Google Earth for Linux
Unlike Picasa, Google Earth is a native Linux application, ported to the Qt widget set. Like Picasa, however, Google Earth is not free software. So it comes as a large shell script which we, trusting users that we are, are expected to feed directly to bash. A few clicks later, the application is installed, and the user can proceed to explore the planet on a Linux system.
At least, that is how it is supposed to work. Google Earth promptly
crashed on your editor's x86-64 Fedora Development system. Since this is a
proprietary application, there is no way for any of us to fix the problem,
or to even build it properly for this architecture. So, no Google Earth on
this platform. Happily, the i386 Ubuntu system runs it just fine. Or not
so fine; Google Earth is a little shaky there as well. The window is not
always rendered properly, it occasionally decides to randomly roam in a
![[Screenshot]](https://static.lwn.net/images/ns/google-earth3-sm.png)
certain direction until stopped, and it locked up entirely once - while
having grabbed the pointer and rendered the display useless, of course.
All that notwithstanding, Google Earth is a fun toy. Your editor started
at his childhood home, and quickly located the Cirque of the Towers in the
Wind River range - one of the most beautiful places on the planet; the
result was the image shown on the right. Typing in "Venice, Italy"
resulted in a rather ballistic-seeming flight across the ocean, yielding a
gorgeous view of Piazza San Marco. One can almost make out individual
![[Screenshot]](https://static.lwn.net/images/ns/google-earth4-sm.png)
pigeons. The resolution of the available imagery
varies, and there is not always much in the way of additional information,
but there are very few spots on the planet which cannot be viewed at some
scale. It can be difficult to turn it off and get some real work done.
There are those who have already started to complain about the non-free nature of this application. There is no doubt that a truly free version of Google Earth would be a great thing - imagine what the community could do, starting with a base like this. The simple fact is, however, that Google has not done us any harm by making a non-free Google Earth available. Those who do not want non-free software on their systems can simply refuse to install it. The rest of us can have some fun.
For those of us who want a free tool of this nature, one option would
appear to be the WW2D project,
which has posted some interesting screenshots. Unfortunately, your editor
was unable to get enough of the project web site's attention to
successfully download a copy. Also of interest is Earth3d. This application shows some
real potential, though your editor found the navigation to be painful and,
of course, the higher-resolution imagery is not freely available.
Nonetheless, the initial work exists for the creation of a free planet
viewer, if we truly want to create one.
(Log in to post comments)
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:07 UTC (Wed) by lothar (guest, #14052) [Link]
works fine on my AMD x86_64 Suse 10.1
Lothar
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 20:08 UTC (Wed) by eris23 (subscriber, #3632) [Link]
Works well with mine, too
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:18 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]
I've had the scrolling/creeping problem on the windows version, so that isn't unique to the Linux port.
globe spinning...
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:34 UTC (Wed) by sideshow (guest, #2791) [Link]
I noticed it too, but played with it for a bit and I think it might be intentional. You can start an automatic scroll by clicking and dragging and then releasing while still moving. Clicking again stops it. Think of it as you would spin a globe with your hand. The more I play with that feature, the more I kind of like it.
globe spinning...
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:46 UTC (Wed) by astrophoenix (guest, #13528) [Link]
just double clicking on a direction control will do it. click again tostop. it's got to be intentional.
globe spinning...
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:47 UTC (Wed) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]
I like this feature too (when I tested the Windows version).
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:29 UTC (Wed) by shahms (guest, #8877) [Link]
I'm assuming by "Fedora Development" you mean "rawhide" which, as you're no doubt aware, is well known to occasionally eat babies. I tested it on my x86-64 Fedora Core 5 system with (blech) binary NVidia drivers and it worked flawlessly. It did have the creeping display problem, but I'm not sure that it's not intended as a feature (although it is annoying)...
At least it doesn't require to be root to install it ;-)
Rawhide
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:36 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
Yes, I mean Rawhide, though the Fedora folks have been fairly insistent lately that Rawhide no longer exists, and that it's called "Development."
Rawhide
Posted Jun 14, 2006 19:03 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
It's tiring to answer the FAQ on what "rawhide" is and calling it the "development" version instead has helped in that aspect. We still refer to it as rawhide in many places including bugzilla though. Old habits die hard.
Rahul
Why Qt 3?
