- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linspire: The Revolutionary Linux
Linspire is on store shelvesI can't emphasize this enough. Linspire is on store shelves at MicroCenter. MicroCenter is a small chain, about 20 stores, but it's an actual brick-n-mortar retail outlet. People can walk in and see Linux computers. OK, I know some problems have been reported; nevertheless it is a major coup.You can mail-order a Linspire computer from Wal-Mart, which is not the same as being able to walk into the store and buy one, but nevertheless there they are at a major mainstream retailer. They used to be stocked in the stores. I don't know why they stopped. But there they are, side-by-side online with toothpaste and DVDs and socks and all those regular-people-who-are-not-Linux-geek things. I cannot emphasize enough how huge this is. Linspire is the first Linux vendor to break into the retail consumer space with actual computers running Linux. This is a direct shot at Microsoft's dominance of the retail chain- we all know that the foundation of the company is all those PCs with Windows pre-installed. We've been saying for years that challenging Microsoft means getting Linux preinstalls into stores. Well now it's happening, and what's the reaction? On Groklaw, pure bile. This makes no sense. Here's something else for all of the Linspire critics to think about: Linspire is the only Linux vendor to take on Microsoft from its inception. Linspire was born as Lindows, with the sole goal of poking Microsoft in the eye. Linux ChickensNovell touts its SUSE Desktop, but you don't see it in any stores. IBM, the great Friend of the Penguin is a no-show. HP is doing a lot of good Linux things, but not at the retail store level. Dell is making Linux desktop noises, but I'm not holding my breath, we've heard that one before. In fact if you do a search for Linux on dell.com you see amusing things like "Unix to Linux and Unix to Windows Migration." You won't find "Throwing Off Your Windows Chains." Nope, none of these big tough companies are challenging Microsoft- they're plundering the corpse of Unix. With all of their resources and clout, they're too chicken to take on Microsoft.Bringing More People to FOSSThe more entry points to FOSS, the better. Firefox and FOSS apps on Windows are nice, though I wonder how often they cause people to go "Hey! This is so cool I need Linux too, and I think the ideology is teh hawt!" We need computers in stores running Linux, so that people can see them and touch them and buy them and take them home. They need to be good-quality computers with everything working out of the box. They need to sit side-by-side with Windows and Apple PCs, just like any other product where you a dozen different brands sitting on the same shelf. They need to be bundled with printers, scanners, PDAs, and other peripherals that are well-supported in Linux.PJ doesn't like Click N Run. No problem, use apt-get, it works fine on Linspire. She doesn't like all the proprietary stuff that Linspire packages, like video drivers, wireless drivers, and Web browser plugins. So she can try the 100% Free-and-free version of Freespire. No nasty proprietary code at all, and no nasty asking for money. The more people we have buying Linux computers, the more clout we're going to have for getting vendors to support Linux directly and with open drivers. Sitting in our little Linux ghettoes and grumbling about the injustice of it all hasn't accomplished much, has it. The masses have not rallied to our cause- because they don't even know we exist. Any Dope Can WhineBut it takes a special effort to build something worthwhile. You don't like the direction Linspire is taking? Then put your talent where your mouth is and help make it better. For better or worse, Linspire just may become the face of Linux in the consumer space. No one else is even trying. We need to cheer it on, not tear it down. |
|
Comments (96)
Carla is awesomely short-sighted and wrong
60 earlier comments in the full thread.
Right on dino.
> That Linspire seems to miss the point of free software - the basis for their existance - is what some here find problematic.
Just a note. Last I looked, Free Software and Open Source Software had pretty much the same licenses. Not that software authors or their software can be neatly separated into 2 piles. But where do Free Software advocates get the right to lay claim to *all* of it in the name of the Free Software community? Does Linspire "not understand" Open Source software - "the basis for their existence"?
Personally, I think that if one happens to be an author of software that Linspire is including in the distro and doesn't like the way his software is being used, he has a right not to like that. But he should have used a license that really reflected his intent on how the software should be used.
I've seen a lot of moaning lately due to authors releasing software under one license on paper, and another in their own minds. The license on paper says one thing, but they somehow feel that there is some further, binding, unspoken agreement with their users. Theo's complaints about people not giving back to the BSD licensed OpenSSH is a glaring example. All the wailing about Linspire and Freespire are another good example.
Just a note. Last I looked, Free Software and Open Source Software had pretty much the same licenses. Not that software authors or their software can be neatly separated into 2 piles. But where do Free Software advocates get the right to lay claim to *all* of it in the name of the Free Software community? Does Linspire "not understand" Open Source software - "the basis for their existence"?
Personally, I think that if one happens to be an author of software that Linspire is including in the distro and doesn't like the way his software is being used, he has a right not to like that. But he should have used a license that really reflected his intent on how the software should be used.
I've seen a lot of moaning lately due to authors releasing software under one license on paper, and another in their own minds. The license on paper says one thing, but they somehow feel that there is some further, binding, unspoken agreement with their users. Theo's complaints about people not giving back to the BSD licensed OpenSSH is a glaring example. All the wailing about Linspire and Freespire are another good example.
