- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Kevin Carmony: Walking The Line of a Divided Community
BackgroundIn the wake of Pamela Jones' venomous attack on Linspire's announcement of a community-based Freespire project, Carla Schroder responded via LXer. Subsequent discussion on Schroder's response led me to open the lines of communication with Linspire. I was introduced to Mr. Carmony, who was kind enough to respond to my questions directly. On the surface, Linspire's announcement that it is launching Freespire would appear to be yet another community distribution announcement. After all, Red hat launched Fedora Core and Novell launched OpenSUSE. Heck, Yast was non-free until Novell released it as FOSS. One would think that the FOSS community would support Linspire's move. Not so fast. Groklaw's Jones characterized the Freespire announcement as Linspires "latest 'We'd like to make money from the community's free stuff without honoring community values' strategy." Given the diverse nature of our community - especially considering the growing division between the "Free Software" and the "Open Source Software" camps, is such an accusation fair? Jones' comment is based on the fact that Linspire includes non-free software, essentially as a value-added proposition, thus undermining the emphasis on user freedom. Kevin Carmony maintains that Linspire is simply providing what current Windows users expect to have access to before even thinking about switching over to GNU/Linux. The goal is to build up the GNU/Linux user base, not as an end, but as a means to an end - a fact that is nearly lost in the scuffle. Jones points out a danger that Linspire already acknowledges on their website - that people may become comfortable with the binary offerings, and thus complacent about freedom. So, what did Carmony have to say about all this? Carmony RespondsEssentially, Carmony's position is that, in ten years of holding out, the FOSS community has made relatively few gains, in terms of convincing vendors to release libre codecs and drivers. In other words, the strategy doesn't seem to be working. Additionally, while some will be patient, most users would prefer to have something - anything - that works in the meanwhile. One could argue that more people need to reject the non-free software and related hardware, and I agree that it takes a mass movement to convince vendors to change. The problem is, we would most likely need the vast audience of Windows users to join our cause - a rather unlikely scenario, if you ask me. Carmony did reiterate the hybrid car anology with me. He also spoke of the Open Source "vegans". "Just because someone is a vegetarian, I don't think they should try to force everyone else to be that way (and those who do are incredibly annoying people to be around =). Some are what I call "open source vegans," meaning they refuse to use ANY proprietary code. Fine, I respect that, and I would never want to take that choice away from them. All I ask in return is don't try to take MY choices away either. If I want to toss some "junk food" (proprietary software) in with my fruits and vegetables (OSS), I should be allowed to do that. I asked Carmony directly, if Linspire sees moving toward FOSS (away from non-free software) a goal. His Response? "Yes, and no. Yes, because we CLEARLY state on the Freespire website that we love OSS, and wish all software was OSS. No, because we believe in the freedom of individuals to choose whatever software they want." This fits the perspective of those who prefer non-copleft licenses, namely the Open Source camp. The freedom to choose whatever software you want (including non-free) is hardly in any danger of disappearing any time soon. To turn Carmony's diet analogy on him, I would suggest that we already have the freedom to choose to smoke cigarettes and drink whiskey. However, such behavior is likely to expose one to certain risks. Likewise, choosing to use non-free software exposes one to certain risks. The Windows OS exposes users to numerous security risks and stability issues that they cannot fix themselves. The Need to EducateAt the Linux Desktop Summit, Carmony asked for a show of hands of those who were not using any proprietary software. He told me that not one single hand went up. All those GNU/Linux users had some amount of non-free software on their systems. Carmony seems to use this example to justify shipping Linspire with non-free codecs and drivers. Carmony probably realizes that not all of those people actually desire non-free codecs and drivers on their computers. Even Richard Stallman started off using a non-free system to develop hist first free program. This is a key issue for those aligned with the Free Software Movement - non-free software may be a starting point, but user freedom is the goal. People are still free to choose Windows and non-free software. The problem is that many people are not even choosing Windows - they think that's the only thing available. Many people have no concept of Free/Open Source Software. Some people seem not to understand that Apple exists as a competing system. I have helped people who, all they understood, was that their computer ran "Microsoft". It didn't matter that some of the software they were talking about wasn't actually Microsoft's software. Everything was "Microsoft" to them. In other words, there seems to be a large portion of the population that "choose" Microsoft and non-free software, not because they are free to make that choice, but because they know of no other choice. The same can be said for non-free software - most people do not understand the freedom that FOSS offers. Herein lies the rub. In order for businesses like Linspire to compete against Microsoft, they have to educate people about the advantages of the GNU/Linux (your platform here), system. They already know about the non-free "choices". FOSS technology is fantastic. People need to be informed about the FOSS choices, and why they are so fantastic. In explaining the advantages of a FOSS system, one of the overriding concerns must be - has to be - the fact that, without the freedom offered by a copyleft license, they would not be able to experience the phenomenal power of a GNU/Linux system, the freedom to share software, and the genuine freedom to learn new skills. Theo De Raadt recently lamented that many developers take from the OpenBSD community without giving back. And while I assume he is still committed to the non-copyleft approach, I think it speaks volumes to Eric Raymond's claims that the GPL is no longer needed. The concern I have is that, while it is fine to defend a person's freedom to use non-free software - as Carmony suggests here - it is the responsibility of every member of the community to educate newcomers with respect to the importance of keeping software free. Ditto for creative works. The very real danger in not promoting the free software philosophy is that people will cease to care about freedom, and the tremendous gains we have made in the past twenty years will ebb, as the sea at low-tide. Would there be another high tide? Or will we have learned the lesson that free software doesn't really work? Roll Our Own?I would like to leave you with one last thought. I can agree with Carmony that the strategy of abstinence seems to have gained us very little so far. Such a strategy requires a great many people cooperating for freedom instead of compromising it. It might make more sense to start developing alternative hardware and multimedia software that use FOSS codecs and drivers. I like the Ogg audio/video formats, but we need a video card that embarrasses ATI and NVidia. Maybe that's an unrealistic idea. Still, so long as we compromise on our freedom, we will have to live with these non-free solutions. Besides, the freedom to solve our own problems is largely what all this is about to begin with. I'm not independently wealthy, but if I were, I know where I would invest the largest portion of my resources. If I were a hacker - which I'm not - I know one real problem I would love to solve. If I knew as much about developing video hardware as I know about theology, I know my wife would have to drag me out of the toolshop to the dinner table. I would like to thank Kevin Carmony for his willingness to respond, and for helping me to see things in a different light. And thanks for helping me to realize that many of us are sitting around, waiting on some well-established vendor to support us, when we could be solving our own problems. I also think that Mr. Carmony and the folks at Linspire should put some serious effort into teaching the newcomers about freedom. What do you think? What other strategies do you see for solving these challenges? |
LXer Feature: 9-May-06
|
|
Comments (230)
we need a video card
Neither Nvidia nor ATI will ever open source their drivers because too many people don't want to go to jail (or lose their jobs).
Unfortunately, as much as you might think it would be a "cash cow" it wouldn't be. There are only a few really dedicated, zealous, RMS-like Linux folks where there is no room for non-GPL implementations.
Let's say there is a new company that does this. Let's say, in order to sustain, you have to pay $800 per card for a competitive (though less performance wise) solution with GPL'd drivers. I say bankrupt in a month or less.... I don't think RMS will buy a truck load of them. My guess is that he would see no need for such a device.
It's a highly competitive space where margins are low and technology costs are VERY high. Without volume (and I'm talking thousands and thousands), it would be very hard to survive.
So... impossible? Not necessarily. This happens all over the place everyday. You simply need a company which has a revenue producing engine to support operating the GPL driven "free" card segment at a loss... which in turn will help generate more revenue for their money-making side which may in turn get the card volumes up to a level to reduce the loss on the GPL driven "free" card... and eventually, the card becomes competitive price wise (and with a bit of R&D... assuming you are attracting talent now to the new organization, perhaps even compete performance wise).
So.. it's a hard road. Now.. IF.. Nvidia or ATI did open up their drivers, that could be significant. But after cleaning out all condemning code, they might not perform as well as their peer... and since they're happy with current volumes, I don't think either would want to take the high risk of doing so. We'll see.
Unfortunately, as much as you might think it would be a "cash cow" it wouldn't be. There are only a few really dedicated, zealous, RMS-like Linux folks where there is no room for non-GPL implementations.
Let's say there is a new company that does this. Let's say, in order to sustain, you have to pay $800 per card for a competitive (though less performance wise) solution with GPL'd drivers. I say bankrupt in a month or less.... I don't think RMS will buy a truck load of them. My guess is that he would see no need for such a device.
It's a highly competitive space where margins are low and technology costs are VERY high. Without volume (and I'm talking thousands and thousands), it would be very hard to survive.
So... impossible? Not necessarily. This happens all over the place everyday. You simply need a company which has a revenue producing engine to support operating the GPL driven "free" card segment at a loss... which in turn will help generate more revenue for their money-making side which may in turn get the card volumes up to a level to reduce the loss on the GPL driven "free" card... and eventually, the card becomes competitive price wise (and with a bit of R&D... assuming you are attracting talent now to the new organization, perhaps even compete performance wise).
So.. it's a hard road. Now.. IF.. Nvidia or ATI did open up their drivers, that could be significant. But after cleaning out all condemning code, they might not perform as well as their peer... and since they're happy with current volumes, I don't think either would want to take the high risk of doing so. We'll see.
Where do you get $800, or distributing GPL cards at a loss?? That sounds nuts. I'm running a nVidia GeForce 5500 or some such, which I paid less than $80 for. It has 256 megs ram, and it runs DOOM3 satisfactorily. There used to be a lot of nice 3D cards with open drivers, like Matrox and S3. Dunno where they went. Now Intel is working on graphics adapters with open drivers. Yes, it's a tough market, but your numbers sound crazy.
Well, Matrox is still around... kinda, but development of Linux drivers is at a standstill. The real issue with Linux drivers as, I understand it, is that these companies make money from the speciality drivers.. CAD and such, So they don't want to release the code or even the chip interface specs. Thus no GPL.
Jimf, I wonder if there isn't a significant market for plain ole ordinary 2D/3D adapters? Not bleeding-edge gaming, nor elite CAD/graphic design, but ordinary real people like me who want their GL screensavers and low-rent games like Tuxkart?
tuxchick2, in order to compete you must build a competitive product (duh). A GeForce 5500 (effectively a bit better than a GeForce 2) or a Matrox 400/450/whatever (effectively... well.. it's so slow, it's hard to compare it to anything now) are NOT competitive products. Even so, you'd be looking at high costs even to produce a marginal OpenGL product... so why buy a $300 board when you can get a hunk of Matrox/Nvidia/ATI junk for
tuxchick2:
I'd love a card like that. I'm using a hand-me-down nVidious card (with the open driver) that wouldn't handle Doom3 on my game-fanatic son's computer (Athlon 1.2 GHz, 1G RAM, some outlandish nVidious video card, Debian Sarge. Even though 1.2G is now a slow processor for gaming, the k7s5a motherboard (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/K7s5a-HOWTO.html) seems to work magic with data movement on-board).
See, I understand about the ~need~ (real or perceived) some folks have to use a closed driver. My son suffers the occasional crash in such games, due to secret crap that can only be blamed on nVidious. I can't run Doom3 on my computer with the open driver, but I never suffer a crash.
I think you and I are in agreement about Linspire being a bit underhanded in their promotion of closed drivers.
I'd love a card like that. I'm using a hand-me-down nVidious card (with the open driver) that wouldn't handle Doom3 on my game-fanatic son's computer (Athlon 1.2 GHz, 1G RAM, some outlandish nVidious video card, Debian Sarge. Even though 1.2G is now a slow processor for gaming, the k7s5a motherboard (http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/K7s5a-HOWTO.html) seems to work magic with data movement on-board).