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:37 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
It's interesting that Google chose to use Qt 3 rather than more modern and more portable Qt 4. Since the Qt library is packed with the application, it would have made no difference to include Qt 4 instead.
Why Qt 3?
Posted Jun 14, 2006 18:57 UTC (Wed) by wlach (subscriber, #23397) [Link]
Likely the opportunity cost of porting the application was deemed too expensive for this development cycle. I'm sure it's in the pipeline..
Why Qt 3?
Posted Jun 15, 2006 0:16 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
I didn't realize the Windows version was using Qt. Then it makes sense, because the Windows version likely pre-dated Qt 4.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 19:02 UTC (Wed) by bangert (subscriber, #28342) [Link]
> ported to the Qt widget set
nope - it uses Qt on Windows too, AFAIK
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 19:40 UTC (Wed) by gjvo (guest, #951) [Link]
I eventually managed to download ww2d from the slow site, and it is well worth it. The user interface is less intuitive than Google Earth's, and it is 2D only, not 3D. On the positive side, you have much more choice in which datasets to use, and in some areas (like Indonesia) the quality is better than Google Earth - no clouds. The developer has announced support for kml files, at which time it will be truly useful. He may want to mirror at a faster site, though...
workaround for FC5 and development
Posted Jun 14, 2006 19:40 UTC (Wed) by scottt (guest, #5028) [Link]
see http://danwalsh.livejournal.com/6736.html for details.
# libcrypto doesn't actually need an executable stack
execstack -c /usr/local/google-earth/libcrypto.so.0.9.8
# google earth uses realplayer (if available ?) which does need execmem
chcon -t unconfined_execmem_exec_t /usr/local/RealPlayer/realplay.bin
I can run google earth on a FC5 x86_64 system with some 3D graphics rendering glitches but without crashing. I'm not quite sure if it's the INTEL graphics driver or the mesa OpenGL implementation.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 14, 2006 22:06 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
The simple fact is, however, that Google has not done us any harm by making a non-free Google Earth available.Well said. After all it is (or was) their motto: "do no evil". Except that they are missing a great opportunity.
When Google was raising to fame, and we heard that they used Linux for this and Linux for that, I thought: "Maybe this is what we were hoping for all along: a company which is friends with free software, and which will no doubt give back great software to the community". With gmail there was hope. But alas, it was not to be: first Google Talk, then Picasa and Google Earth have shown that Google are not willing to do anything beyond injecting a little money (as in sponsoring Firefox in exchange for visits, and spending some petty cash on the Summers of Code).
There is a big list of friendly companies that release their best stuff as free software (Sun, Red Hat, Novell, Silicon Graphics...). Google is not in that list, and they will not do any really positive things for free software beyond complying with existing licenses. You will notice that, given that they make no money from these programs, they should be in the perfect position to release them as free software. So, that sweet spot is still available. Let's hope that it is claimed in time for Web 3.0.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 0:09 UTC (Thu) by nedrichards (subscriber, #23295) [Link]
Whilst I pretty much totally agree they do release *some* stuff as open source (like libjingle which is google talk but without the windows chrome):
http://code.google.com/projects.html
for more.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 0:51 UTC (Thu) by louie (guest, #3285) [Link]
They *do* make money off google earth; there are ads when you search for locations. Not that this necessarily justifies it being proprietary, but it is hard to see free software working as adware- people would immediately start hacking the ads out.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 22:43 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
I don't know, for all I can tell they might texture the buildings with ads to make their money. Hard to hack that out if it is well done. And after all, I block most ads on Firefox but the images are served, advertisers don't seem to know about it and we are all happy.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 16, 2006 6:01 UTC (Fri) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
How do you block ads in such a way that images are served? All the webadvertisement blocking software I've ever used prevents the advertising
images from being downloaded entirely.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 16, 2006 7:02 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
If you right-click on an image, Firefox will offer to "block images from" the originating site. Useful for graphic ads, since they are normally served from specific servers; the image is downloaded (if you look carefully at the status bar you will still see a request to that server) but not displayed. Effective and integrated in the browser -- one of those nice little features Internet Explorer will never have.Add to this not having the flash plugin, and browsing becomes a pleasant experience once more. (Text ads are shown, but they are normally unobstrusive and once in a while even useful.)