>"The license on paper says one thing, but they somehow feel that there is some further, binding, unspoken agreement with their users."
It's not unspoken, in this case. Linspire claims to be a member of the community while at the same time promoting that which is anti-community. While no excuse to express an opinion of their actions is necessary, their appeal to community and free software developers invites criticism.
It's not unspoken, in this case. Linspire claims to be a member of the community while at the same time promoting that which is anti-community. While no excuse to express an opinion of their actions is necessary, their appeal to community and free software developers invites criticism.
Dino: point taken. Thanks. :-) I did also point out that freedom is also OSS' real goal. The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Software Definition are not terribly different from each other, even if a copyleft license does differ significantly from a non-copyleft license. But you are correct - the GPL is not the sole defender (or definer) of user freedom. I did not intend to imply that.
My point was that Vinea seemed to be arguing that I would advocate forcing users to use something other than Windows. In reality, I was arguing for user freedom, as defined by the FSF and OSI definitions, (though I omitted the OSI previously). We are, in fact, talking about moose and deer here (related, but not the same animals).
Nowhere in my previous post did I suggest that users should be forced to use a particular set of software. Presenting an ideological argument to convince someone to change their mind is not the same as physically forcing them to do so. Even OSS proponents present arguments to persuade others that their position is (a) valid or useful and (b) good.
Thus, Vinea's argument remains a straw man. My argument was that ignoring or dismissing user freedom (based on FOSS definitions) is a bad thing. While a user is certainly free to choose Windows, that user is choosing something that restricts freedom. It is certainly within a user's right to give up their freedom, but it makes less sense for a business that depends on that freedom to suggest that non-free software is a good thing.
Sum it up: Don said: ignoring user freedom in licenses is bad Vinea said: users are free to use Windows Don responds: We're talking about freedom on two different levels here.
I'm arguing for user freedom from a licensing standpoint while Vinea is arguing for a user's freedom to choose whatever software they want.
My point was that Vinea seemed to be arguing that I would advocate forcing users to use something other than Windows. In reality, I was arguing for user freedom, as defined by the FSF and OSI definitions, (though I omitted the OSI previously). We are, in fact, talking about moose and deer here (related, but not the same animals).
Nowhere in my previous post did I suggest that users should be forced to use a particular set of software. Presenting an ideological argument to convince someone to change their mind is not the same as physically forcing them to do so. Even OSS proponents present arguments to persuade others that their position is (a) valid or useful and (b) good.
Thus, Vinea's argument remains a straw man. My argument was that ignoring or dismissing user freedom (based on FOSS definitions) is a bad thing. While a user is certainly free to choose Windows, that user is choosing something that restricts freedom. It is certainly within a user's right to give up their freedom, but it makes less sense for a business that depends on that freedom to suggest that non-free software is a good thing.
Sum it up: Don said: ignoring user freedom in licenses is bad Vinea said: users are free to use Windows Don responds: We're talking about freedom on two different levels here.
I'm arguing for user freedom from a licensing standpoint while Vinea is arguing for a user's freedom to choose whatever software they want.
Steve --
With nearly no exceptions, Open Source software IS Free software IS Open Source software.
The whole OSI thing was not intended to create some new flavor of software. It was intended to put a reputable suit of clothes on free software so that businesses and other organizations could be more readily interested in using it.
What's funny -- a realization I had while laying the groundwork for a future article -- is that the OSI folks got it all wrong. What makes free software valuable to business is not the openness. It's the freedom. Sure, it's nice to look into the source to twiddle and/or fix. But...it's incredible to deploy and use software without having to design your bread and butter systems so that they optimize the myriad licensing steps/schemes of multiple vendors.
With nearly no exceptions, Open Source software IS Free software IS Open Source software.
The whole OSI thing was not intended to create some new flavor of software. It was intended to put a reputable suit of clothes on free software so that businesses and other organizations could be more readily interested in using it.
What's funny -- a realization I had while laying the groundwork for a future article -- is that the OSI folks got it all wrong. What makes free software valuable to business is not the openness. It's the freedom. Sure, it's nice to look into the source to twiddle and/or fix. But...it's incredible to deploy and use software without having to design your bread and butter systems so that they optimize the myriad licensing steps/schemes of multiple vendors.
dc -
I figured as much.
My comment was more prompted by than aimed at you.
We sometimes get so caught up in this license or that license that we forget some concepts have meanings outside of anybody's licenses, that the GPL and all the other little alphabet combo-platters are really just means to ends, not ends in and of themselves.
I figured as much.
My comment was more prompted by than aimed at you.
We sometimes get so caught up in this license or that license that we forget some concepts have meanings outside of anybody's licenses, that the GPL and all the other little alphabet combo-platters are really just means to ends, not ends in and of themselves.
dinotrac:
>"[...] a realization I had while laying the groundwork for a future article [...]"