See, I understand about the ~need~ (real or perceived) some folks have to use a closed driver. My son suffers the occasional crash in such games, due to secret crap that can only be blamed on nVidious. I can't run Doom3 on my computer with the open driver, but I never suffer a crash.
I think you and I are in agreement about Linspire being a bit underhanded in their promotion of closed drivers.
The open source graphics card has been in development for some time. For details, go here http://kerneltrap.org/forum/hardware/opengraphics
[edit] Sorry, I sourced the project's home page incorrectly. The appropriate home page for the project is here. http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics [/edit]
[edit] Sorry, I sourced the project's home page incorrectly. The appropriate home page for the project is here. http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics [/edit]
Looking at the latest update [url=http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Press about th project&PHPSESSID=b1db8e0c3a00cc89a5f074e95b396ef3]http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Press about th ...[/url] I see that the project is still quite active.
This would seem to knock cjcox's estimates into the weeds, but, he seems pretty close to reality in the possible development scenario.
These guys seem to have a viable development and marketing plan which seems to be moving on track, but, one can see that any final product is perhaps years off. Still, I think their will be a market if the final product is delivered at their projected price point. Maybe Tuxchick and I will get our FOSS card after all.
These guys seem to have a viable development and marketing plan which seems to be moving on track, but, one can see that any final product is perhaps years off. Still, I think their will be a market if the final product is delivered at their projected price point. Maybe Tuxchick and I will get our FOSS card after all.
jimf:
Intel seems to be working on graphics to compete with ATI and nVidia. They intend to release an open source driver.
Intel seems to be working on graphics to compete with ATI and nVidia. They intend to release an open source driver.
Hey grouch, at this point, something is needed to break the monopoly. ATI and NVidia treat Linux users as second class citizens... "No good drivers for Linux!". Intel GPL'd drivers and the above project could be the things that make or break Linux as a viable alternative to MS, without serious compromise of the GPL.
Intel, like the low end ATI boards are both examples of "ok" accelerated cards with open source drivers.
jimf, actually both Nvidia and ATI treat their Linux base pretty well. Definitely NOT as second class citizens. They have too many people dedicated to the Linux work on their cards. They just can never open source their drivers... for the reasons I mentioned.
Intel certainly has the ability to create a free-er card that performs competitively... they have something now.. just isn't for anything too strenuous.
jimf, actually both Nvidia and ATI treat their Linux base pretty well. Definitely NOT as second class citizens. They have too many people dedicated to the Linux work on their cards. They just can never open source their drivers... for the reasons I mentioned.
Intel certainly has the ability to create a free-er card that performs competitively... they have something now.. just isn't for anything too strenuous.
> actually both Nvidia and ATI treat their Linux base pretty well.
Nvidia does. I've known people to disagree with you about ATI.
Nvidia does. I've known people to disagree with you about ATI.
Well.. with regards to ATI... because of the way their driver works, I don't have to worry about nuking ATI's video driver everytime I do a kernel update. Perhaps that's just dumb luck. I've been told that the reason why the free radeon driver works (better than nv) is because ATI was a bit more open with information than Nvidia.
I like the performance of the Nvidia cards... and the support forums are excellent at nvnews.net. But I was somewhat impressed with the ease at which the ATI driver installs now. Maybe I was just fortunate in that regard.
I do hope that one/both open things up more with regards to Linux... but I seriously doubt it at this point.
I like the performance of the Nvidia cards... and the support forums are excellent at nvnews.net. But I was somewhat impressed with the ease at which the ATI driver installs now. Maybe I was just fortunate in that regard.
I do hope that one/both open things up more with regards to Linux... but I seriously doubt it at this point.
cjcox,
You 'were' just fortunate in that regard.
You 'were' just fortunate in that regard.
I've found that nvidia is more reliable, and their linux installer is dead easy. But it has also hosed my kernel more than once. I've never had any luck with ATI on any platform, all kinds of flakiness and instability. I wish my old 8 meg 3DFX were still usable, but it doesn't drive 19" monitors worth a darn. :( I don't need bleeding-edge gaming power, just 1280x1024 and Tuxkart. Is that so much to ask?
My ATI 8600 with 256mb has more than enough my 21"monitor @ 1600x1200, however getting it to run the ATI radeon driver at all is a royal pain and very iffy to set up. I would have abandoned it long ago except for the exceptional 2D performance for graphics and CAD.
If you are actually interested in putting your money where your mouth is, you should all take a look at the Open Graphics project, and its sponsoring company, "TechSource":
http://www.opengraphics.org/ http://www.techsource.com/
Their goal is to design a complete open hardware (and mostly free hardware) graphics card for Linux machines. They are not yet targeting higher end game applications, but this is precisely the type of movement we need to see, and if you care about software freedom in the future it will be worth your while to support them. I have no doubt these cards will be much more expensive for the same performance than proprietary cards with proprietary drivers -- but also much better performing than proprietary cards with no drivers!
Among other things, the site will let you sign a petition asserting how much you'd be willing to pay for such a card.
The project is progressing -- they have a schematic, which means they are moving on to board-level design.
http://www.opengraphics.org/ http://www.techsource.com/
Their goal is to design a complete open hardware (and mostly free hardware) graphics card for Linux machines. They are not yet targeting higher end game applications, but this is precisely the type of movement we need to see, and if you care about software freedom in the future it will be worth your while to support them. I have no doubt these cards will be much more expensive for the same performance than proprietary cards with proprietary drivers -- but also much better performing than proprietary cards with no drivers!
Among other things, the site will let you sign a petition asserting how much you'd be willing to pay for such a card.
The project is progressing -- they have a schematic, which means they are moving on to board-level design.
TerryH,
This was already discussed in the above thread. It's pretty far along, but I'd be surprised if there is product in less than a couple of years. It also appears that Tech Source grant its employees the right to do the project on their own time, but dropped official support.
This was already discussed in the above thread. It's pretty far along, but I'd be surprised if there is product in less than a couple of years. It also appears that Tech Source grant its employees the right to do the project on their own time, but dropped official support.
cjcox what are you talking about? nvidia works hard to win the business of their linux customers, and are responsive to tech support requests. Of course there is always room for improvement, but I don't see the logic in singling out the best and most linux friendly video card maker for criticism, when there are a number of vendors who stubbornly refuse to even admit the existence of a linux market.
Freespire is not Free
"we CLEARLY state on the Freespire website that we love OSS, and wish all software was OSS. No, because we believe in the freedom of individuals to choose whatever software they want."
It's easy enough to state, isn't it. Just like people who state "I love broccoli" but never eat it. The biggest problem in the computing world is the lack of choices, and I don't see where Freespire or Linspire address this. They're not providing any meaningful choices, just making it easier to use closed, proprietary stuff. We already have that choice in every Linux distribution.
If it weren't for Free Software, Microsoft would rule completely, and Linspire would not even exist, or have all that nice free-as-in-freeloader code to build their distribution around. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "It takes as much energy to plan as it does to wish." Wishing that all software was OSS doesn't get you there.
It may be that delivering a Linux crammed to the gills with closed, proprietary drivers and applications will increase the amount and quality of Free drivers and applications and win hordes of new users to FOSS. Taking market share away from Windows is difficult; it's well-established that the bulk of Linux growth has come at the expense of the old proprietary Unixes. Chances are FreeSpire will attract new users, especially the raised-on-Napster-and-Torrent-freeloader generation, but I sure don't see how it's going to encourage hardware and application vendors to go FOSS.
It's easy enough to state, isn't it. Just like people who state "I love broccoli" but never eat it. The biggest problem in the computing world is the lack of choices, and I don't see where Freespire or Linspire address this. They're not providing any meaningful choices, just making it easier to use closed, proprietary stuff. We already have that choice in every Linux distribution.
If it weren't for Free Software, Microsoft would rule completely, and Linspire would not even exist, or have all that nice free-as-in-freeloader code to build their distribution around. Eleanor Roosevelt said, "It takes as much energy to plan as it does to wish." Wishing that all software was OSS doesn't get you there.
It may be that delivering a Linux crammed to the gills with closed, proprietary drivers and applications will increase the amount and quality of Free drivers and applications and win hordes of new users to FOSS. Taking market share away from Windows is difficult; it's well-established that the bulk of Linux growth has come at the expense of the old proprietary Unixes. Chances are FreeSpire will attract new users, especially the raised-on-Napster-and-Torrent-freeloader generation, but I sure don't see how it's going to encourage hardware and application vendors to go FOSS.
tuxchick2: >"[...] but I sure don't see how it's going to encourage hardware and application vendors to go FOSS."
Especially since Linspire and Carmony go out of their way to promote closed drivers and discourage considering anything else.
Especially since Linspire and Carmony go out of their way to promote closed drivers and discourage considering anything else.
What the heck happened, anyway? Did I fall asleep and miss out on the emergence of the Rapacious Selfish Generation? I came of age in the 70s, when we had Earth Day, and automakers for the first time had to meet emission and fuel economy requirements, and it was generally agreed that pollution, running other people's lives, and selfishness and greed were bad. Now the hills are infested with McMansions and Humvees, our civil liberties and sane moral values are under attack from a thousand directions, and it's technology companies leading the charge. I can't even grumble "then darned kids", because I look around and it's my peers making a royal bollix of things. Insane patents, DRM, 24x7x365 surveillance, unprecedented intrusion into US citizen's private affairs, turning all businesses into branches of law enforcement, and our own private property, computers, are fair game for any commercial buttwipe who wishes to control them. I went to sleep in the US and woke up in Orwell.
What does this have to do with FreeLinSpire, you ask? Not much, they're just a symptom of how little "free as in freedom" is valued except to us cranky oldtimers who won't stop complaining.
And we still need to ask "who else is trying to mainstream desktop Linux?" I can't think of anyone besides Linspire.
What does this have to do with FreeLinSpire, you ask? Not much, they're just a symptom of how little "free as in freedom" is valued except to us cranky oldtimers who won't stop complaining.
And we still need to ask "who else is trying to mainstream desktop Linux?" I can't think of anyone besides Linspire.
tuxchick said:
Agree, Sure hasn't to this point.
Most people simply don't see FOSS,or the GPL, or Linux as an ethical issue, and even many that do let practicality override any absolute adherence to the principals. Education can alleviate some of that, but if we're expecting all to become zealots overnight, we're in for a lot of disappointment. I don't recommend proprietary Linux, I won't support it, but I can't condemn it either. Don is right, we need other FOSS options to lure the rest of the world our view of things. Just saying you shouldn't have a feature or option is no solution.
Quoting:I sure don't see how it's going to encourage hardware and application vendors to go FOSS
Agree, Sure hasn't to this point.
Most people simply don't see FOSS,or the GPL, or Linux as an ethical issue, and even many that do let practicality override any absolute adherence to the principals. Education can alleviate some of that, but if we're expecting all to become zealots overnight, we're in for a lot of disappointment. I don't recommend proprietary Linux, I won't support it, but I can't condemn it either. Don is right, we need other FOSS options to lure the rest of the world our view of things. Just saying you shouldn't have a feature or option is no solution.
jimf, I sure hate to see that word 'zealot' because its main use is to denigrate FOSS supporters. Yes, there are genuine zealots, but I don't see any of them here. There are a few over yonder in Redmond, who worship the dollar and political power above all else.
The GPL is eminently practical, and not just some lofty philosophy. Ethics and values have to serve a purpose, and in the case of the GPL the purpose is maximum protection of end users' rights, and protection of developer's skill and hard work. The success of Linux is living proof of the practical value of the GPL- we have this huge, healthy, creative software ecosystem that outperforms any other development model. Its transparency and openness protect us from the corporate-spyware-rootkits-DRM-control-end-users shenanigans that infest the Windows world. We are protected from vendor failure and obsolescence. We are protected from lockin and having our data held hostage.
