Re: Coping with MS-specific hardware
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tqk Jan 06, 2007 10:05 AM EDT |
I'd be a bit more concerned about whether my OS would actually boot, not whether powered off postit notes works. Add a new DVD drive or video card; "WGA says this computer is substantially not the computer this copy of Windows is licenced for. Please contact the BSA to learn about your options." Goofy little features and funny keys on keyboards are nothing compared to trainwrecks like WGA and DRM. |
| Libervis Jan 06, 2007 10:55 AM EDT |
You're absolutely right about that. Those are definitely more important issues than this and it is definitely a paramount to teach users to appreciate their freedom to control their own computing more than the luxury of these cool additional features. However, you will still have people just seeing the fact that Windows can do this or that with this or that specific piece of hardware and ask "why can't GNU/Linux, as such an advanced OS, do that as well" so the issue remains at least somewhat relevant. I mean, if people consider 3D desktop to be so relevant to include proprietary drivers in our free OS then I guess this doesn't seem so far out either.. |
| tqk Jan 07, 2007 8:46 AM EDT |
>However, you will still have people just seeing the fact that Windows can do this or that with this or that specific piece of hardware and ask "why can't GNU/Linux, as such an advanced OS, do that as well" so the issue remains at least somewhat relevant. void An old "B. C." comic (-: Clumsy Carp: "I can stick my left foot in my right ear." BC: "Yeah, but who'd want to?" :-) >I mean, if people consider 3D desktop to be so relevant to include proprietary drivers in our free OS then I guess this doesn't seem so far out either.. Sorry to go so deep. :-) There's principle, and pragmatism. Do the Right Thing, or do What Works? RMS, I know, avoids pragmatism at all cost. I'm sure he's probably not much into Unreal Tournament. I try not to tell others what to do, stand back and hold my nose at their choices and await requests for my opinion. I have no right to expect others to agree with my agenda. Damn. :-| I think ESR may be onto something with his 64-bit evolutionary phase thing, but I also am coming to like GPL v. 3, and those two are in opposition. |
| dcparris Jan 07, 2007 11:14 AM EDT |
It's not that RMS avoids pragmatism. Freedom is very pragmatic. In fact, I would say he finds it more pragmatic to not give up his freedom. After all, he remains in control of his system. I find it odd that people are willing to pay money to give up their freedom in the name of "pragmatism". It frequently isn't worth the cost. For my part, I don't find it very pragmatic to give up control of my system, either. When I used that kind of software, I couldn't fix my problems. What's pragmatic about that? At least now, if I can't fix my problems, I can pay someone to do so. |
| dinotrac Jan 07, 2007 11:44 AM EDT |
> I find it odd that people are willing to pay money to give up their freedom in the name of "pragmatism". Now, now, Rev. You're being cranky here, because I know you better. Freedom doesn't exist in a vacuum, and total freedom is more than the sum of the parts. To wit - Having the freedom to complain about the government doesn't do me much good if I can only do it locked in a windowless, doorless cell. Having "total" freedom over my computer isn't very satisfying when total freedom doesn't include the ability to do things I want or need. You know that. The argument is old, old, old. It was old years before lxer got started. |
| dcparris Jan 07, 2007 2:54 PM EDT |
I'm just tired of people saying that Stallman isn't pragmatic, or treating the philisophical side of FOSS as if it is merely some theoretical philosophy. Stallman wasn't in an ivory tower when he set out to write Free Software, and I don't believe he is in an ivory tower now. Certainly, no one can accuse me of sitting in an ivory tower, even though I share RMS' views to a large extent. Maybe I am not pragmatic enough. But then, I view the sacrifice of "niceties" as a very pragmatic thing. Too many of us, however, are too willing to sell ourselves short in ways that would make freedom all the more "pragmatic". Freedom is only viewed as "philosophical" (or "not pragmatic") because we don't have the right tools and/or not enough people use them. I bet it wouldn't be viewed as philosophical if Flash and Real were FOSS formats, or if more folks used the available FOSS codecs and drivers. If World of Warcraft were FOSS, no one would be accusing Free Software advocates of being philosophical. |
| tuxchick Jan 07, 2007 3:15 PM EDT |
what don said. Most times they are confusing "pragmatic" with "expedient". |