>"..it's incredible to deploy and use software without having to design your bread and butter systems so that they optimize the myriad licensing steps/schemes of multiple vendors."
I hope that future article expands that idea. It has my curiosity up.
I hope that future article expands that idea. It has my curiosity up.
>I hope that future article expands that idea
So do I!!!
Seriously, I have to write the thing. It may be the one thing I was ever meant to say.
So do I!!!
Seriously, I have to write the thing. It may be the one thing I was ever meant to say.
>That's because you are not arguing on the basis of user freedom as defined by the
>GPL. So naturally, until we argue from the same basis, we will continue to by-pass
>each other. The goal of the GPL, as stated by grouch - and the GNU Project/FSF, is to
>rid the world of non-free software. The GPL is an attack on non-free software. Doh!
Newspeak. By redefining "user freedom" to be something other than the ability for users to choose whether to use whatever software they like is like defining "vegetarian" to be something different. If you "rid the world" of non-GPL software you eliminate a choice for the consumer...i.e. physically force people not to have the choice of closed source software.
This is why other folks believe in simply making great software so the choice is natural, not enforced as either community peer pressure/social movement/"ethics". Some folks will always choose different anyways and that should be completely cool. If they like Microsoft, and there are positives, then more power to them. If the Microsoft hackers out code us...then they deserve to win.
It is possible to be part of FOSS without feeling the need to destroy closed software or to consider its destruction to be a good thing. Open and closed can co-exist and can be complementary.
I like OSX. I like that they contribute back to Darwin. I have no desire to rewrite the OSX UI and have no desire to see it "rid of". The UI is elegant and works. Not to say that OSX doesn't have flaws but the focus is really on providing a good user experience and because they control both hardware and software they can provide one.
>However, to ignore the value of user freedom, as defined by the Free Software >Definition, or even to dismiss the value of freedom - to ignore or dismiss freedom as >a goal - is to miss the point of Free Software - and truthfully, even Open Source >Software (without such freedom, Open Source is no longer open, is it?).
Why should the FSF dictate the meaning of "user freedom"? You can understand the value of open source without demanding that everyone adheres to the same principle by "ridding the world" of non-GPL software. Why is it that someone who doesn't agree with your definition of "freedom" "miss the point"? Maybe some of us GET the point but freely choose other criteria for excellence and freedom?
Maybe some of us are kinda tired of the FSF folks redefining words (and history) to suit their own world view.
Vinea
Newspeak. By redefining "user freedom" to be something other than the ability for users to choose whether to use whatever software they like is like defining "vegetarian" to be something different. If you "rid the world" of non-GPL software you eliminate a choice for the consumer...i.e. physically force people not to have the choice of closed source software.
This is why other folks believe in simply making great software so the choice is natural, not enforced as either community peer pressure/social movement/"ethics". Some folks will always choose different anyways and that should be completely cool. If they like Microsoft, and there are positives, then more power to them. If the Microsoft hackers out code us...then they deserve to win.
It is possible to be part of FOSS without feeling the need to destroy closed software or to consider its destruction to be a good thing. Open and closed can co-exist and can be complementary.
I like OSX. I like that they contribute back to Darwin. I have no desire to rewrite the OSX UI and have no desire to see it "rid of". The UI is elegant and works. Not to say that OSX doesn't have flaws but the focus is really on providing a good user experience and because they control both hardware and software they can provide one.
>However, to ignore the value of user freedom, as defined by the Free Software >Definition, or even to dismiss the value of freedom - to ignore or dismiss freedom as >a goal - is to miss the point of Free Software - and truthfully, even Open Source >Software (without such freedom, Open Source is no longer open, is it?).
Why should the FSF dictate the meaning of "user freedom"? You can understand the value of open source without demanding that everyone adheres to the same principle by "ridding the world" of non-GPL software. Why is it that someone who doesn't agree with your definition of "freedom" "miss the point"? Maybe some of us GET the point but freely choose other criteria for excellence and freedom?
Maybe some of us are kinda tired of the FSF folks redefining words (and history) to suit their own world view.
Vinea
vinea:
Go read another of Bill's memos.
Go read another of Bill's memos.
>Thus, Vinea's argument remains a straw man. My argument was that ignoring or
>dismissing user freedom (based on FOSS definitions) is a bad thing.
In your opinion. Your "FOSS" definition overreaches to equate user freedom to the elimination of closed source programs.
>Sum it up: >Don said: ignoring user freedom in licenses is bad >Vinea said: users are free to use Windows >Don responds: We're talking about freedom on two different levels here.
That's only part of what I said. I also said your definition of "user freedom" is not universal. By defining user freedom to be only non-closed licenses makes it a circular argument. It is not conceeded that one must have all 4 "freedoms" to have user freedom.
Arguably the only thing that is required for "user freedom" is a common standard and a commodity market. The evidence for this is the hardware market.