Linspire is getting a knock because they appear to not understand any of this, or to care, and appear to be embracing closed-source crap unnecessarily and too eagerly. I still have mixed feelings- from a Free Software perspective, Linspire fails, and FreeSpire is a nice Newspeak name. But from the perspective of Windows, well, almost anything looks better.
The GPL is eminently practical, and not just some lofty philosophy. Ethics and values have to serve a purpose, and in the case of the GPL the purpose is maximum protection of end users' rights, and protection of developer's skill and hard work. The success of Linux is living proof of the practical value of the GPL- we have this huge, healthy, creative software ecosystem that outperforms any other development model. Its transparency and openness protect us from the corporate-spyware-rootkits-DRM-control-end-users shenanigans that infest the Windows world. We are protected from vendor failure and obsolescence. We are protected from lockin and having our data held hostage.
Linspire is getting a knock because they appear to not understand any of this, or to care, and appear to be embracing closed-source crap unnecessarily and too eagerly. I still have mixed feelings- from a Free Software perspective, Linspire fails, and FreeSpire is a nice Newspeak name. But from the perspective of Windows, well, almost anything looks better.
Quoting:I sure hate to see that word 'zealot'
Ok, substute 'followers', the point is still the same. You and I see the practicality, but obviously for whatever reasons, not everone does.
This seems to all come back to the fundamental differences between the "Free Software" community and the "Open Source" community. The good folks at Linspire appear to be doing something good for the community, but the question is which one? And is it at the detriment to the other?
It seems to me to be the "Open Source" community that is the beneficiary - and that is just fine. But the problem is in nomenclature: calling something "Freespire" introduces ambiguity in meaning between liberty and cost of ownership. I'm guessing this is not necesarily by design but by default. Nobody in the "Free Software" community thinks software necessarily has to be given away at no cost but insists that software be free in terms of liberty.
So just pick a different name, for goodness sake, and get on with it!
It seems to me to be the "Open Source" community that is the beneficiary - and that is just fine. But the problem is in nomenclature: calling something "Freespire" introduces ambiguity in meaning between liberty and cost of ownership. I'm guessing this is not necesarily by design but by default. Nobody in the "Free Software" community thinks software necessarily has to be given away at no cost but insists that software be free in terms of liberty.
So just pick a different name, for goodness sake, and get on with it!
> So just pick a different name, for goodness sake, and get on with it!
Free speech, free enterprise, free software. 'Nuff said. No need to change a thing. There is a need to change the perception by some that FOSS is akin to shareware (i.e., try-before-you-buy) though. Until we, in the US, adopt the word "libre" on a broad scale, people will just have to get used to the idea that "free" means more than merely gratis. :-)
Free speech, free enterprise, free software. 'Nuff said. No need to change a thing. There is a need to change the perception by some that FOSS is akin to shareware (i.e., try-before-you-buy) though. Until we, in the US, adopt the word "libre" on a broad scale, people will just have to get used to the idea that "free" means more than merely gratis. :-)
> Free speech, free enterprise, free software. 'Nuff said. No need to change a thing.
I guess I did a poor job of making my point earlier ... I think there IS a need to ask for change. The name "Freespire" connotes an association with Free software (as in Free speech) simultaneously with free software (as in free beer). I think this is misleading the public and it disrespects the position of the Free software community.
So go ahead, Linspire, and create a Gratis distribution that blends Free and Proprietary code. I see nothing wrong with this. But please, just don't call it "Freespire" when it will most definitely contain code that is not "Free" even though it will be given away freely.
Maybe "Gratispire" or "Openspire" would work?
I guess I did a poor job of making my point earlier ... I think there IS a need to ask for change. The name "Freespire" connotes an association with Free software (as in Free speech) simultaneously with free software (as in free beer). I think this is misleading the public and it disrespects the position of the Free software community.
So go ahead, Linspire, and create a Gratis distribution that blends Free and Proprietary code. I see nothing wrong with this. But please, just don't call it "Freespire" when it will most definitely contain code that is not "Free" even though it will be given away freely.
Maybe "Gratispire" or "Openspire" would work?
> Maybe "Gratispire" or "Openspire" would work?
Cathedral Spire might be more appropriate ;->
Cathedral Spire might be more appropriate ;->
> The name "Freespire" connotes an association with Free software (as in Free speech) simultaneously with free software (as in free beer). I think this is misleading the public and it disrespects the position of the Free software community.
O.k., I'm on board with you now. Thanks for clearing that up. ;-)
O.k., I'm on board with you now. Thanks for clearing that up. ;-)
So, my question is this: Is the LINUX movement all about adopting free software , or is it about developing a new operating system alternative to Windows?
I understand in every way tuxchick2's angst. BUT, what is the ultimate goal? Displace Microsoft? Offer a reasonable alternative OS? Increase market share? Make the world a better place?
Or, just provide a toy for hobbyists? I mean, I really would like to replace my friends crappy machines with Linux or OS X. Apparently, that's not a very common position.
I understand in every way tuxchick2's angst. BUT, what is the ultimate goal? Displace Microsoft? Offer a reasonable alternative OS? Increase market share? Make the world a better place?
Or, just provide a toy for hobbyists? I mean, I really would like to replace my friends crappy machines with Linux or OS X. Apparently, that's not a very common position.
See http://www.gnu.org and specifically http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
The purpose is to provide a free operating system, with free defined by:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The purpose is to provide a free operating system, with free defined by:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> Is the LINUX movement all about adopting free software , or is it about developing a new operating system alternative to Windows?
Linux never created Linux to be an alternative to Microsoft. It was intended to be a free version of Unix. Most of the other kernel hackers seem to share that view. Success may have changed some peoples views, but I think that's largely still true.
> BUT, what is the ultimate goal? Displace Microsoft? Offer a reasonable alternative OS? Increase market share? Make the world a better place?
You'll get different answers from different people, though I suspect all will agree with number 2 and number 4. For number 1, see above. Number 3: Most Linux folks don't really care about market share, if Linux meets their needs that's good enough. They want Linux to be a good operating system. If it displaces Microsoft (which most of us do NOT view as producing a good operating system), that's icing on the cake.
Linux never created Linux to be an alternative to Microsoft. It was intended to be a free version of Unix. Most of the other kernel hackers seem to share that view. Success may have changed some peoples views, but I think that's largely still true.
> BUT, what is the ultimate goal? Displace Microsoft? Offer a reasonable alternative OS? Increase market share? Make the world a better place?
You'll get different answers from different people, though I suspect all will agree with number 2 and number 4. For number 1, see above. Number 3: Most Linux folks don't really care about market share, if Linux meets their needs that's good enough. They want Linux to be a good operating system. If it displaces Microsoft (which most of us do NOT view as producing a good operating system), that's icing on the cake.
jdixon -
On the other hand, has Linus stopped claiming world domination as a goal?
On the other hand, has Linus stopped claiming world domination as a goal?
dinotrac:
> On the other hand, has Linus stopped claiming world domination as a goal?
World Domination and displacing Microsoft are not the same goal. The first may involve the second, but it's not a necessity that it do so.
> On the other hand, has Linus stopped claiming world domination as a goal?
World Domination and displacing Microsoft are not the same goal. The first may involve the second, but it's not a necessity that it do so.
head 'em off at the pass
67 earlier comments in the full thread.
>> dcparris: I'll admit that _anything_ beats Windows.
I've got a few SCO boxes I'd like you to administer... ;)
I've got a few SCO boxes I'd like you to administer... ;)
> sbergman27: When one gives a Windows box to a friend of family member, it is always assumed that there is a "kid down the street" that "knows about computers".
hah *wipes tear from eye*
So who do they go to when the kid down the street turns their shiny new box into a very expensive paper weight? I've seen enough of those come through working tech on machines for people that "have this friend...".
The best story was when someone hired a "kid in highschool" to build computers at a new reseller outfit. He screwed the board directly to the case and couldn't figure out why it wasn't working.
Point is, people do scary things to machines when they don't have a firm grasp of how they operate. I've seen nothing to suggest to me that competence runs hand in hand with claiming knowledge of Windows. Many of my Windows related service calls had a "kid down the street" as the culprit. They're a very expensive source of aid.
hah *wipes tear from eye*
So who do they go to when the kid down the street turns their shiny new box into a very expensive paper weight? I've seen enough of those come through working tech on machines for people that "have this friend...".
The best story was when someone hired a "kid in highschool" to build computers at a new reseller outfit. He screwed the board directly to the case and couldn't figure out why it wasn't working.
Point is, people do scary things to machines when they don't have a firm grasp of how they operate. I've seen nothing to suggest to me that competence runs hand in hand with claiming knowledge of Windows. Many of my Windows related service calls had a "kid down the street" as the culprit. They're a very expensive source of aid.
jimf: >"I have a friend that I've been trying to get on Linux. The guy is one of the most ethical people I know, but he is a musician and currently has tools to create on win98. The equivalent tools simply don't exist in Linux (believe me, I've really looked). I'm therefore in the position of telling him to (1. stop creating music, or (2. use his fingernails... not very convincing arguments even if he would otherwise love to use Linux."
I don't understand how this fits in with the criticism of Linspire selling closed drivers as a value-add to Linux, and Linspire's claim that such drivers are necessary for Linux to be usable.
Would Rosegarden fit his needs? http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
It had a really good review on O'Reilly's linuxdevcenter back in December, 2004. I'm pretty sure the developers haven't sat still in that time. http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/16/rosegar...
It may be that there is no free software that fits his needs, yet. Just in case, have you checked at http://www.linux-sound.org
I don't understand how this fits in with the criticism of Linspire selling closed drivers as a value-add to Linux, and Linspire's claim that such drivers are necessary for Linux to be usable.
Would Rosegarden fit his needs? http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
It had a really good review on O'Reilly's linuxdevcenter back in December, 2004. I'm pretty sure the developers haven't sat still in that time. http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/16/rosegar...
It may be that there is no free software that fits his needs, yet. Just in case, have you checked at http://www.linux-sound.org
grouch,
The point is that when you need a tool to do a job, the fact that the tool is proprietary or FOSS is secondary to the existence of an adequate tool. Offering proprietary solutions may be the only way to do things. But I agree that Linspire should be more honest and precise in describing proprietary apps and drivers. 'May not work for purpose' may be correct. 'necessary for Linux to be usable', is not. I don't necessarily agree that they 'shouldn't' supply them.
Yes, I have checked all those sources, and, continue to do so. We also keep testing different sound oriented Distros. Sooner or later we'll get it :).
The point is that when you need a tool to do a job, the fact that the tool is proprietary or FOSS is secondary to the existence of an adequate tool. Offering proprietary solutions may be the only way to do things. But I agree that Linspire should be more honest and precise in describing proprietary apps and drivers. 'May not work for purpose' may be correct. 'necessary for Linux to be usable', is not. I don't necessarily agree that they 'shouldn't' supply them.
Yes, I have checked all those sources, and, continue to do so. We also keep testing different sound oriented Distros. Sooner or later we'll get it :).
Grouch:
I think you forgot about my statements that I would neither use nor recommend Linspire included in my admitly feeble attempts to defend them.
I will grant that you are correct and that Linspire has made public statements of... hmm, let's say less than sterling veracity, concerning the necessity for closed source drivers and programs, the usability of other distributions, and the necessity for their CNR service. I agree that they should be publicly criticized for such behavior, and attempts should be made to publicize the true facts.