As to click-throughs on those ads, I have always thought that 90% of them are done by mistake. So the probability of an ad being clicked on is just proportional to its size. It still holds with blocked ads.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Aug 17, 2006 12:54 UTC (Thu) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
I can assure you that Firefox's Adblock does not download theadvertisement images.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 1:23 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
You will notice that, given that they make no money from these programs, they should be in the perfect position to release them as free software.
There are small mistake in this reasoning: they do make money from these programs. Both indirectly (Ads) and directly (you pay $20 to make it possible to plug GPS in your Google Earth).
And when they truly don't make any money they are perfectly happy to publish code: http://code.google.com/projects.html. Unfortunatelly that does not happen very often :-(
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:19 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]
That is not really true. As has already been mentioned, they do provide various code as open source. It can be seen here: http://code.google.com/
They also have several open source developers (Mozilla, Gaim, OpenOffice, more?) on the payroll.
Furthermore, there is also the Google Summer of Code, although that isn't Google directly, they are the sponsors.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:32 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
Come on, guys. You know I mean the big shiny programs. Their libre projects are nice, but not very relevant.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 20:05 UTC (Thu) by mchristensen (guest, #4955) [Link]
They let every one of their developers work on FOSS 20% of the time, and they have hired FOSS project leaders like Guido Van Rossum with the specific intent of advancing those projects (Python in this case).
So, I would say that's Free Software friendly.
They obviously aren't a free-software company, but they do play nice and grow the free software ecosystem -- which makes sense, since they do make their money using free software!
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 22:41 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
They let every one of their developers work on FOSS 20% of the timeEvery developer can work on whatever they want 20% of the time, so they might write libre software or they might perfect their match-bridge-building skills if they want.
They may be free software friendly (after all, as you say, they make their money with it); but they might be a free software company if they wanted to. For instance Sun has done a lot more for free software over the years, even if there are some sore spots; they have freed their bread-and-butter software like OpenOffice. Not to speak about Red Hat, Novell or Canonical. Pity.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 17, 2006 19:52 UTC (Sat) by dirtyepic (guest, #30178) [Link]
> Every developer can work on whatever they want 20% of the time, so they might write libre software or they might perfect their match-bridge-building skills if they want.
Erm, you do realize that's 20% of their *paid* time we're talking about here?
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 17, 2006 22:15 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]
Yes, I do realize it:Google engineers all have 20 percent time in which they're free to pursue projects they're passionate about. This freedom has already produced Google News, Google Suggest, AdSense for Content, and Orkut products which might otherwise have taken an entire start-up to launch.I don't know how those projects are chosen or whether they must be approved; I guess building bridges made of matches would be frowned upon, but that is why I chose it. Anyway, the point is that the 20% is not for free software, just for projects you like. I don't doubt that a lot of engineers choose "open source" as their pet projects, but note that none of the products mentioned (News, Suggest, Orkut...) are free software right now.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 17, 2006 22:33 UTC (Sat) by dirtyepic (guest, #30178) [Link]
Oops, i read it as "Every developer [anywhere] can work on whatever they want 20% of the time", when you meant to say "Every [Google] developer can work on whatever they want 20% of the time".
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 1:36 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]
> The simple fact is, however, that Google has not done us any harm by making> a non-free Google Earth available.
If by "us" you mean the free software community, I dispute this "fact".
To gain access to this software, users must either agree to betray their neighbour by not helping them, or pretend to agree and then breach the software copyright. Both actions undermine the spirit of our community, and that's a real harm. If it's done to "have a little fun", that doesn't make it better.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 6:05 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (guest, #2285) [Link]
You're on crack.
If using this software is some sort of "betrayal" of our brothers in software, then it is the users of the software doing the harm, not Google.
Of course, in my world, suppliers of drugs, guns, booze, fast cars and software have no responsibility to or for their customers, beyond providing accurate information about their products.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 6:24 UTC (Thu) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]
I believe bignose is referring to some of the clauses in the extensiveuser agreement. I admit I did not like all of them, either, but was too
lazy to really consider them all.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 7:35 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]
Your analogy to a non-free software vendor as an addictive drug vendor is quite apt. Your stated opinion, that such vendors have no responsibility for the harm they introduce in the community they push their product into, leaves not much more to discuss.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 16:05 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]
Nothing is free. The sooner you understand that the less divisive you will be to the community. Somewhere, somehow somebody is paying. In the case of something like Google Earth the cost is almost certainly significantly more money then most of us will see in a lifetime.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 22, 2006 13:59 UTC (Thu) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
>Nothing is free. The sooner you understand that the less divisive you will be to the community.