Users can have freedom even within the context of closed source because the best of closed source treats end users with the same level (or perhaps more) respect than open source and can provide a better user experience.
Vinea
In your opinion. Your "FOSS" definition overreaches to equate user freedom to the elimination of closed source programs.
>Sum it up: >Don said: ignoring user freedom in licenses is bad >Vinea said: users are free to use Windows >Don responds: We're talking about freedom on two different levels here.
That's only part of what I said. I also said your definition of "user freedom" is not universal. By defining user freedom to be only non-closed licenses makes it a circular argument. It is not conceeded that one must have all 4 "freedoms" to have user freedom.
Arguably the only thing that is required for "user freedom" is a common standard and a commodity market. The evidence for this is the hardware market.
Users can have freedom even within the context of closed source because the best of closed source treats end users with the same level (or perhaps more) respect than open source and can provide a better user experience.
Vinea
grouch, chill out. if you can't see the funny in Project Evil you're taking this software stuff too seriously.
heh...go read a memo...yes, I'm sure it was a great loss when you quit the debate team.
heh...go read a memo...yes, I'm sure it was a great loss when you quit the debate team.
Hey grouch:
This vinea thing, is it a new version of Eliza?
Seems almost human at first, until you realize that it is just shuffling and reassembling the same things over and over again, with what seems, at best, a mechanical connection to anything fed into it.
More lifelike than Eliza, though. At least it doesn't generate , "I hear you saying that...".
This vinea thing, is it a new version of Eliza?
Seems almost human at first, until you realize that it is just shuffling and reassembling the same things over and over again, with what seems, at best, a mechanical connection to anything fed into it.
More lifelike than Eliza, though. At least it doesn't generate , "I hear you saying that...".
Please go on.
Please go on.
What resemblance do you see?
Do you wish to hear me?
I hear you saying that...
You are being a bit negative.
You should really talk to my sister Jenny18.
Please go on.
What resemblance do you see?
Do you wish to hear me?
I hear you saying that...
You are being a bit negative.
You should really talk to my sister Jenny18.
>I hear you saying that...
Oops! I spoke too soon.
Oops! I spoke too soon.
dino: By Jove I think you've cracked it! You may have socially redeeming characteristics after all. (In spite of rumors to the contrary, your unholy non-fandom of RMS and your strange knife-and-dog heart treatments).
The following is crude reverse-engineering, since no source is available:
10 print message user_choice 20 print message FSF_bad 30 print message BSD_good 40 print message purists_bad 50 print message zealots_bad 60 print message RMS_bad 70 print message hybrid_good 80 goto 10
Hmm. I debugged spaghetti code years ago, but I just don't see anything to work with here, not even spaghetti. There doesn't appear to be any way to get it to relate to anything outside the loop. It's a sort of philosophy espousal loop with no apparent means to "get down to concrete", as you put it 'way back when. Maybe a different language?
The following is crude reverse-engineering, since no source is available:
10 print message user_choice 20 print message FSF_bad 30 print message BSD_good 40 print message purists_bad 50 print message zealots_bad 60 print message RMS_bad 70 print message hybrid_good 80 goto 10
Hmm. I debugged spaghetti code years ago, but I just don't see anything to work with here, not even spaghetti. There doesn't appear to be any way to get it to relate to anything outside the loop. It's a sort of philosophy espousal loop with no apparent means to "get down to concrete", as you put it 'way back when. Maybe a different language?
grouch:
Looks like you've got it about right. I don't think there is an actual feedback mechanism. Don't remember my BASIC -- did it have a wait or sleep statement?
I think you just need to insert a wait between each print to allow others to jump in. It won't be perfect as it creates race conditions, but, if you look at the pattern in this thread, it fits. Looks like they even vary the wait somewhat for realism:
V= vinea O=others
V-O-V-V-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O V-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-V-O -V-V-O-V-O-O
I could be wrong about varying the timer. That long stretch of Os could be the result of technical difficulties.
Looks like you've got it about right. I don't think there is an actual feedback mechanism. Don't remember my BASIC -- did it have a wait or sleep statement?
I think you just need to insert a wait between each print to allow others to jump in. It won't be perfect as it creates race conditions, but, if you look at the pattern in this thread, it fits. Looks like they even vary the wait somewhat for realism:
V= vinea O=others
V-O-V-V-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O V-V-O-V-O-O-V-O-V-O-V-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-V-O -V-V-O-V-O-O
I could be wrong about varying the timer. That long stretch of Os could be the result of technical difficulties.
Grouch,
Put me down for "Hybrid Good". :-)
Put me down for "Hybrid Good". :-)
C# and .NET 2.0...not BASIC. Didn't you get Bill's memo?
Grouch, one thing I have learned, it's often better to poke fun at yourself than poke fun at others. One is (sometimes) funny. The other...something else.
Heh, if I were an AI routine you'd be feeling pretty dumb at the moment.
Vinea Feeling Dumb At the Moment
Grouch, one thing I have learned, it's often better to poke fun at yourself than poke fun at others. One is (sometimes) funny. The other...something else.