That said, I still don't think Linspire's actions are a signifcant problem. Everyone expects corporations to lie and/or make exaggerated claims (it's called advertising, and most of us have learned to recognize and ignore it). As long as the truth is readily available to those who try to find it, and Linspire doesn't violate the GPL by their actions, I don't have a problem with them marketing their distribution or with users who choose to use it. As I've noted before on other threads, freedom is a wonderful thing.
I simply see no reason to choose Linsipre when you can simply use Debian and get almost all the software Linspire is charging you to access via their CNR service for free (and almost as easily with Synaptic). As far as I can tell, Linspire does not offer a compelling enough service to justify their cost. But then again, I'm not a new Windows convert, who's never used a real OS before. Linspire may know their market better than I do.
I think you forgot about my statements that I would neither use nor recommend Linspire included in my admitly feeble attempts to defend them.
I will grant that you are correct and that Linspire has made public statements of... hmm, let's say less than sterling veracity, concerning the necessity for closed source drivers and programs, the usability of other distributions, and the necessity for their CNR service. I agree that they should be publicly criticized for such behavior, and attempts should be made to publicize the true facts.
That said, I still don't think Linspire's actions are a signifcant problem. Everyone expects corporations to lie and/or make exaggerated claims (it's called advertising, and most of us have learned to recognize and ignore it). As long as the truth is readily available to those who try to find it, and Linspire doesn't violate the GPL by their actions, I don't have a problem with them marketing their distribution or with users who choose to use it. As I've noted before on other threads, freedom is a wonderful thing.
I simply see no reason to choose Linsipre when you can simply use Debian and get almost all the software Linspire is charging you to access via their CNR service for free (and almost as easily with Synaptic). As far as I can tell, Linspire does not offer a compelling enough service to justify their cost. But then again, I'm not a new Windows convert, who's never used a real OS before. Linspire may know their market better than I do.
> I've got a few SCO boxes I'd like you to administer... ;)
At least UNIXWare ain't Windows. :p
At least UNIXWare ain't Windows. :p
jdixon: >"I think you forgot about my statements that I would neither use nor recommend Linspire included in my admitly feeble attempts to defend them."
Nope, didn't forget. I've never seen a need to recommend it nor do I use it, either. Those are our personal opinions, which just happen to coincide, and while they may be the result of examining Linspire's offerings and/or means of offering, we could each only offer evidence of why we have those opinions. I can't offer evidence that shows my opinion is the only correct one.
I can offer evidence, and have, that Linspire's actions with respect to closed drivers is counter to statements by the kernel developers, that some of Linspire's statements in their "Letter" and their "FAQ" are false, that other distributions have assisted in getting hardware vendors to open their drivers, and that promoting a dependency on closed hardware drivers can cause problems for all users of Linux.
>"Everyone expects corporations to lie and/or make exaggerated claims (it's called advertising, and most of us have learned to recognize and ignore it)."
I'll agree to the "exaggerated claims", but not the "lie" part. I think businesses should be held to account for deliberate falsehoods. When they make 'em, point 'em out. In this case, there is room for, and has been, debate about whether Linspire deliberately misinforms potential customers. I'll stand on what I've presented as evidence that they do.
Nope, didn't forget. I've never seen a need to recommend it nor do I use it, either. Those are our personal opinions, which just happen to coincide, and while they may be the result of examining Linspire's offerings and/or means of offering, we could each only offer evidence of why we have those opinions. I can't offer evidence that shows my opinion is the only correct one.
I can offer evidence, and have, that Linspire's actions with respect to closed drivers is counter to statements by the kernel developers, that some of Linspire's statements in their "Letter" and their "FAQ" are false, that other distributions have assisted in getting hardware vendors to open their drivers, and that promoting a dependency on closed hardware drivers can cause problems for all users of Linux.
>"Everyone expects corporations to lie and/or make exaggerated claims (it's called advertising, and most of us have learned to recognize and ignore it)."
I'll agree to the "exaggerated claims", but not the "lie" part. I think businesses should be held to account for deliberate falsehoods. When they make 'em, point 'em out. In this case, there is room for, and has been, debate about whether Linspire deliberately misinforms potential customers. I'll stand on what I've presented as evidence that they do.
jimf: >"[...] Offering proprietary solutions may be the only way to do things. [...] I don't necessarily agree that they 'shouldn't' supply them."
(Hope the context is not too mangled with the snips).
I don't remember anyone arguing that Linspire shouldn't supply the closed drivers. It's the dishonest way they do it that carries so much potential harm. Customers believing the misinformation reinforce the dependency and reduce the pressure on manufacturers.
Look at it this way:
I can't tell if you need some closed software for some unknown problem, just as you can't tell if I need one. It would be amazingly stupid of me to claim that you nor anyone else ever needs closed software for anything. IMO, it would also be amazingly stupid of me to tell you that freedom doesn't matter.
If I tell you that I will supply you with nVidia drivers, that you can't use Linux without them, that I'm uniquely able to supply them, and that others offering Linux will lock you in and make it too difficult for you to install such drivers that make Linux usable, would you consider me helpful to free software in general and Linux in particular? Hurtful? Would you consider my pitch to be hypocrisy?
From your comment that "I agree that Linspire should be more honest and precise in describing proprietary apps and drivers", I think I know your answers to those questions. I just think businesses should not be allowed to get away with things that we would not tolerate in individuals.
>"Yes, I have checked all those sources, and, continue to do so. We also keep testing different sound oriented Distros. Sooner or later we'll get it :)."
I wish you (and him) well in that search. He'll probably have some relief when you find something to get him off W98.
Did you notice that commercial LiveCD at http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/getting/ ? Following their link to http://www.ferventsoftware.com/ shows Fervent has a 'Studio to Go!' demo disk available. (Note one of their FAQ's is "Do you comply with the GPL?").
(Hope the context is not too mangled with the snips).
I don't remember anyone arguing that Linspire shouldn't supply the closed drivers. It's the dishonest way they do it that carries so much potential harm. Customers believing the misinformation reinforce the dependency and reduce the pressure on manufacturers.
Look at it this way:
I can't tell if you need some closed software for some unknown problem, just as you can't tell if I need one. It would be amazingly stupid of me to claim that you nor anyone else ever needs closed software for anything. IMO, it would also be amazingly stupid of me to tell you that freedom doesn't matter.
If I tell you that I will supply you with nVidia drivers, that you can't use Linux without them, that I'm uniquely able to supply them, and that others offering Linux will lock you in and make it too difficult for you to install such drivers that make Linux usable, would you consider me helpful to free software in general and Linux in particular? Hurtful? Would you consider my pitch to be hypocrisy?
From your comment that "I agree that Linspire should be more honest and precise in describing proprietary apps and drivers", I think I know your answers to those questions. I just think businesses should not be allowed to get away with things that we would not tolerate in individuals.
>"Yes, I have checked all those sources, and, continue to do so. We also keep testing different sound oriented Distros. Sooner or later we'll get it :)."
I wish you (and him) well in that search. He'll probably have some relief when you find something to get him off W98.
Did you notice that commercial LiveCD at http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/getting/ ? Following their link to http://www.ferventsoftware.com/ shows Fervent has a 'Studio to Go!' demo disk available. (Note one of their FAQ's is "Do you comply with the GPL?").
> How many people do you support who use Linux?.....
> Presently and on a daily basis?
> 37
> And how many do you support without pay?
> Presently and on a daily basis?
> 37
We've gotta help this guy. I'm not sure how. But we need to help him! :-)
> Presently and on a daily basis?
> 37
> And how many do you support without pay?
> Presently and on a daily basis?
> 37
We've gotta help this guy. I'm not sure how. But we need to help him! :-)
> I wish you (and him) well in that search. He'll probably have some relief when you find something to get him off W98.
It would not occur to anyone here that he might actually be better off with Windows. Not saying that he would be. Just that no one here would consider the possibility. Since Linux is "Teh Best (tm)".
I've spent many, many, many hours beating my head against the wall trying to figure out a way to get people off Windows. Then a really revolutionary idea hit me. When I think they are better of with Windows, because it can do this and this and this for them and Linux can't... just acknowledge it, and wait until that's not true anymore.
It's done wonders for my sleep.
It would not occur to anyone here that he might actually be better off with Windows. Not saying that he would be. Just that no one here would consider the possibility. Since Linux is "Teh Best (tm)".
I've spent many, many, many hours beating my head against the wall trying to figure out a way to get people off Windows. Then a really revolutionary idea hit me. When I think they are better of with Windows, because it can do this and this and this for them and Linux can't... just acknowledge it, and wait until that's not true anymore.
It's done wonders for my sleep.
Steve --
I can't imagine that he would be better off with Windows. The most serious (as in they get paid and everything) musicians I know use Macs.
Of course, that might just be a matter of taste.
I can't imagine that he would be better off with Windows. The most serious (as in they get paid and everything) musicians I know use Macs.
Of course, that might just be a matter of taste.
I know. I've been doing web development using Python and TurboGears these days. It's great. I used to think that Mac fans didn't know a command line from a punch line. But I've spent more time delving into the man pages trying to figure out what these Mac guys are talking about than I care to admit. BTW, did I mention that TurboGears is Great?
sbergman27:
> It would not occur to anyone here that he might actually be better off with Windows.
OK, for the application in question, he's undoubtably better off with Windows. Satisfied?
Now, for a general purpose machine connected to the Internet, he's not better off with Windows. So, in a case like this, use Windows for the applications where it's necessary and get another computer to use for Internet and general purpose use.
> It would not occur to anyone here that he might actually be better off with Windows.
OK, for the application in question, he's undoubtably better off with Windows. Satisfied?
Now, for a general purpose machine connected to the Internet, he's not better off with Windows. So, in a case like this, use Windows for the applications where it's necessary and get another computer to use for Internet and general purpose use.
Grouch:
> I'll agree to the "exaggerated claims", but not the "lie" part.
There's a fine line between exaggerating claims and lying. Reasonable people can disagree about when the line has been crossed. I think that reasonable people will agree that the majority of companies cross that line in their advertising at one time or another. Thus, I conclude that most reasonable people expect companies to lie in their advertising.
That's not saying that they do so all the time, or even that all companies do it, merely that given the quantity of advertising encountered by the average person, a significant quantity of it is going to be lies, and that a reasonable person expects this to be the case.
> I'll agree to the "exaggerated claims", but not the "lie" part.
There's a fine line between exaggerating claims and lying. Reasonable people can disagree about when the line has been crossed. I think that reasonable people will agree that the majority of companies cross that line in their advertising at one time or another. Thus, I conclude that most reasonable people expect companies to lie in their advertising.
That's not saying that they do so all the time, or even that all companies do it, merely that given the quantity of advertising encountered by the average person, a significant quantity of it is going to be lies, and that a reasonable person expects this to be the case.
dino,
>Macs.
Mac is hardly a friend of FOSS. They may treat their customers better, but IMO they are not much better than MS as a company. Linspire looks like a model citizen compared to those guys, but, I still wouldn't recomend any of them.
>Macs.
Mac is hardly a friend of FOSS. They may treat their customers better, but IMO they are not much better than MS as a company. Linspire looks like a model citizen compared to those guys, but, I still wouldn't recomend any of them.
Jimf -
Didn't mean to claim that Apple is a friend of FOSS, merely that musicians (and/or graphical artists, and/or video editors) are probably better off with Macs than with Windows. When it's your living, you've got to get the job done.
Didn't mean to claim that Apple is a friend of FOSS, merely that musicians (and/or graphical artists, and/or video editors) are probably better off with Macs than with Windows. When it's your living, you've got to get the job done.
jdixon -
The practice of a certain kind of lying is so common in sales, it even has a legal name: puffery.
