmetic view of the 'modern' media and look again at what lies beneath. This is the key to our whole discussion - each time we've disagreed it has been because cosmetic appearance or self-interest have overridden the needs of the community. > Sadly, any kind of forward thinking Sorry, slapping a 'modern' look over the fsf website is, to me, not forward thinking at all. It's pandering to the perceptions of the masses, instead of engaging with the individual. We need to work with people, one to one. It may be slower but it is also more sustainable, more personal and more supportive. Spontaneously converting the world to Debian in some massive publicity blitz would simply leave a mass of disillusioned people. The community needs to grow gradually or the support and development will disappoint the new users. In a sense, Mandrake learnt that lesson the hard way by trying to grow too quickly. We don't have the resources to support a massive influx - we need to absorb new users gradually so that they have time, like us, to develop and take on their own roles within the community. As the new users become new contributors, so we can support more new users but the two MUST be kept in balance. Right now, users outstrip developers and this is simply unsustainable. It's taken me six years to get from newbie Mandrake user to prospective Debian developer. Some will take longer, some less. Some will simply be happy to be a competent user - the critical message is that competent users ALSO contribute, simply by being on mailing lists like this to answer queries that would otherwise take up the time of people who could be developing new code! I've noticed a huge improvement in this list and the gnucash lists since a new influx of members / users took on answering some questions. It's a healthy dynamic where experienced hands go off and do other things whilst others take on the mantle of advising and helping the next batch of new members. When I joined the list, Alex, Aaron, Simon, John Horne, Pete Hatton and Robert Callaghan answered most of the queries. Now, Grant, Tom, Henry, Andrew, Mike, Rob and others answer. Alex, Aaron, Simon and other experienced heads are still around and chip in when appropriate but the burden has shifted and that is good. It's also an indication of how the community grows. > , or accessibility I find it hard to see how you reconcile that with your view about Lynx users. Lynx is an important accessibility tool because it gives people like us the ability to get just a taste of how text-to-speech browsers and other specialised kit really works. We are not die-hards, lynx users represent a valuable accessibility test set. Accessibility is not just replacing tables with CSS - I know you realise this but sometimes your statements don't bear it out. > was > over ruled by people without much of a clue, who just wanted to keep > things in HTML 3.2 and use tables for layout. Maybe they weren't objecting to the replacement of tables but the motivation behind the changes. > I mean, phrases like "Welcome to the GNU Project web server" just make > me wince, OTOH, they are actually quite accessible. > they're so out of touch with the modern day, it's sad. Oh Matt. Is there any hope? Modern day is a pointless goal. The definition changes with each change in the direction of the wind. If people get the impression that free software is always pandering to some notion of 'modern day', they will miss the durability and permanence of the message. > But how to progress? That's the hard thing. I'd love to see > Pledgebank, etc for developers of free software. I might even create > it. Please do. Just a note of caution. Bear in mind how the community really works - that 'commissions' are add-ons, additional, without deadlines and must adhere both to the nature of free software AND the pre-existing goals of the projects concerned. Don't give the impression that the money is a commissioning act or that developers are in any way obliged to perform tasks for monetary reward. It's a facilitation, not an order or contract. Developers must be free to turn down any offer for whatever reason. Developers must also be free to cease work on a particular section, according to their own needs as volunteers. Be clear about the licence for the new code - that it will be contributed back to the community under the GNU GPL or compatible licence. The code is not being written for the client, the contributor is making it possible for the code to be written for the benefit of the entire community. I liked the pledgebank method because it separates the financial contribution from the specific task. People pledge to support organisations in a general direction. A developer's version would ask people to pledge to support projects that produce free software. Something like: "... create a standing order of 5 pounds per month to support a free software development project of their choice but only if 1,000 other people will too." No mention of directing any particular project to create code in a certain area or of a certain type - as long as it results in the development of free software. Then expand on the mechanisms in the rest of the pledge comments. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpLFo19AvVb8.pgp
Description: PGP signature