Heh, if I were an AI routine you'd be feeling pretty dumb at the moment.
Vinea Feeling Dumb At the Moment
> Newspeak. By redefining "user freedom" to be something other than the ability for users to choose whether to use whatever software they like is like defining "vegetarian" to be something different.
Yes, I can see the similarity cleary. A user is free to buy closed source software all he/she wants. He/she simply isn't free to share it. Likewise, a vegetarian can buy all the meat he/she chooses. He/she simply isn't free to eat it.
> Maybe some of us are kinda tired of the FSF folks redefining words...
Everyone redefines words. Each of us carries their own definition of a word in our head, and it seldom matches the dictionary definition exactly. The FSF's defintion of user freedom doesn't match yours? Ain't that a shame.
The discussion you've stepped into concerned whether Linspire was a positive or negative in realtionship to free software, as defined by the FSF and the GPL. In relationship to this discussion, the FSF's definitions were already accepted. You're the one trying to change them, not us.
My position (just in case it's gotten lost in the mix) was that while I personally viewed them as a negative; as long as they abided by the GPL, other people should be free to choose them as they saw fit.
In terms of the discussion you appear to be trying to frame, I think each software author should be free to release his or her software under the license of their choice, and that users should be free to choose which software to use and which licenses they preferred. My personal prefernce (as a user, I'm not a programmer) is for GPL'ed code.
Yes, I can see the similarity cleary. A user is free to buy closed source software all he/she wants. He/she simply isn't free to share it. Likewise, a vegetarian can buy all the meat he/she chooses. He/she simply isn't free to eat it.
> Maybe some of us are kinda tired of the FSF folks redefining words...
Everyone redefines words. Each of us carries their own definition of a word in our head, and it seldom matches the dictionary definition exactly. The FSF's defintion of user freedom doesn't match yours? Ain't that a shame.
The discussion you've stepped into concerned whether Linspire was a positive or negative in realtionship to free software, as defined by the FSF and the GPL. In relationship to this discussion, the FSF's definitions were already accepted. You're the one trying to change them, not us.
My position (just in case it's gotten lost in the mix) was that while I personally viewed them as a negative; as long as they abided by the GPL, other people should be free to choose them as they saw fit.
In terms of the discussion you appear to be trying to frame, I think each software author should be free to release his or her software under the license of their choice, and that users should be free to choose which software to use and which licenses they preferred. My personal prefernce (as a user, I'm not a programmer) is for GPL'ed code.
I agree with PJ
Linspire's mind set, to closely resembles that of Microsoft's
As for promoting Linux on the desktop Novell drive for the corporate desktop, even if slower is the strongest way to get Linux to the main stream.
Make people use Suse at work and they will start using Opensuse at home.
As for promoting Linux on the desktop Novell drive for the corporate desktop, even if slower is the strongest way to get Linux to the main stream.
Make people use Suse at work and they will start using Opensuse at home.
Until they come against SuSE's inability to work with USB storage devices and floppy disks properly. Oh, and there's the deliberately crippled media players and the ugliest menus on earth and slocate isn't installed by default and NFS is flaky and messes up the boot process and, and, and...
Make people use Linux at work and they'll soon start to want it at home as well. But make them use a decent distro please.
signed Disappointed with SuSE
Make people use Linux at work and they'll soon start to want it at home as well. But make them use a decent distro please.
signed Disappointed with SuSE
I agree with PJ, as well. What's the point in using Linux if you just end up being locked in because you need all these non-free drivers, firmwares and application to give you an environment you can actually use. Besides, it is a lie that these non-free drivers are so vital. If that was true, OpenBSD would not even exist. I can perfectly live and work with a GNU/Linux box that doesn't use nvidia/fglrx/ndiswrapper drivers nor non-free video/audio codecs like divx/mp3/wmv/real/whatever. I don't lock anyone out by my choice of free software and free media formats. It's the others who lock me out.
[Salparadise: Your comment is pointless and off-topic. qcimushroom used suse just as an example, he could have used the name of any other distro in that sentence.]
[Salparadise: Your comment is pointless and off-topic. qcimushroom used suse just as an example, he could have used the name of any other distro in that sentence.]
sal,
I've never had a problem with Suse and my usb memory stick, or several usb printaers and hard drives.
Have you filed a bug report with SuSE for the problems you have had?
If you haven't, please do. Make sure you list the type of motherboard and the bios version you have, as well as the suse version.
I've never had a problem with Suse and my usb memory stick, or several usb printaers and hard drives.
Have you filed a bug report with SuSE for the problems you have had?
If you haven't, please do. Make sure you list the type of motherboard and the bios version you have, as well as the suse version.
[Salparadise: Your comment is pointless and off-topic. qcimushroom used suse just as an example, he could have used the name of any other distro in that sentence.]
Not a valid criticism. He could have used any distro name, but he didn't and thus the statement was branded.