It's hard to define precisely what puffery is, but it more or less encompasses the fact that reasonable people expect salesmen to stretch the truth. For example, do you really believe that coloring the grey in your hair is suddenly going to make you a hot item with the young hotties, or that a certain suit/dress/coat really does look absolutely fabulous on you? That a wireless company keeps you so plugged in that you can spend your workdays dancing to loud music in your office?
The practice of a certain kind of lying is so common in sales, it even has a legal name: puffery.
It's hard to define precisely what puffery is, but it more or less encompasses the fact that reasonable people expect salesmen to stretch the truth. For example, do you really believe that coloring the grey in your hair is suddenly going to make you a hot item with the young hotties, or that a certain suit/dress/coat really does look absolutely fabulous on you? That a wireless company keeps you so plugged in that you can spend your workdays dancing to loud music in your office?
> OK, for the application in question, he's undoubtably better off with Windows. Satisfied?
I can believe it. But I don't think "satisfied" is the word I'd use. Applications availability is the scourge of my conversion plans for people. If they need some software to help them unk their woodgets but it needs to support blotting you can bet it's available for Windows and "Unk Your Woodgets Now! for Windows (With blotting)" is probably about $29.95. More likely, they already have a copy that they bought when they got their Windows 95 machine that they want you to move over for them. If you look hard enough, there's probably a program called SpLatCh 0.12 alpha that does some of the same stuff in Tcl/Tk.
I can believe it. But I don't think "satisfied" is the word I'd use. Applications availability is the scourge of my conversion plans for people. If they need some software to help them unk their woodgets but it needs to support blotting you can bet it's available for Windows and "Unk Your Woodgets Now! for Windows (With blotting)" is probably about $29.95. More likely, they already have a copy that they bought when they got their Windows 95 machine that they want you to move over for them. If you look hard enough, there's probably a program called SpLatCh 0.12 alpha that does some of the same stuff in Tcl/Tk.
Quoting:Applications availability is the scourge of my conversion plans for people.
It's bad enough with individuals but when it comes to enterprises, the problem is staggering. There are lots of companies that would switch to Open Source if they could have their core apps - even if they have to move to a whole new core app - and would even pay the 5 - 500K it would cost to do it.
Whole industries are being convinced that Linux is the way to go but are then being told "unfortunately, there's nothing available for you".
Probably the worst part about it is those core apps all existed in various forms of Unix years ago but that was all dropped because enterprises were convinced that Windows was the way to go.
> It's bad enough with individuals but when it comes to enterprises, the problem is staggering.
Yep. And that's why these bridges like VMWare, Xen, CXOffice, Samba, closed source modules, (and someday, perhaps Mono) are so critical.
Yep. And that's why these bridges like VMWare, Xen, CXOffice, Samba, closed source modules, (and someday, perhaps Mono) are so critical.
Untitled
Quote FTA: "in ten years of holding out, the FOSS community has made relatively few gains"
I, ah, I honestly don't know how to respond to that one. After having just read the BSD maintainer Theo's take on the driver issue (totally unrelated to Freespire) and reading him say that most vendors like the proposition of having someone else maintain their drivers (with the exception of video card vendors, due to some rather finicky reasoning on their part) I'm kinda shocked at this statement.
I don't know weather it's biased or just deceptive.
Check out Theo's interview for a nice conversation on the driver situation over at Kerneltrap.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550
Am I drawing the wrong conclusions here?
I, ah, I honestly don't know how to respond to that one. After having just read the BSD maintainer Theo's take on the driver issue (totally unrelated to Freespire) and reading him say that most vendors like the proposition of having someone else maintain their drivers (with the exception of video card vendors, due to some rather finicky reasoning on their part) I'm kinda shocked at this statement.
I don't know weather it's biased or just deceptive.
Check out Theo's interview for a nice conversation on the driver situation over at Kerneltrap.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/6550
Am I drawing the wrong conclusions here?
Well, ask yourself if ATI or NVidia (a.k.a., Nvidious) or a number of other major vendors support, let alone supply, FOSS drivers and codecs. We have made gains, but we seem to be waiting on ATI or NVidia to deliver the golden desktop era to us on a silver platter. A large number of other vendors supply only binary drivers, if any at all. We have much to accomplish as a community. HTH.
I suspect that only one thing will change the situation:
A company coming up with fully competitive hardware that opens up its specs so that driver development is effectively outsourced.
At that point, market economics will do their work.
A company coming up with fully competitive hardware that opens up its specs so that driver development is effectively outsourced.
At that point, market economics will do their work.
Baloney FOSS has not made gains. Compare what you can do today with Linux with what you could do five years ago. I'm getting tired of Linspire's misinformation.
ATI and nVidia are perfect examples of what happens when users embrace closed platforms- the others die and we're stuck with no choices.
ATI and nVidia are perfect examples of what happens when users embrace closed platforms- the others die and we're stuck with no choices.
try kororaa xgl live cd:
http://kororaa.org/static.php?page=static060318-181203
Although it is only beta at version 0.2 it is amazing.
Some screen resolutions are not supported too wel yet. try dropping to a terminal ( ctrl + alt + F1 ) and entering 'fixme' at the command line if you have problems.
Its only at v 0.2, but looks to be very nice and stable already.
You can show your windows using friends some of the 3-d features that Vista will give them in 2007 on high end systems with this live cd right now on their older computers!
Although it is only beta at version 0.2 it is amazing.
Some screen resolutions are not supported too wel yet. try dropping to a terminal ( ctrl + alt + F1 ) and entering 'fixme' at the command line if you have problems.
Its only at v 0.2, but looks to be very nice and stable already.
You can show your windows using friends some of the 3-d features that Vista will give them in 2007 on high end systems with this live cd right now on their older computers!
nVidia and ATI are good examples of holdouts in releasing GPL drivers or solid specs on their products to work (but only in 3D) in Xorg. I see them as being a bit of an exception though. Personally, except for some dated multiport serial card adaptors and one of the bleeding edge wifi cards I haven't had to use any out-of-kernel drivers in the past few years.
That means I'm supporting roughly 30 devices with Open Source drivers on my two testing desktops alone.
The availability of those two proprietary 3D video drivers is pretty important, and I agree having them in the release is handy. However, I take exception to the statement that the number of devices that use binary drivers is large and GPL/BSD drivers haven't made headway. I've seen the same thing Theo de Raadt was talking about with the number of binary drivers that have opened or been worked around increasing.
Especially with the Taiwanese vendors (such as RealTek) there's a tendency to supply whatever goods/information is necessary for the kernel maintainers to do their job.
So without any detailed list to back it up, I've been under the impression that open source, particularly GPL, drivers have been making gains by leaps and bounds.
Although with many vendors it does take a lot of convincing to get them to capitulate. I just see a lot of progress as being made in the last ten years from my vantage point, although pressure needs to be continuously applied, the situation seems to be improving. I've been wrong before though, I just hope I'm not now ;).
That means I'm supporting roughly 30 devices with Open Source drivers on my two testing desktops alone.
The availability of those two proprietary 3D video drivers is pretty important, and I agree having them in the release is handy. However, I take exception to the statement that the number of devices that use binary drivers is large and GPL/BSD drivers haven't made headway. I've seen the same thing Theo de Raadt was talking about with the number of binary drivers that have opened or been worked around increasing.
Especially with the Taiwanese vendors (such as RealTek) there's a tendency to supply whatever goods/information is necessary for the kernel maintainers to do their job.
So without any detailed list to back it up, I've been under the impression that open source, particularly GPL, drivers have been making gains by leaps and bounds.
Although with many vendors it does take a lot of convincing to get them to capitulate. I just see a lot of progress as being made in the last ten years from my vantage point, although pressure needs to be continuously applied, the situation seems to be improving. I've been wrong before though, I just hope I'm not now ;).
> Baloney FOSS has not made gains. Compare what you can do today with Linux with what you could do five years ago. I'm getting tired of Linspire's misinformation.
I did not say - nor did Carmony, for that matter - that FOSS has not made gains. Rather, both of us are saying that we are not realizing the gains we seek. We've obviously made _some_ gains, but not to the extent that all the major manufacturers are bending over backwards to give us their GPL'ed drivers. Why all the ballyhooing over ATI, NVidia and others, if we're making such tremendous strides?
Tuxchick, I generally agree with you on most issues. I hope you understand that just because I agree with one aspect - that we have only gained so much - don't take that as me defending Carmony and Linspire in general. Perhaps where ATI, NVidia, et. al., are concerned, we could try a different approach.
I did not say - nor did Carmony, for that matter - that FOSS has not made gains. Rather, both of us are saying that we are not realizing the gains we seek. We've obviously made _some_ gains, but not to the extent that all the major manufacturers are bending over backwards to give us their GPL'ed drivers. Why all the ballyhooing over ATI, NVidia and others, if we're making such tremendous strides?
Tuxchick, I generally agree with you on most issues. I hope you understand that just because I agree with one aspect - that we have only gained so much - don't take that as me defending Carmony and Linspire in general. Perhaps where ATI, NVidia, et. al., are concerned, we could try a different approach.
Carmody or Carmony?
I'm definitely not Linspire/Freespire's target audience (and I won't be introducing any of my friends to it either!)
In 1996 after having a confusing time installing Linux for the first time I was disappointed to find my video chipset was not supported by X-windows and after feeling humbled by my unsuccessful attempts to instantly understand the cli ...... Linux was wiped off my HD.
I tried again 18 months later using hardware supported by Linux and though I still struggled with the install, I did get X-windows running. My ultimate reward was finding my computer now ran 24/7, had virtual desktops that could run many programs simultaneously and browsing the internet with "many" widows open (reading and searching while others were loading in the background) made the slow dial up speeds seem bearable.
IMHO Linux is now incredibly easy to install and use (and more importantly remains a powerful, stable and secure OS). Several friends who lost all their data because of some virulent Windows malware are now using Linux without any difficulty. The other advantage for them is they never lose any data or personal settings when I (easily) upgrade their Linux setups.
GNU/Linux developers have contributed to make the best OS they can. Would I (or any Linux user/developer) risk security and stability for drivers by proprietary manufacturer (who don't have the same dedication or commitment to the Linux community) because "current Windows users expect" it?? NO!
FWIW many Windows users who ask me about Linux are really looking for a free version of Windows. Does Linspire really think they can play Pied Piper by throwing in some codec's and binary drivers??
In 1996 after having a confusing time installing Linux for the first time I was disappointed to find my video chipset was not supported by X-windows and after feeling humbled by my unsuccessful attempts to instantly understand the cli ...... Linux was wiped off my HD.
I tried again 18 months later using hardware supported by Linux and though I still struggled with the install, I did get X-windows running. My ultimate reward was finding my computer now ran 24/7, had virtual desktops that could run many programs simultaneously and browsing the internet with "many" widows open (reading and searching while others were loading in the background) made the slow dial up speeds seem bearable.
IMHO Linux is now incredibly easy to install and use (and more importantly remains a powerful, stable and secure OS). Several friends who lost all their data because of some virulent Windows malware are now using Linux without any difficulty. The other advantage for them is they never lose any data or personal settings when I (easily) upgrade their Linux setups.
GNU/Linux developers have contributed to make the best OS they can. Would I (or any Linux user/developer) risk security and stability for drivers by proprietary manufacturer (who don't have the same dedication or commitment to the Linux community) because "current Windows users expect" it?? NO!
FWIW many Windows users who ask me about Linux are really looking for a free version of Windows. Does Linspire really think they can play Pied Piper by throwing in some codec's and binary drivers??
Hear hear!!!
View from a different perspective
2 earlier comments in the full thread.
Yeah, I suck at talking people into stuff! Thank God I didn't go into Marketing!!
Don't feel bad.
All you've really got to do is run into someone who uses Quickbooks and an accountant.