| Libervis Jan 07, 2007 3:36 PM EDT |
Needless to say, I agree with dcparris. This is why I avoid making a distinction between Free Software "idealists" and Open Source "pragmatics". There is in fact both kinds among people of both views. If your goal is a better computing experience (which implies the need for continued innovation in the computing world) then seeking freedom is a very pragmatic method of trying to reach that goal. Because of freedom everyone is in control over their computers and everyone can contribute to making the computing experience better. And freedom is therefore a goal in itself. Various people have various ideas on the best method to use to reach that goal, and some people believe that a compromise to that freedom can be included in such methods as well. I'm not too sure about that. Even if it can, it'd be a rare exception rather than a rule. |
| dinotrac Jan 07, 2007 4:06 PM EDT |
>what don said. Most times they are confusing "pragmatic" with "expedient". Good point. The two are not the same. Pragmatic equates to practical and in no way implies an abandonment of principle. Expedience raises convenience to the level of a principle, where it does not belong. A pragmatic person (such as RMS) keeps his or her eyes on the prize, but does what needs to be done. The person who settles for expedience may not even know that there is a prize to be had. |
| tqk Jan 07, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
>Various people have various ideas on the best method to use to reach that goal, and some people believe that a compromise to that freedom can be included in such methods as well. My concern is, if ESR and his 64-bit "Let's allow the blobs" prediction is correct, what happens if we take your (so called) pragmatic approach and ban blobs? Tactically, ESR's correct. Today's consumer expects the blobs there and working. If Linux wants any chance at mainstream consumers, we ignore that at our peril. Morally/ethically, are we willing to sacrifice our principles in order to win ("World domination, fast!")? Conversely, are we prepared to lose by sticking by our principles? Those are the real big questions I'm fighting with. I'd love to see that crap from Redmond go up in smoke. Then we could get on with the 21st Century unhobbled by a malware infected net. Do I have to accept compromises to make that happen? Me, I avoid nvidia, don't care about HDTV, I don't do gaming, and I only barely know what an mpeg is. They all sure raise interesting questions though. |
| tqk Jan 07, 2007 4:30 PM EDT |
"what don said. Most times they are confusing "pragmatic" with "expedient". pragmatic =~ practical practical == "Capable of being turned to use or account; useful, in distinction from {ideal} or {theoretical}" expediency =~ [paraphrase] "Whatever's quickest/easiest/least effort." I'm not a fan of pragmatism, nor do I enjoy settling for expediency. There's often not a lot separating the two. I do believe in being practical, but somewhere close to there is the ugly fine line between right and wrong. |
| dinotrac Jan 07, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
>I'm not a fan of pragmatism What a strange comment. How do you ever manage to get through the day? And what does practicality have to do with the line between right and wrong? The issue of right and wrong is a also a pragmatic consideration. For example, getting my computer up and running with stolen software might be an expedient solution, but it is not a pragmatic one. |
| jimf Jan 07, 2007 4:49 PM EDT |
> If Linux wants any chance at mainstream consumers Red Hat has 'customers', Novell has 'customers'... Linux has only users thank you. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 07, 2007 6:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:Too many of us, however, are too willing to sell ourselves short in ways that would make freedom all the more "pragmatic". Hear Hear!! I think that RMS has a very clear idea of what Freedom is and he tests everything against it. Is it not pragmatic to conceive of an idea and then test it? Even if you have to do it over and over again? Like the guy or not, we are reaping the rewards of his idea. |
| azerthoth Jan 07, 2007 7:01 PM EDT |