Haven't reported a bug as this is a problem I've had on three seperate machines from three manufacturers and am informed by other users that this is a SuSE problem. I've had complete success with USB sticks on Slackware, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora to name a few, and have had nothing but problems with them on SuSE. If it happens again when I'm running SuSE (less than likely as I don't run it anymore) then I'll submit a report.
Not a valid criticism. He could have used any distro name, but he didn't and thus the statement was branded.
Haven't reported a bug as this is a problem I've had on three seperate machines from three manufacturers and am informed by other users that this is a SuSE problem. I've had complete success with USB sticks on Slackware, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora to name a few, and have had nothing but problems with them on SuSE. If it happens again when I'm running SuSE (less than likely as I don't run it anymore) then I'll submit a report.
OK, let me waffle for a moment.
PJ is slamming Linspire, yes. She's advocating that people not use Linspire, yes. However, she's not trying to force anyone not to use Linspire. She is instead merely arguing that people should use distro's which adhere more closely to the principles of free software.
Now, in this, I agree with her. I would much rather have users using Debian or Slackware than Linspire. However, Debian and Slackware are not "former Windows User" ready. Linspire is trying to be. Whether they are succeeding or not is arguable, but that is the niche they're aiming for. Where I disagree with her is that there's anything wrong with this. If Linspire meets their goals and becomes the preferred distro for former Windows users, then more power to them. I may not personally choose to use it, and I may not recommend it to others, but that's my decision. Each user must make their own decision about which distro best serves their needs. And, having made the intial conversion to Linux, switching from Linspire to true Debian or another distro is easy in comparison, so Linspire can never become complacent. They have to stay better than the other distro's to keep their users.
So, while I personally do not prefer Linspire, nor recommend it; I think their existence is good for Linux overall.
PJ is slamming Linspire, yes. She's advocating that people not use Linspire, yes. However, she's not trying to force anyone not to use Linspire. She is instead merely arguing that people should use distro's which adhere more closely to the principles of free software.
Now, in this, I agree with her. I would much rather have users using Debian or Slackware than Linspire. However, Debian and Slackware are not "former Windows User" ready. Linspire is trying to be. Whether they are succeeding or not is arguable, but that is the niche they're aiming for. Where I disagree with her is that there's anything wrong with this. If Linspire meets their goals and becomes the preferred distro for former Windows users, then more power to them. I may not personally choose to use it, and I may not recommend it to others, but that's my decision. Each user must make their own decision about which distro best serves their needs. And, having made the intial conversion to Linux, switching from Linspire to true Debian or another distro is easy in comparison, so Linspire can never become complacent. They have to stay better than the other distro's to keep their users.
So, while I personally do not prefer Linspire, nor recommend it; I think their existence is good for Linux overall.
Jones Fears Too Much Freedom Will Kill Linux
SUSE is available at my local CompUSA, along with Linpire. They've carried SUSE for at least 4 years. RedHat, too, when it was doing retail. IBM really doesn't retail much of anything, so I wouldn't expect to see a retail Linux from them.
Following the recommendations Jones makes will only increase the cult status of Linux and open source. If Linux can survive only by coalescing into a small band of adherents and walling itself off from the rest of the world in order to assure that each adherent thinks only "correct" thoughts, then Linux will survive as cloistered, monastic, unseen and unused.
The essence of Jones' pitch is that she, not you, determines the limits of your freedom of choice. She's really saying that Linux should remain the plaything of the True Believers because she's afraid of what will happen to it when everyone else learns about it.
Following the recommendations Jones makes will only increase the cult status of Linux and open source. If Linux can survive only by coalescing into a small band of adherents and walling itself off from the rest of the world in order to assure that each adherent thinks only "correct" thoughts, then Linux will survive as cloistered, monastic, unseen and unused.
The essence of Jones' pitch is that she, not you, determines the limits of your freedom of choice. She's really saying that Linux should remain the plaything of the True Believers because she's afraid of what will happen to it when everyone else learns about it.
If Linux can survive only by coalescing into a small band of adherents and walling itself off from the rest of the world in order to assure that each adherent thinks only "correct" thoughts, then Linux will survive as cloistered, monastic, unseen and unused.
I wouldn't mind if it kept GNU/Linux truly Free, instead of becoming a victim of "proprietary cancer".
Proprietary modules by default makes any Free OS instantly proprietary. There is no hybrid possible. Encumberment means going non-Free.
I wouldn't mind if it kept GNU/Linux truly Free, instead of becoming a victim of "proprietary cancer".
Proprietary modules by default makes any Free OS instantly proprietary. There is no hybrid possible. Encumberment means going non-Free.
Straypackets it sounds like you mean boxed sets of Linux for people to buy and install. I understand the Linspire to be on PCs already installed and ready to take home.
Your subject title is disgustingly disingenuous. Exactly how, by any stretch of sanity, can the promotion and use of closed drivers and the hardware that requires them be "too much freedom"? How does the promotion of such secret drivers increase anyone's freedom at all?