I'm not sure what community you are referring to here, since you previously stated yourself:
"Your community perhaps. Certainly not mine."
You then claimed your right to use proprietary software as an individual is one of aspects of freedom too.
But now you say that being less divisive by having everyone use that (practical) proprietary software would tighten the community, which implies this would be a good thing.
You are not consistent, unless you claim that being non-divisive when it suits you in your divisiveness is yet another side of your own personal freedom, which roughly translates to,
"A community is a good thing, as long as it caters to my needs."
That is a valid opinion, but it would be nice if you could call a spork a spork.
>Somewhere, somehow somebody is paying.
Yes. In this case Google is.
>In the case of something like Google Earth the cost is almost certainly significantly more money then most of us will see in a lifetime.
or, alternatively:
In the case of something like a complete modern operating system the cost is almost certainly significantly more money then most of us will see in a lifetime.
Yes, probably.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 27, 2006 14:47 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]
I'm entirely consistent. Alas it is in your best interest to think otherwise.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 6:37 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Actually, the people who feel that way will simply refrain from using Google Earth.One could argue that the mere existence of Google Earth make it likely that some fall for the temptation to call it "good enough" and refrain from contributing towards a free program.
But I find that highly unlikely, it's obvious to everyone I suspect how much more useful a free program would be, if anything I think Google Earth shows some people exactly how useful and thus make it *more* likely they'll contribute to a free version.
The dataset is many orders of magnitude more valuable, and many orders of magnitude more work to gather and maintain than the viewer by the way. The real coup would be to get one or more of the many government-owned mapping-organisations to release their data under a free license. Arguably that data has already been bougth and paid for by the tax-payers.
In the sharpest area, the resolution is such that 1 pixel represents 10x10 cm (around 4x4 inches), that is sufficient that you can make out individual people. A single square km at this resolution is 100 megapixel and probably take up around 5-10 MB.
There are 150 million square kilometres, so in total this would be a dataset of around 750 - 1500 TB.
The dataset behind Google Earth is however nowhere near complete, this resolution is only available for most densely populated areas, and not even everywhere there. A guess is Google migth have 100 TB of data for Google Earth.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 16, 2006 11:42 UTC (Fri) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link]
"The dataset is many orders of magnitude more valuable, and many orders of magnitude more work to gather and maintain than the viewer by the way. The real coup would be to get one or more of the many government-owned mapping-organisations to release their data under a free license. Arguably that data has already been bougth and paid for by the tax-payers."
Wholly agree.
This is a real buggaboo imho. There are dozens if not hundreds of
(wholly)taxpayer funded GIS projects either started or matured every
year, who owns the data? And yes, you can be certain that someone
owns it.
Right now, I'm aware of a not-for-profit that might be shutting down.
they have gigabytes of GIS databases, that various state and federal
agencies as well other not-for-profit agencies have paid for. Who gets
the data?
I'm not articulate enough to express this concern. Whenever I try to
speak to folks about it, they start looking at me like I'm from mars
or something.
"whaddya mean 'who owns it?'"
What ever happened to public domain?
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 21, 2006 23:39 UTC (Wed) by omez (guest, #6904) [Link]
"I'm aware of a not-for-profit that might be shutting down.they have gigabytes of GIS databases, that various state and federal
agencies as well other not-for-profit agencies have paid for. Who gets
the data?"
Answer: Nobody. Just because it's in some another organizations's database, doesn't mean it's up for grabs when they bite the dust. Those state and federal agencies tend to retain copyright to thier GIS products.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 12:13 UTC (Thu) by etwilson (guest, #8459) [Link]
Google's not "betraying" anyone. They wrote the code, they get to pick the license to release it under. If you don't like it, don't use it. It's really that simple.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 15, 2006 23:41 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
The point is, if your friend asks you to help him remove ads from Google Earth, what would you do?
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 16, 2006 1:52 UTC (Fri) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]
> if your friend asks you to help him remove ads from Google Earth, what> would you do?
If someone enters an agreement not to help me with respect to a piece of software, and then asks me for help with that same software? The answer would pretty clearly be "no, ask the other party to your exclusive agreement".