Sigh.
All you've really got to do is run into someone who uses Quickbooks and an accountant.
Sigh.
GNUCash and sql-ledger
I haven't found a reasonably modern machine yet that Knoppix or Mepis or Damn Small Linux wouldn't "just work" on.
I haven't found a reasonably modern machine yet that Knoppix or Mepis or Damn Small Linux wouldn't "just work" on.
I officially pronounce this "Linux on the desktop is teh suck except when it is bundled with megabytes of non-free closed-source binaries" the new strawman, and furthermore I pronounce it an organized campaign, aided and abetted by NotVeryFreeSpire. There are many, many, many users for whom even a 100% Free distribution would work perfectly well. Dragging in all this it-won't-play-my-DRM-disks or play nice with my iPod (which by design is incompatible, duh!) is pure FUD and propaganda. For shame!
grouch -
I don't think you were paying attention.
Quickbooks and an accountant.
Presuming I could interest my buddy across the street to move his business accounting onto GNUCash, I would then need to convince him to change accountants.
I don't think you were paying attention.
Quickbooks and an accountant.
Presuming I could interest my buddy across the street to move his business accounting onto GNUCash, I would then need to convince him to change accountants.
dinotrac:
I was paying attention. Last time I looked, GNUCash imports Quickbooks files. The drawback to sql-ledger is that it is such a complete double-entry accounting system that it overwhelms 'mom-and-pop' shops. Each generates reports that even the most stubborn accountant can utilize.
I was paying attention. Last time I looked, GNUCash imports Quickbooks files. The drawback to sql-ledger is that it is such a complete double-entry accounting system that it overwhelms 'mom-and-pop' shops. Each generates reports that even the most stubborn accountant can utilize.
grouch -
The problem has nothing to do with what GNUCash imports. My friend can swap files back and forth with his accountant (and, BTW -- he uses a part-time book-keeper who is familiar with Quickbooks rather than do the data entry himself).
The problem has nothing to do with what GNUCash imports. My friend can swap files back and forth with his accountant (and, BTW -- he uses a part-time book-keeper who is familiar with Quickbooks rather than do the data entry himself).
dinotrac:
Ah, then your previous statement, "[a]ll you've really got to do is run into someone who uses Quickbooks and an accountant" really meant someone who is unwilling to give up the familiarity of Quickbooks for something free, regardless of the benefits of the free software. That's different. If they don't see the benefits out-weighing the risks and the learning period, there's not much you can do beyond the explanation and the offer.
Ah, then your previous statement, "[a]ll you've really got to do is run into someone who uses Quickbooks and an accountant" really meant someone who is unwilling to give up the familiarity of Quickbooks for something free, regardless of the benefits of the free software. That's different. If they don't see the benefits out-weighing the risks and the learning period, there's not much you can do beyond the explanation and the offer.
> I have been testing various Linux distributions for years, and have not been able to convert one single person to Linux.
Well, I can't claim to have helped hundreds either. Still, I have helped at least two families directly, and helped some of my co-workers discover the beauty of GNU/Linux. There is now a movement within the company to move toward FOSS solutions, but it will come slowly - veeeerrrryyyy slowly. Ironically, thanks to my efforts, most of the IT staff I deal with regularly are now running Macs. Well, at least they're off of Windows. ;-)
Well, I can't claim to have helped hundreds either. Still, I have helped at least two families directly, and helped some of my co-workers discover the beauty of GNU/Linux. There is now a movement within the company to move toward FOSS solutions, but it will come slowly - veeeerrrryyyy slowly. Ironically, thanks to my efforts, most of the IT staff I deal with regularly are now running Macs. Well, at least they're off of Windows. ;-)
grouch:
No. It's somebody who has a good working relationship with his accountant. Good working relationships are not an evil concept, and, I would argue, outweigh (for him) the difference between free and non-free software.
Now --
Strike out the accountant...and maybe things change.
No. It's somebody who has a good working relationship with his accountant. Good working relationships are not an evil concept, and, I would argue, outweigh (for him) the difference between free and non-free software.
Now --
Strike out the accountant...and maybe things change.
dinotrac: >"No. It's somebody who has a good working relationship with his accountant. Good working relationships are not an evil concept, and, I would argue, outweigh (for him) the difference between free and non-free software."
I did not say good working relationships are an evil concept. I would argue with you that it is up to him to decide the balance of risk, cost and benefits. For me, free software weighs heavily on the balance because I have piles of expensive abandonware and have spent far too many years digging out of dependency holes.
There was one business I never managed to get out of one hole. It was swallowed by a bigger one before the last dependency was removed. That dependency was a continuous risk to them as the software involved had been abandoned by the vendor many years ago. It was propped up with bandaids and duct tape while being called on to handle more data than it was designed to deal with.
Free software doesn't just make philosophical sense. It makes real business sense, with real dollars involved, as well.
I did not say good working relationships are an evil concept. I would argue with you that it is up to him to decide the balance of risk, cost and benefits. For me, free software weighs heavily on the balance because I have piles of expensive abandonware and have spent far too many years digging out of dependency holes.
There was one business I never managed to get out of one hole. It was swallowed by a bigger one before the last dependency was removed. That dependency was a continuous risk to them as the software involved had been abandoned by the vendor many years ago. It was propped up with bandaids and duct tape while being called on to handle more data than it was designed to deal with.
Free software doesn't just make philosophical sense. It makes real business sense, with real dollars involved, as well.
jdixon said something that has stuck with me:
"> BUT, what is the ultimate goal? Displace Microsoft? Offer a reasonable alternative OS? Increase market share? Make the world a better place?
You'll get different answers from different people, though I suspect all will agree with number 2 and number 4. For number 1, see above. Number 3: Most Linux folks don't really care about market share, if Linux meets their needs that's good enough. They want Linux to be a good operating system. If it displaces Microsoft (which most of us do NOT view as producing a good operating system), that's icing on the cake."
Pretty much reflects how I feel about it. I don't particularly care about "converting" people to Linux, that's not even on my radar. I wouldn't give microshaft a second thought if the dirty buggers would just leave us alone. Nobody picked a fight with them- it's their modus operandi to crush any and all opposition, whether real or perceived, and to own 100% of the market by any means except superior products and service. They've done more to damage computing than to help it. They are directly responsible for the lack of hardware and software support for other platforms, and don't even get me started on their predatory mangling of standards and interoperability, and lies and propaganda. If it were not for their organized-crime type business tactics, we would see a much more varied computer marketplace, and for all that they deserve to fail and wither away.
"> BUT, what is the ultimate goal? Displace Microsoft? Offer a reasonable alternative OS? Increase market share? Make the world a better place?
You'll get different answers from different people, though I suspect all will agree with number 2 and number 4. For number 1, see above. Number 3: Most Linux folks don't really care about market share, if Linux meets their needs that's good enough. They want Linux to be a good operating system. If it displaces Microsoft (which most of us do NOT view as producing a good operating system), that's icing on the cake."
Pretty much reflects how I feel about it. I don't particularly care about "converting" people to Linux, that's not even on my radar. I wouldn't give microshaft a second thought if the dirty buggers would just leave us alone. Nobody picked a fight with them- it's their modus operandi to crush any and all opposition, whether real or perceived, and to own 100% of the market by any means except superior products and service. They've done more to damage computing than to help it. They are directly responsible for the lack of hardware and software support for other platforms, and don't even get me started on their predatory mangling of standards and interoperability, and lies and propaganda. If it were not for their organized-crime type business tactics, we would see a much more varied computer marketplace, and for all that they deserve to fail and wither away.
>Free software doesn't just make philosophical sense. It makes real business sense, with real dollars involved, as well.
You will get no argument from me on that score, but you're preaching to the choir.
You will get no argument from me on that score, but you're preaching to the choir.
tuxchick2: >"I wouldn't give microshaft a second thought if the dirty buggers would just leave us alone."
(I could quote your whole post, but that line sums up nicely, I think).
Two different means to world domination:
1. By hook or by crook (force, at many levels) 2. By setting people free (invitation)
dinotrac: >"You will get no argument from me on that score, but you're preaching to the choir."
(Before I get to that, I bet you can't tell me where "by hook or by crook" orginates. Stay away from that search; let's see how paleozoic you really are!)
Brothers and sisters, I have BEEN to the moutaintop and mine eyes have SEEN the penguin and the li'l beastie trampling the broken shards into the dust of forgotten nightmares! Take up thy burden with the GNU and set thy brethren free from the cage of the predator.
Let not thine eyes be BLINDED by the glitter of the paint on the bars, for he prepareth an subtle LOCK which even the wealthiest of the acronyms may loose.
Fear not the corruption of the Enslaving User Lock-in Agreement for thou hast an Great and Powerful Lance by thy side. Keep thy source free from entanglements, lest thy Hacker brethren and sistren be powerless in their quest to smite the thornbushes and brambles of concealment laid down by the wicked to entrap thee.
Use thy powers of freedoms to Code and to Communicate to prepare a path for the least fortunate of the multitude to trod with thee out of the cages and the traps of the lords of False Scarcity.
Build thy house not upon the quicksand of the Demons' Repugnant Maliciousness, but upon the Foundation Of Stability and Square-dealing.
Take up the righteous fight to save thy freedom to choose when and whether thy shalt upgrade, to choose to customize beyond the placement of the beguiling icons and wallpapers, to build upon thy hard-won knowledge without having it rendered to nothingness by the stroke of the predator's Pak, to look within thine own computer to see what majicks it works and whether it works for thee or the enemy of thy freedom, to share thine work with thy neighbor without fear of the Bullies of Selfishness Attacking thee, to use thy computer as thee shall see fit, instead of having it used to thy detriment.
Let not thy head be turned by false Vistas which lure with twisted promises. Gird thyself with armor as liken to the Blowfish, keep thy manula at hand, step mightily on the bugs in thy path, fear not the trolls, yea, nor even the false grass laid before thy feet, and raise your voices high enough that even the Connivers within the walls of governments shall hear and tremble at the power of thy multitudinous cry for Freedom!
Keep thy faith, but verify thy code, both within and without the source and Tux shall indeed serve the world with freedom for the almighty user!
(I could quote your whole post, but that line sums up nicely, I think).
Two different means to world domination:
1. By hook or by crook (force, at many levels) 2. By setting people free (invitation)
dinotrac: >"You will get no argument from me on that score, but you're preaching to the choir."
(Before I get to that, I bet you can't tell me where "by hook or by crook" orginates. Stay away from that search; let's see how paleozoic you really are!)
Brothers and sisters, I have BEEN to the moutaintop and mine eyes have SEEN the penguin and the li'l beastie trampling the broken shards into the dust of forgotten nightmares! Take up thy burden with the GNU and set thy brethren free from the cage of the predator.
Let not thine eyes be BLINDED by the glitter of the paint on the bars, for he prepareth an subtle LOCK which even the wealthiest of the acronyms may loose.
Fear not the corruption of the Enslaving User Lock-in Agreement for thou hast an Great and Powerful Lance by thy side. Keep thy source free from entanglements, lest thy Hacker brethren and sistren be powerless in their quest to smite the thornbushes and brambles of concealment laid down by the wicked to entrap thee.
Use thy powers of freedoms to Code and to Communicate to prepare a path for the least fortunate of the multitude to trod with thee out of the cages and the traps of the lords of False Scarcity.
Build thy house not upon the quicksand of the Demons' Repugnant Maliciousness, but upon the Foundation Of Stability and Square-dealing.