Your arguments are nothing but rants, without sufficient logic for debate.
Your arguments are nothing but rants, without sufficient logic for debate.
R_a_trip: If your primary determinant for choosing software is the development model it uses, that's your business. My prinmary interest in Linux has always been this: It's Unix, and I can afford it. Everything else is secondary. If Torvald's had incorporated and sold Linux for $99 I'd still use it.
Grouch: Disingenuous? Secret drivers? Huh? I think people ought to be free to put any software they choose on their own hardware. You seem to think that they shouldn't be. How is restricting my choices to only "free" software increasing my options?
Grouch: Disingenuous? Secret drivers? Huh? I think people ought to be free to put any software they choose on their own hardware. You seem to think that they shouldn't be. How is restricting my choices to only "free" software increasing my options?
straypackets:
"Jones Fears Too Much Freedom Will Kill Linux" is a false statement and presents a view completely at odds with the article to which you are responding. Your entire first comment is a rant that attributes to Pamela Jones sentiments she did not express, either in the article or in subsequent comments.
>"I think people ought to be free to put any software they choose on their own hardware. You seem to think that they shouldn't be. How is restricting my choices to only "free" software increasing my options?"
Show me where I have ever stated that people should not be free to choose their software.
You appear to have trouble comprehending what you read or trouble reading before commenting on what others write. Did you read the article? Did you read Arjan van de Ven's "Linux in a binary world"? Did you read Andrea Arcangeli's response? From which part of any of those did you conclude "The essence of Jones' pitch is that she, not you, determines the limits of your freedom of choice"?
"Jones Fears Too Much Freedom Will Kill Linux" is a false statement and presents a view completely at odds with the article to which you are responding. Your entire first comment is a rant that attributes to Pamela Jones sentiments she did not express, either in the article or in subsequent comments.
>"I think people ought to be free to put any software they choose on their own hardware. You seem to think that they shouldn't be. How is restricting my choices to only "free" software increasing my options?"
Show me where I have ever stated that people should not be free to choose their software.
You appear to have trouble comprehending what you read or trouble reading before commenting on what others write. Did you read the article? Did you read Arjan van de Ven's "Linux in a binary world"? Did you read Andrea Arcangeli's response? From which part of any of those did you conclude "The essence of Jones' pitch is that she, not you, determines the limits of your freedom of choice"?
The lack of OEM vendors
...is the OEM's fault because they cannot change their "traditional" (and thereby obsolete) way of thinking.
Here's what a "old-school" (=stone age) OEM thinks how he gets an OS installed onto the computers he sells: 1.) Approach mighty vendor of non-free software, fall to your knees. 2.) Make contract with aforementioned vendor. Think: "Yay, I'll get a huge discount for each license, I'll save $millions$". Get ripped off when contract is up for renewal (but you haven't got any other choice because you're "locked in" now). 3.) Vendor supplies install media, license tags etc., You install software onto computers you sell. 4.) For each vendor of BIOS, gfx chipset, sound card, wifi network card, DVD writer etc., repeat steps 1 to 3 in order to get all the drivers and firmwares together until you have a computer that actually works out of the box. Pay huge amounts of license fees and get ripped of over and over again. Wait for h/w manufacturer to go out of business or simply loose interest and cease drivers support. 5.) Wait for customers to get angry because you cease providing updated drivers and BIOS firmwares 6 months after the "new product line" has been introduced. Rinse, repeat for each "new product line". 6.) Loose out and cease business (hopefully) because your computer's are so Dull (pun intended) that you simply cannot advertise a hot selling point in comparison to the radioshack around the corner.
Here's the "new" (and much cheaper) way: 1.) Download some iso images of any GNU/Linux distro (don't forget the sources, though). Optionally, ask Mark Shuttleworth to create a customised Ubuntu/Kubuntu distro just for your company. 2.) Install GNU/Linux on computers you sell. 3.) Make source code available on your webpage. 4.) Every six months, use new release of chosen GNU/Linux distro to update the default installations, point existing users to newly updated releases of chosen GNU/Linux distro. If few customers are unhappy, point them to other GNU/Linux distros. If many customers are unhappy, change choice of GNU/Linux distro for default installs. Wait a minute, where's the lock-in? 5.) (Except for the sabdfl option) don't pay a single cent to anyone but your few employees that do the default installations for you. Wait a minute, where's the rip-off? 6.) Save $truckloads$ compare to the "old-school way" of OEM-software. Increase your market share because you can sell your computers significantly cheaper than the senile competition.
Linspire is a company for OEMs that want to have a "modern" image but cannot change their ways anyway. They'll sell them Free Software the "old-school" stone-age way. Any really modern and clever OEM will go for the "new" way instead and simply download and use Ubuntu or OpenSUSE or whatever's available. Really big OEM might even be able to create their own distros or to pay big GNU/Linux companies money to get customizations done. I wonder how much money you would have to pay MS in order to get that kind of service.