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/blosxom/freedom/help-for-nonfree.html
Actions have consequences. If you want help from people around you, don't accept terms that require you not to help people around you.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 17, 2006 2:30 UTC (Sat) by einstein (guest, #2052) [Link]
> To gain access to this software, users must either agree to betray their neighbour by not helping them, or pretend to agree and then breach the software copyright.
Pray explain how my using google earth on linux is an "agreement to betray" anyone. If "my neighbor" likes the program I can give him a URL to download it just like I did.
Please tone down the hysterics. This sort of rhetoric can be used to convince the world that linux users are a a bunch of kooks.
Non-free software is divisive and harmful.
Posted Jun 22, 2006 6:40 UTC (Thu) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link]
> Pray explain how my using google earth on linux is an "agreement to betray"> anyone.
The Google Earth (non-Pro) license agreement is viewable here, for those who haven't downloaded the software: http://earth.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=34344
It says in the first paragraph: "BY INSTALLING THE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTED WITH
THIS AGREEMENT (THE "SOFTWARE"), YOU ARE CONFIRMING YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND AGREEING TO BECOME BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT")."
So, by installing the software, you either agree to the license terms, or you knowingly intend to breach them.
The license terms include: "2. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS
You shall not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate,
modify or make derivative works of the Software, geographical
information, animations, movies, prints or screen outputs in whole or in
part."
This means by agreeing to the terms, you agree to betray your neighbour, by refusing to help in any of the ways restricted by the license terms.
> If "my neighbor" likes the program I can give him a URL to download it
> just like I did.
My assumption is that the neighbour is a person you would like to help.
If your neighbour asks for a copy of the program (or installation package) *from your computer*, the license terms prevent you from helping her. If your neighbour cannot get a copy of the program that you're running (Google is not promising to make that particular version available forever), but you still have a copy, you have it within your power to help that neighbour.
You then must either honour the agreement and (remembering this is a person you would like to help) betray her, or help her and breach the agreement with the software vendor.
Either of these actions are harmful, and either one is a direct result of the software vendor offering those divisive terms in the first place. That is a harm done by non-free software.
> Please tone down the hysterics.
Please don't presume to know my emotional state when I'm not talking about emotions.
> This sort of rhetoric can be used to convince the world that linux users
> are a a bunch of kooks.
I'm not attempting to soften the message. Actions and choices have consequences. Offering divisive non-free license terms is a harm to the community.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 15, 2006 7:20 UTC (Thu) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link]
While the application is not free, I don't really care. The fact that more and more applications are now written with Linux compatibility in mind is a sign that Linux desktop is finally reaching a state of recognition.
I run several non free applications on my box. Skype, IDEA (an IDE), Sun's JVM, acrobat reader (as an alternative to evince when xpdf now evince doesn't work. though this happens less and less). I also have several non free video codecs. Now I've added this Google application. And I am happy with it and will use it until I can get a free replacement.
Of course I favor Free when there's choice. I make my best to chose hardware that runs on Free Software, but for applications, I am not so strongly minded.
Congrats to Google for making this choice.
PS: with regard to x86-64 I've read stories of people adding some libs to make it work.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 22, 2006 13:08 UTC (Thu) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
It's very telling that posts defending proprietary software as being practical of reasonable have *I* as the subject every other sentence on average.
When microsoft ships non-free software and you have to pay for it, it's "evil".
When google ships non-free software and it comes at no monetary cost, but holds the same restrictions, it's "practical".
This makes me wonder if perhaps the detractors are right, and it's all just a big "let's bash microsoft" or "Free Speech is nice, when I'm drunk on free beer anyway" party for most.
At least microsoft has the decency not to subvert a free software platform directly, and keep their "gifts" contained within their own operating system.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 23, 2006 8:51 UTC (Fri) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link]
It's very telling that posts judging proprietary software on free software platforms as being subvertive forget to use *I* as the subject to identify their own opinion.
When google ships non free software on multi-platforms it's subverting.
When microsoft makes all their possible to kill a potential free software alternative enforcing their abusive monopoly, it's decent.
This makes me wonder if perhaps the detractors are right, and it's all just a big "let's eradicate non free software" or "Free Beer is evil, Free Speech is the only way. You shut up." speech for most.
At least google has the decency not to lock you into a non free software platform directly, and make their "gifts" available to most.