Take up the righteous fight to save thy freedom to choose when and whether thy shalt upgrade, to choose to customize beyond the placement of the beguiling icons and wallpapers, to build upon thy hard-won knowledge without having it rendered to nothingness by the stroke of the predator's Pak, to look within thine own computer to see what majicks it works and whether it works for thee or the enemy of thy freedom, to share thine work with thy neighbor without fear of the Bullies of Selfishness Attacking thee, to use thy computer as thee shall see fit, instead of having it used to thy detriment.
Let not thy head be turned by false Vistas which lure with twisted promises. Gird thyself with armor as liken to the Blowfish, keep thy manula at hand, step mightily on the bugs in thy path, fear not the trolls, yea, nor even the false grass laid before thy feet, and raise your voices high enough that even the Connivers within the walls of governments shall hear and tremble at the power of thy multitudinous cry for Freedom!
Keep thy faith, but verify thy code, both within and without the source and Tux shall indeed serve the world with freedom for the almighty user!
grouch --
Beats me. I only know that the expression is **really old**. Older than me even, by an order of magnitude or more.
I always took it literally -- hook or Shephard's crook. I know some other interpretations have been suggested, but....I can't remember what they are.
I think it's usually agreed to mean "by any means", without regard to niceties, legalities, or cream cheese.
Beats me. I only know that the expression is **really old**. Older than me even, by an order of magnitude or more.
I always took it literally -- hook or Shephard's crook. I know some other interpretations have been suggested, but....I can't remember what they are.
I think it's usually agreed to mean "by any means", without regard to niceties, legalities, or cream cheese.
dinotrac:
I will take a screenshot and wave it viciously in your direction for millenia to come! (Even though your reference to a hook or Shephard's crook come close.)
"By hook or by crook" originates from the rules by which a tenant might gather firewood from his lord's lands. Dead limbs which would snap cleanly were permitted to be harvested; no cutting of live trees or limbs was tolerated. The peasant could gather this deadwood using his hook or crook, but could not risk damaging live limbs by climbing.
I can offer no online reference. It's in some dusty book hiding somewhere around here.
I will take a screenshot and wave it viciously in your direction for millenia to come! (Even though your reference to a hook or Shephard's crook come close.)
"By hook or by crook" originates from the rules by which a tenant might gather firewood from his lord's lands. Dead limbs which would snap cleanly were permitted to be harvested; no cutting of live trees or limbs was tolerated. The peasant could gather this deadwood using his hook or crook, but could not risk damaging live limbs by climbing.
I can offer no online reference. It's in some dusty book hiding somewhere around here.
I pass the collection plate.
I keep the collection plate.
Thank you, that was fun!
jimf:
Hey, thanks for the link! That talks about the forests of the "sovereign", but I was close. It gives the first written English usage as implying the same as dinotrac gave, "by any means".
tuxchick2:
Ahem. Members of the choir get the robes and the privilege of shouting, "Amen!" at opportune times. The sermonizer gets the plate and contents. Incentive to continue, doncha know. Do you have make-up that streams on demand? We might talk about a cut.
Hey, thanks for the link! That talks about the forests of the "sovereign", but I was close. It gives the first written English usage as implying the same as dinotrac gave, "by any means".
tuxchick2:
Ahem. Members of the choir get the robes and the privilege of shouting, "Amen!" at opportune times. The sermonizer gets the plate and contents. Incentive to continue, doncha know. Do you have make-up that streams on demand? We might talk about a cut.
Members of the choir get the robes and the privilege of.....
Preachers and Vicars with a bit more "street sense" long ago forbade those long, flowing choir robes for the choir. Now, the proper dress is black slacks or skirts, depending upon your plumbing or orientation, and a nice white shirt.
Millions have been lost to the churches under those robes. You could sneak out a Buick under those things.
Preachers and Vicars with a bit more "street sense" long ago forbade those long, flowing choir robes for the choir. Now, the proper dress is black slacks or skirts, depending upon your plumbing or orientation, and a nice white shirt.
Millions have been lost to the churches under those robes. You could sneak out a Buick under those things.
So the real issue is propaganda, not product
My initial reaction to Pamela Jones' tirade was pretty negative, and I still think she's off-base, but I think I understand the reaction now.
What's ticking you folks off is not what Linspire *is*, but rather what Linspire *claims*. I.e. it's spreading FUD about FLOSS when it tries to emphasize its "value-add"* as a means of differentiating itself.
I say this, because Linspire seems to draw a disproportionate amount of ire, when there are, after all, a slew of "value add" Linux systems (the old SuSE, the boxed MEPIS, Xandros, etc).
Myself, I don't feel threatened by those things existing in the marketplace.
I do feel kind of dirty every time I install a non-free package on my system (you could equate this to moral repugnance, but it's also an itchy feeling that it's going to come back to bite me later -- which it inevitably does: all this proprietary junk breaks every time I upgrade my system). This reality is another reason why I don't feel too threatened -- other users are, sooner or later, going to notice this same problem, which is endemic to closed-source drivers. I tolerate non-free software solely for entertainment software -- for some time now, I have insisted on 100% FLOSS for anything I actually *need*, because I have way too much Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about proprietary software. I build my own computers, and I spend the time to make sure that my hardware is supported. So far this hasn't been a show-stopper, though I am troubled by the trends in the high-end video market.
OTOH, a closed-source driver is often better than no driver, and I can't really fault a distribution packager for taking that headache away from me. If the user is primarily interested in just getting on with using their system, they aren't going to be very effective activists anyway, and just increasing the Linux marketshare is probably a positive thing.
BUT, I can see the point in attacking unfair marketing claims. FUD from a value-add Linux is just as bad as Microsoft FUD, and I suppose it's "sharper than a serpent's tooth" simply because the company itself is enabled by the very FLOSS labor that it is dissing.
I would have to suggest narrowing the attack, though: it would make more sense, probably be more effective, and would definitely be more consistent to attack these negative messages rather than attacking the Linspire (or Freespire) distributions. Otherwise, I think it sows a lot of confusion, and won't achieve much.
*Yeah, yeah "freedom-subtracted". I know the gnu-speak.
What's ticking you folks off is not what Linspire *is*, but rather what Linspire *claims*. I.e. it's spreading FUD about FLOSS when it tries to emphasize its "value-add"* as a means of differentiating itself.
I say this, because Linspire seems to draw a disproportionate amount of ire, when there are, after all, a slew of "value add" Linux systems (the old SuSE, the boxed MEPIS, Xandros, etc).
Myself, I don't feel threatened by those things existing in the marketplace.
I do feel kind of dirty every time I install a non-free package on my system (you could equate this to moral repugnance, but it's also an itchy feeling that it's going to come back to bite me later -- which it inevitably does: all this proprietary junk breaks every time I upgrade my system). This reality is another reason why I don't feel too threatened -- other users are, sooner or later, going to notice this same problem, which is endemic to closed-source drivers. I tolerate non-free software solely for entertainment software -- for some time now, I have insisted on 100% FLOSS for anything I actually *need*, because I have way too much Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about proprietary software. I build my own computers, and I spend the time to make sure that my hardware is supported. So far this hasn't been a show-stopper, though I am troubled by the trends in the high-end video market.
OTOH, a closed-source driver is often better than no driver, and I can't really fault a distribution packager for taking that headache away from me. If the user is primarily interested in just getting on with using their system, they aren't going to be very effective activists anyway, and just increasing the Linux marketshare is probably a positive thing.
BUT, I can see the point in attacking unfair marketing claims. FUD from a value-add Linux is just as bad as Microsoft FUD, and I suppose it's "sharper than a serpent's tooth" simply because the company itself is enabled by the very FLOSS labor that it is dissing.
I would have to suggest narrowing the attack, though: it would make more sense, probably be more effective, and would definitely be more consistent to attack these negative messages rather than attacking the Linspire (or Freespire) distributions. Otherwise, I think it sows a lot of confusion, and won't achieve much.
*Yeah, yeah "freedom-subtracted". I know the gnu-speak.
>"I would have to suggest narrowing the attack, though: it would make more sense, probably be more effective, and would definitely be more consistent to attack these negative messages rather than attacking the Linspire (or Freespire) distributions. Otherwise, I think it sows a lot of confusion, and won't achieve much."
I don't think you've reviewed the threads here on this matter.
The complaints have been consistent. There have been consistent counterpoints to those complaints. There has also been a consistent, noisy reaction by a few who insist on attacking their perception of complainers instead of looking at the complaints. Don't let the noise distract you from the reasonable debate.
I don't think you've reviewed the threads here on this matter.
The complaints have been consistent. There have been consistent counterpoints to those complaints. There has also been a consistent, noisy reaction by a few who insist on attacking their perception of complainers instead of looking at the complaints. Don't let the noise distract you from the reasonable debate.
TerryH, that's a good summation:
"What's ticking you folks off is not what Linspire *is*, but rather what Linspire *claims*. I.e. it's spreading FUD about FLOSS when it tries to emphasize its "value-add"* as a means of differentiating itself."
If you want to find more things to not like about their public blather, check this out:
http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=28
More two-facedness and misinformation.
"What's ticking you folks off is not what Linspire *is*, but rather what Linspire *claims*. I.e. it's spreading FUD about FLOSS when it tries to emphasize its "value-add"* as a means of differentiating itself."
If you want to find more things to not like about their public blather, check this out:
http://www.linspire.com/linspire_letter_archives.php?id=28
More two-facedness and misinformation.
Terry. I agree with you. Except... why do you feel dirty when installing a non-free package? You needn't, you know. If you needed the functionality you needed it. Feeling dirty doesn't help anyone. The important thing is that you considered the alternatives and made an *INFORMED* decision.
Grouch:
Just to be clear, this is not a personal attack on you. It seems necessary to say that in advance.
Grouch:
Just to be clear, this is not a personal attack on you. It seems necessary to say that in advance.
A blindingly obvious thought occurs to me. If Linspire is competing with Windows, why do they harp incessantly on how sucky Linux is?
tuxchick2: >"TerryH, that's a good summation"
I'm making an assumption here, but I think TerryH is the same who made a well-reasoned comment after the Groklaw article. It was a relief after all the garbage that had been dumped into those threads. A lot of the fire-and-forget commenters probably missed it, as it came late in the storm.
See: [url=http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060424164142296&title=Freespire: A Linux Distro For When You Couldn't Care Less About Freedom&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=435256#c435283]http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060424...[/url]
I'm making an assumption here, but I think TerryH is the same who made a well-reasoned comment after the Groklaw article. It was a relief after all the garbage that had been dumped into those threads. A lot of the fire-and-forget commenters probably missed it, as it came late in the storm.
See: [url=http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060424164142296&title=Freespire: A Linux Distro For When You Couldn't Care Less About Freedom&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=435256#c435283]http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20060424...[/url]
> If you want to find more things to not like about their public blather, check this out:
> [HYPERLINK@www.linspire.com]
Looking at #4 on Carmony's list, I have to disagree vehemently with the notion that FOSS projects need to compete against non-free projects. It is true that we have features to catch up on, with respect to a number of non-free projects, but he really loses me when he says,
"In other words, if open source GIMP only needs to be as good as other open source image editors, then it can stop all work right now."
I don't buy that, and I doubt any other reasonably intelligent person would, either.
> [HYPERLINK@www.linspire.com]
Looking at #4 on Carmony's list, I have to disagree vehemently with the notion that FOSS projects need to compete against non-free projects. It is true that we have features to catch up on, with respect to a number of non-free projects, but he really loses me when he says,
"In other words, if open source GIMP only needs to be as good as other open source image editors, then it can stop all work right now."
I don't buy that, and I doubt any other reasonably intelligent person would, either.
Having legal access to CODECs is a must
49 earlier comments in the full thread.
helios -
>"...If you want all the proprietary stuff, use Windows,..."
The more I think about that sentiment, the more it grates on me, especially since it tends to come from folks who haven't exactly put their blood, sweat, and tears into free software.