Where does that leave me? I use and nvidia card with the nv drivers, yet still use libdvdcss on the theory that I bought the drive for specific use with this computer and it comes with all the software to watch movies were I using windows so I have a legally purchased license. I use w32codecs as well, because I have several legal copies of various windoze OS's kicking around not installed on any other computer. Maybe not a strong argument, but I dont think that it has been tested yet. Here is practical, I want it to work the way I want it to work. That isnt in my mind sacrificing principals, but rather excersizing my freedom to do with my computer what I want to in a manner that pleases me. I can in good concience boot my computer up and make "Fair Use" copies of my dvd's, or watch media files in any format I run across. There is my freedom, define yours however you will, that is your freedom, and no one elses. We need people like RMS for his convictions, Linus for his expertise, and users who excersize their freedoms however they choose. Otherwise those two notable gentleman are tilting at windmills. |
| tracyanne Jan 08, 2007 1:04 AM EDT |
What everyone seems to forget, when discussing making proprietary CODECs and drivers available to Linux, by providing licensed versions of them, is that you are still free not to use them. That was the point that ESR made in his article, that the proprietary CODECs and drivers be made available in an easy to install format, either as a download or CD, from the distributor, or as CDs supplied with preinstalled systems. The whole point of doing this is to make it easy for windows users to move to Linux, not to force existing Linux users to use proprietary CODECs and Drivers. The point is to gain sufficient market share to be able to demand what we really want Free CODECs and Free drivers. Then everyone benefits. |
| bigg Jan 08, 2007 11:26 AM EDT |
Here's an alternative idea. How about if we convince everyone to use Windows and MS Office. Then when Microsoft has a sufficiently large market share, we will have the collective power to pressure Microsoft into opening all their software. Weee! Free Windows and MS Office. > an easy to install format If you can't use Automatix, there is nothing that can be done to help you. If you can use a bathroom unsupervised, you can use Automatix. I'm sorry, this is just silly. We already have codecs for Linux. Heck, we already have distributions with the codecs built in. Wobbly windows and codecs are going to bring people to Linux. I also have a bridge to sell you at a really good price. Here's how a conversation between Mark Shuttleworth and a hardware executive would go: Shuttleworth: Hello, I'm Mark Shuttleworth. I represent Ubuntu. We have 200 million users. I'm calling to demand that you open all your drivers. Executive: And if we don't, what are you going to do? Shuttleworth: We'll stop using your drivers. Executive: Even the first couple million Linux users, the most passionate ones, were unwilling to stop using our drivers. You really think your users are going to sacrifice in the name of religion now? They are more pragmatic than that. Rolling laughter as he hangs up the phone on Mark Shuttleworth. I am proud to admit that I use proprietary codecs (I have no use for proprietary drivers). I am also proud to admit that this hurts the possibility that we will ever see free codecs in wide use. Installing proprietary codecs by default is too simple a solution to a complicated problem. We already have the codecs and drivers in question, so obviously this is not the reason people still use Windows. |
| tracyanne Jan 08, 2007 12:56 PM EDT |
quote::Here's an alternative idea. How about if we convince everyone to use Windows and MS Office. Then when Microsoft has a sufficiently large market share, we will have the collective power to pressure Microsoft into opening all their software. Weee! Free Windows and MS Office. ::quote You really don't get it do you. Microsoft could, if they chose, simply stop supporting any CODEC they chose, and introduce any CODEC of their choice, they already do that, because they have the power to do so. The Linux community, the Linux Distributors no matter how many Free CODECs and Free drivers they introduce have changed nothing. The thing that makes the difference is Market share. That market share does not in Microsoft's case translate into customers demanding anything of Microsoft, it translates into Microsoft being able to demand any they like of the nrest of the industry. When Linux as a whole has sufficient market share, the groups and organisations that create Linux Distributions will then, as a collective, have the power to demand what they want of the rest of the industry. We don't have to demand anything of the Linux Distributors because by and large they are us, with few notable exceptions commercial Linux companies are made up of members of the Free and Open Source Community. Some of those new Linux users will become supporters of the community, others will remain just Joe and Jo public who use a computer, but when there are enough people using Linux, then the rest of the industry will have to listen. They will have to Listen, because the CODECs, and the drivers are not all there is to the equation, there is the Free hardware project, there are the reverse engineering of non free CODECs and Drivers, and there is the Fact that the patents will soon runout on many of CODECs. But these are only usefull as weapons when we have sufficient numbers of Linux users to make the purveyors of Non Free software give a damn. BTW, ESR, in his article, commented on the danger of individual Linux distributors trying to do this, it has to be done as a Cartel, otherwise the old rule of divide and conquer applies. |