Conclusion: I don't want Linspire to be installed on the computers WalMart sells. I want Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, CentOS, OpenSUSE or whatever on these computers, but not Linspire nor Mandriva nor Xandros. I want WalMart to realise that it is cheaper for them if they did this by themselves instead of paying Linspire ridiculous sums of money for something they can get for free. I want them to respect my freedom as a consumer and to avoid handcuffing me with non-free software and paying for the "privilege."
Here's what a "old-school" (=stone age) OEM thinks how he gets an OS installed onto the computers he sells: 1.) Approach mighty vendor of non-free software, fall to your knees. 2.) Make contract with aforementioned vendor. Think: "Yay, I'll get a huge discount for each license, I'll save $millions$". Get ripped off when contract is up for renewal (but you haven't got any other choice because you're "locked in" now). 3.) Vendor supplies install media, license tags etc., You install software onto computers you sell. 4.) For each vendor of BIOS, gfx chipset, sound card, wifi network card, DVD writer etc., repeat steps 1 to 3 in order to get all the drivers and firmwares together until you have a computer that actually works out of the box. Pay huge amounts of license fees and get ripped of over and over again. Wait for h/w manufacturer to go out of business or simply loose interest and cease drivers support. 5.) Wait for customers to get angry because you cease providing updated drivers and BIOS firmwares 6 months after the "new product line" has been introduced. Rinse, repeat for each "new product line". 6.) Loose out and cease business (hopefully) because your computer's are so Dull (pun intended) that you simply cannot advertise a hot selling point in comparison to the radioshack around the corner.
Here's the "new" (and much cheaper) way: 1.) Download some iso images of any GNU/Linux distro (don't forget the sources, though). Optionally, ask Mark Shuttleworth to create a customised Ubuntu/Kubuntu distro just for your company. 2.) Install GNU/Linux on computers you sell. 3.) Make source code available on your webpage. 4.) Every six months, use new release of chosen GNU/Linux distro to update the default installations, point existing users to newly updated releases of chosen GNU/Linux distro. If few customers are unhappy, point them to other GNU/Linux distros. If many customers are unhappy, change choice of GNU/Linux distro for default installs. Wait a minute, where's the lock-in? 5.) (Except for the sabdfl option) don't pay a single cent to anyone but your few employees that do the default installations for you. Wait a minute, where's the rip-off? 6.) Save $truckloads$ compare to the "old-school way" of OEM-software. Increase your market share because you can sell your computers significantly cheaper than the senile competition.
Linspire is a company for OEMs that want to have a "modern" image but cannot change their ways anyway. They'll sell them Free Software the "old-school" stone-age way. Any really modern and clever OEM will go for the "new" way instead and simply download and use Ubuntu or OpenSUSE or whatever's available. Really big OEM might even be able to create their own distros or to pay big GNU/Linux companies money to get customizations done. I wonder how much money you would have to pay MS in order to get that kind of service.
Conclusion: I don't want Linspire to be installed on the computers WalMart sells. I want Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, CentOS, OpenSUSE or whatever on these computers, but not Linspire nor Mandriva nor Xandros. I want WalMart to realise that it is cheaper for them if they did this by themselves instead of paying Linspire ridiculous sums of money for something they can get for free. I want them to respect my freedom as a consumer and to avoid handcuffing me with non-free software and paying for the "privilege."
Linspire involvement in X?
This seems to be about drivers for X and DRI. I wonder if anyone can point out any linspire people working on X or DRI, or linspire backing any noticable development in that area.
I am with you on that.
Don't we all do the proprietary dance after we've installed are fully gpled distro ? Downloading codecs, acroreader, agreeing to the java and flash eula ? And we have XP on our disks ?
But Linspire is trying to make a business out of sorting out this mess so they are BAD right ? I don't think so.
But Linspire is trying to make a business out of sorting out this mess so they are BAD right ? I don't think so.
Inaccuracy on Linux being on store shelves.
In an article over at http://www.madpenguin.org/cms/html/64/6521.html, they have pictures of Linux on several chain store shelves, including Fry's. Yes, Linspire is there, but also Suse, and RedHat. As to RedHat, I see them all the time in Office Depot.
What PJ is trying to say is that having proprietary code supported in a community distribution promotes the idea that closed source is fully acceptable. Even Linus doesn't like the closed source drivers, but he tolerates them, to a degree. What I really dislike it proprietary software that doesn't at least match the features of their other os versions, like Acroreader. As a part time student, I am frustrated that all of my course material is saturated with DRM. And only the Linux version of Acroread doesn't support this.
What PJ is trying to say is that having proprietary code supported in a community distribution promotes the idea that closed source is fully acceptable. Even Linus doesn't like the closed source drivers, but he tolerates them, to a degree. What I really dislike it proprietary software that doesn't at least match the features of their other os versions, like Acroreader. As a part time student, I am frustrated that all of my course material is saturated with DRM. And only the Linux version of Acroread doesn't support this.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post