PS: don't make me say what I didn't say.
Google Earth for Linux
Posted Jun 23, 2006 11:45 UTC (Fri) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
>It's very telling that posts judging proprietary software on free software platforms as being subvertive forget to use *I* as the subject to identify their own opinion.
I'm sorry you got offended. The point was it that the "works for me" reasoning is harmful to Free Software en large.
People running different architectures or alternative free operating systems are being left out, and that is unfair.
Just to give an example, OpenBSD is currently pushing hard to make sure your wireless laptop drivers will be free in the future. It's a considerable effort, and the Free Software community will be richer for it.
Now we, the GNU/Linux/x86 users who "made it into mainstream", are leaving them behind. They do their part to make sure our Software Freedoms are respected, and it's only fair we should refuse to promise not to help them.
Now I am a run of the mill GNU/Linux on x86 user, so I can afford not to care for now.
The question is, "do I want that ?"
>When google ships non free software on multi-platforms it's subverting.
Yes, it's divisive.
>When microsoft makes all their possible to kill a potential free software alternative enforcing their abusive monopoly, it's decent.
No, it's divisive as well.
>This makes me wonder if perhaps the detractors are right,
Detractors doesn't make sense here
>and it's all just a big "let's eradicate non free software"
It should be.
>or "Free Beer is evil, Free Speech is the only way.
Zero-cost proprietary software is just as harmful as payed for proprietary software, so yes, "Free Beer is evil."
>You shut up." speech for most.
I'm sorry, I never told anyone to be quiet.
>At least google has the decency not to lock you into a non free software platform directly, and make their "gifts" available to most.
They already managed to lock you into a platform, either GNU/Linux on x86 or windows on x86.
That's not choice, it's Kang or Kodos.
>PS: don't make me say what I didn't say.
I didn't. I'm pointing out the non-obvious consequences of the "works for me" reasoning, which is that all architectures and operating systems not "blessed" by google will be left to rot until they reach viability.
It is harmful to the Free Software community on the long run and such behaviour shouldn't be cloaked up and defended as practicality.
It's not "harmless fun" because it introduces a mindset that is destructive.
If you realised and considered this already and do not feel the issue is that important, that's okay.
However there are a lot of people skipping over the inconvenient question of Software Freedoms here, since it's all "harmless fun", without giving their actions proper thought.
Using proprietary software has consequences, and people should think about those implications to decide whether they want to contribute to that.
x86_64 crashes, and 3D graphics
Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:05 UTC (Thu) by mbligh (subscriber, #7720) [Link]
For the crashing on x86_64, doing LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.20 might help. Or it might not ;-)
More of a problem was getting hardware OpenGL support. Is there ANY card that can do this without bending over to receive a binary device driver inside the kernel? Earth is way too slow without it.
x86_64 crashes, and 3D graphics
Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:28 UTC (Thu) by kamil (subscriber, #3802) [Link]
I tried googleearth on two laptops: one with ATI Radeon Mobility 7500, another one with Intel 855 GM (the first Centrino chipset). In either case with standard, open-source drivers. Googleearth works quite well on both. Although I get serious rendering artifacts right after starting it, simply resizing the window by a pixel or two fixes them for good.
x86_64 crashes, and 3D graphics
Posted Jun 15, 2006 15:44 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]
I'm running it on a five year old ATI Rage 128 using whatever free driver is installed, while not exactly fast, it works. It flickers and crashes inside the DRI driver on occasion, but other than that...
As has been said earlier, the viewer is not the hard part. The hard part is the dataset, which Google has and we don't. Oh well...
WorldWind
Posted Jun 16, 2006 4:00 UTC (Fri) by k-squire (guest, #5595) [Link]
WW2D is a port of NASA WorldWind, an open source (but currently Windows-only) program similar to Google Earth--3D view and all, and with access to a lot of data sets not (yet) available from Google Earth--hurricane damage estimates, spread of avian flu, semi-real-time planet-wide cloud cover, the Lewis and Clark trail, eclipse path tracking, etc., etc., etc.According to this link, the next version of the original program should have a Linux port.
See this link for a comparison between Google Earth and WorldWind. The biggest difference, of course, is that Google has much more high-resolution imagery (as has been mentioned many times above). The interface for Google Earth is also a little bit more intuitive, I've found. I am looking forward to the Linux port of WorldWind, though.
Kevin