| dinotrac Jan 08, 2007 1:02 PM EDT |
>The Linux community, the Linux Distributors no matter how many Free CODECs and Free drivers they introduce have changed nothing. traceyanne, I fear you are being unduly harsh. We have indeed changed things: Now, when we talk about codecs, we can say, "What a better world this would be if more than 3 people used Ogg". On a more serious note -- though the name of the codec escapes me at the moment -- BBC released a free codec for access to reams of its stuff. Wonder if that would've ever occurred to them in the absence of the free software movement. |
| dcparris Jan 08, 2007 1:04 PM EDT |
> You really don't get it do you. Looks to me like he very much "gets it". For all their market share power, Microsoft users have never really had much sway with Microsoft - or simply do not exercise it. I think that was his point. What good is the market share if everyone feels that the status quo is fine? Honestly, why would anyone want to change to libre codecs/drivers/formats if the ones they now have already work. It only matters if you actually care about freedom to begin with. |
| bigg Jan 08, 2007 1:12 PM EDT |
> it has to be done as a Cartel, otherwise the old rule of divide and conquer applies Exactly. You are finally seeing the problem. Considering that we can't even maintain a cartel of current Linux users, why would we be able to maintain a cartel of people who only use Linux because it is cheaper than Windows. We could also as a cartel force Microsoft to open Windows and MS Office. The problem is how to enforce such a cartel. What happens when people defect? How do you punish them? I am limited by the fact that I live on planet Earth, where people normally act in their own interest, and where people like RMS who are actually willing to sacrifice for a cause are labeled as communists, not pragmatic, and naive. It's good to dream, but a cartel is rather far-fetched. *If* we could just figure out how to travel through time, we could prevent Microsoft from getting a monopoly on operating systems in the first place. I know it's tough, but it's easier than maintaining a cartel that would enable us to restrict users in such a way as to eliminate the use of proprietary software in all its forms. So long as we don't need a fully viable plan for implementation, we might as well keep all options on the table. |
| jdixon Jan 08, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
> -- though the name of the codec escapes me at the moment Dirac. |
| bigg Jan 08, 2007 2:39 PM EDT |
> Microsoft users have never really had much sway with Microsoft - or simply do not exercise it. I think that was his point. That is precisely my point. If Microsoft decides on anything, that is a decision by Mr. Ballmer, and everyone else, customers included, follow along like obedient children. In the case of all Linux users, on the other hand, one user making a decision is meaningless. If there were some way to force all Linux users to do something, I would vomit a couple times and then start downloading BSD or Solaris. There is no such thing as "collective action" when talking about users. There is no way to force individual users to sacrifice in the name of a cause. And if you really want to stir up a hornet's nest, the best way to do that is to try to place restrictions on Linux users. If in five years Ubuntu decided to get rid of all things proprietary, a fork of Ubuntu including the proprietary crap would be available for download in three days. |
| tracyanne Jan 08, 2007 6:54 PM EDT |
quote:: For all their market share power, Microsoft users have never really had much sway with Microsoft ::quote When has Microsoft ever cared what their users want? Microsoft users are irrelevent to Microsoft, except as a number, which they can use to force their will upon the rest of the industry. You miss the point. It's about what Linux distributors want, it's about what organisations that are part of the FOSS community want, it's about what organisations that are already influenced by us, the members of the community want, and they can't/won't get it until there are enough Linux users to support any demands they, as a power block, make on our behalf. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!