You are the counter-case --
People can question me, but nobody of double-digit or higher IQ can question your commitment to free software. You have depleted your savings for the cause, gone out to Washington, endangered your health, helped move a company from Microsoft to free, and yet...
you aren't among the Prickly Few. I can't read your mind, but I suspect you have a sense that freedom is most powerful when shared. I want everybody to share in the freedom. Some of them will do things with that I wish they wouldn't, but that is an essential element of freedom.
But there's more... When a non-free software type parses the phrase:
>"...If you want all the proprietary stuff, use Windows,..."
What they hear is more akin to -
"Free software can't do the things you want, so use Windows. It can do a lot more things. Free software just isn't suitable for most people."
Steve Ballmer couldn't make the case any better.
>"...If you want all the proprietary stuff, use Windows,..."
The more I think about that sentiment, the more it grates on me, especially since it tends to come from folks who haven't exactly put their blood, sweat, and tears into free software.
You are the counter-case --
People can question me, but nobody of double-digit or higher IQ can question your commitment to free software. You have depleted your savings for the cause, gone out to Washington, endangered your health, helped move a company from Microsoft to free, and yet...
you aren't among the Prickly Few. I can't read your mind, but I suspect you have a sense that freedom is most powerful when shared. I want everybody to share in the freedom. Some of them will do things with that I wish they wouldn't, but that is an essential element of freedom.
But there's more... When a non-free software type parses the phrase:
>"...If you want all the proprietary stuff, use Windows,..."
What they hear is more akin to -
"Free software can't do the things you want, so use Windows. It can do a lot more things. Free software just isn't suitable for most people."
Steve Ballmer couldn't make the case any better.
I managed to make a list of nine media players for Windows, all of which either can be made to support .ogg or support it out of the box:
Native support Winamp 5 (www.winamp.com) Songbird (www.songbirdnest.com. This is FOSS) Quintessential Player (www.quinnware.com) foobar2000 (www.foobar2000.org) VLC (www.videolan.org)
Plugin provided by maker: dBPowerAMP Audio Player (www.dbpoweramp.com , .ogg plugin easily found in their Codec Central) RealPlayer 10 (plugin available at their FOSS branch: https://helixcommunity.org/projects/xiph/ )
Special cases: Windows Media Player (DirectShow filters available from: http://xiph.org/downloads/ ) iTunes (Some level of support is provided at: http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/ From what I've heard, works well on Mac, not so well on 'doze)
Native support Winamp 5 (www.winamp.com) Songbird (www.songbirdnest.com. This is FOSS) Quintessential Player (www.quinnware.com) foobar2000 (www.foobar2000.org) VLC (www.videolan.org)
Plugin provided by maker: dBPowerAMP Audio Player (www.dbpoweramp.com , .ogg plugin easily found in their Codec Central) RealPlayer 10 (plugin available at their FOSS branch: https://helixcommunity.org/projects/xiph/ )
Special cases: Windows Media Player (DirectShow filters available from: http://xiph.org/downloads/ ) iTunes (Some level of support is provided at: http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/ From what I've heard, works well on Mac, not so well on 'doze)
Quoting: You can run IE on Linux, too. I use it on PCLOS.I'd heard of this, now I'll have to make it a new years resolution to check it out. Much as I hate to give any website any hits using msie, I don't suppose I'd have a problem using it just for a company internal msie-only legacy site.
> ...now I'll have to make it a new years resolution to check it out.
Install the latest available version of Wine for your distribution. Get ies4linux from http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page and follow the directions. The latest versions of Wine seem to have some problems with Slackware 11, unfortunately, and I haven't been able to track down what's wrong yet. :(
Install the latest available version of Wine for your distribution. Get ies4linux from http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page and follow the directions. The latest versions of Wine seem to have some problems with Slackware 11, unfortunately, and I haven't been able to track down what's wrong yet. :(
>and I haven't been able to track down what's wrong yet.
Umm...Slackware?
8P
Umm...Slackware?
8P
> Umm...Slackware?
Yes, Slackware. I've been using Linux a long time.
Oh, and it turns out the problem is with the 2.4.x kernel Slackware runs by default. It apparently doesn't have NPTL support. The Wine folks recommend using a 2.6 kernel, which I may need to try out anyway sometime soon. In the meantime I can still use Wine 0.9.14 with no problems.
Yes, Slackware. I've been using Linux a long time.
Oh, and it turns out the problem is with the 2.4.x kernel Slackware runs by default. It apparently doesn't have NPTL support. The Wine folks recommend using a 2.6 kernel, which I may need to try out anyway sometime soon. In the meantime I can still use Wine 0.9.14 with no problems.
Quoting: Oh, and it turns out the problem is with the 2.4.x kernel Slackware runs by default. It apparently doesn't have NPTL support. The Wine folks recommend using a 2.6 kernel, which I may need to try out anyway sometime soon.Wow, and I thought debian stable was overly timid about new versions. As for the 2.6 kernel, come on in, the water's fine!
I think I started using the 2.5 kernel back in 2002 or so, since it was a lot faster for gaming, and interestingly enough, it also fixed some nasty bugs. I had a redhat 8 box that kept locking up at the most inconvenient times. I figured it had crappy hardware, and decided to use it as a dev/test box for 2.5 kernel testing. The funny thing is, after moving from the "production quality" redhat 8 kernel to my own hand-compiled 2.5 development kernel, the box stabilized nicely.
> As for the 2.6 kernel, come on in, the water's fine!
I'm not sure those sufferring from the current data corruption bug (which, from the comments, seems to date back to at least 2.6.5) would agree. 2.4 is fine for almost all of my needs. And since I stopped using the NVidia drivers, the box is rock solid stable. The NVidia drivers would sometimes lose it when switching from a console back to X (complete video, keyboard, and mouse loss; just a black screen. The only way to fix it was to reboot). That hasn't happened since I switched back to the Free nv driver.
I'm not sure those sufferring from the current data corruption bug (which, from the comments, seems to date back to at least 2.6.5) would agree. 2.4 is fine for almost all of my needs. And since I stopped using the NVidia drivers, the box is rock solid stable. The NVidia drivers would sometimes lose it when switching from a console back to X (complete video, keyboard, and mouse loss; just a black screen. The only way to fix it was to reboot). That hasn't happened since I switched back to the Free nv driver.
> I've secured a copy of the cisco linux vpn client and will be looking at getting that working.
Do yourself a favour. Don't. Cisco's VPN client for linux sucks. VPNC works great, is FLOSS and is 100% cisco compatible.
Do yourself a favour. Don't. Cisco's VPN client for linux sucks. VPNC works great, is FLOSS and is 100% cisco compatible.
> As for the 2.6 kernel, come on in, the water's fine!
Absolutely. Also note that Linus in now working on 2.6.20, and, the new Debian stable will likely have a 2.6.18 or 19 as default. About the only reason now to be using 2.4.x is 'very' old equipment, or, extreme space limitations (as in mobile devices or whatever).
Absolutely. Also note that Linus in now working on 2.6.20, and, the new Debian stable will likely have a 2.6.18 or 19 as default. About the only reason now to be using 2.4.x is 'very' old equipment, or, extreme space limitations (as in mobile devices or whatever).
Quoting: I'm not sure those sufferring from the current data corruption bug (which, from the comments, seems to date back to at least 2.6.5) would agree.I can say two things about that: First of all, the bug was pretty hard to trigger, and as I understand it, only affected ext3 users. I've never seen such a bug in the wild with over 100 servers running 2.6 kernels on reiserfs 24/7 in production since 2004. I can also guarantee you 2.4 had plenty of bugs as well, and they are still finding bugs in 2.4. So, while it might provide a sense of security to cling to the old ways, there's not necessarily any benefit in doing so.
Quoting: And since I stopped using the NVidia drivers, the box is rock solid stable. The NVidia drivers would sometimes lose it when switching from a console back to X (complete video, keyboard, and mouse loss; just a black screen. The only way to fix it was to reboot). That hasn't happened since I switched back to the Free nv driver.So, since you stopped using accelerated 3D, the problems went away. Sounds like it could be flaky hardware. You travel different code paths when doing hardware accelerated 3D.
BTW I've been using the nvidia binary blob for years, and didn't see any problems. I struggled with FOSS drivers and ATI video cards for awhile, and found lots of fun bugs, for instance the box would instantly lock up hard every time I started a game of RtCW, or if the atlantis screensaver kicked in. Switching to the nvidia binary blob cured those problems for good. I sold the ATI to a windoze user and have been a happy camper ever since.
An interesting aside though, I had some hardware failures this past week - my main desktop system at home died. I was able to revive it after pulling out the video card, and used the built-in intel 945 graphics. So, I checked out the performance and it turns out to be totally usable with the on-board intel graphics. The 3D screensavers work fine, and I can play quake 3 arena without any noticeable difference from when I had the nvidia card and binary blob installed. So, intel graphics are a great alternative with pretty good performance.
Quoting: Do yourself a favour. Don't. Cisco's VPN client for linux sucks. VPNC works great, is FLOSS and is 100% cisco compatible.Thanks for the tip, I'll investigate that.
> it, only affected ext3 users
Correct.
I also agree on using reiserfs, which is great with a desktop enviorment.
Correct.
I also agree on using reiserfs, which is great with a desktop enviorment.
> only affected ext3 users.
Well, I use ext3, so that's not a good point.
> I can also guarantee you 2.4 had plenty of bugs as well, and they are still finding bugs in 2.4.
Agreed. But it appears that 2.6 has more.
> So, while it might provide a sense of security to cling to the old ways, there's not necessarily any benefit in doing so.
Security has nothing to do with it. I'm lazy, and prefer to avoid doing work unless there's a good reason. Installing the 2.6 kernel would be work. When Patrick switches to it in the next release I'll start using it. Until then, unless something requires it, I'll probably stay with the default.
Well, I use ext3, so that's not a good point.
> I can also guarantee you 2.4 had plenty of bugs as well, and they are still finding bugs in 2.4.
Agreed. But it appears that 2.6 has more.
> So, while it might provide a sense of security to cling to the old ways, there's not necessarily any benefit in doing so.
Security has nothing to do with it. I'm lazy, and prefer to avoid doing work unless there's a good reason. Installing the 2.6 kernel would be work. When Patrick switches to it in the next release I'll start using it. Until then, unless something requires it, I'll probably stay with the default.
Reading the comments above, I think we could use some help from our big bold 'worst' friend.
Therefore, I think I should send a mail to Microsoft, explaining open media-formats would save them - and especially their customers - money, and asking their opinion about it. They pay dozens of millions to license media formats other companies invented right now, and finally, the (Windows) consumer end up paying for this, without even noticing or knowing it.
We could refer to their Novell deal which aims for compatibility.
We might as well ask Microsoft to give the good example and start making their video content available in ogg formats. It would be beneficial to them, because at the moment, using Gentoo GNU/Linux, I can't even get the (Warning: dirty word in obscene language follows. If you are under 18 skip the next word) GetTheFacts page to display properly.
I'm eager to find out how they are going to deny open media formats would be better, more stable, easier to upgrade, more convenient and especially cheaper for their customers and themselves (probably, they will deny) . OK, I confess, just another good excuse to spam Microsoft, but it would make up a nice read. If we are starting advocacy for open media formats, we might as well start with 'someone' that could convert a lot of others, don't we?
Therefore, I think I should send a mail to Microsoft, explaining open media-formats would save them - and especially their customers - money, and asking their opinion about it. They pay dozens of millions to license media formats other companies invented right now, and finally, the (Windows) consumer end up paying for this, without even noticing or knowing it.
We could refer to their Novell deal which aims for compatibility.
We might as well ask Microsoft to give the good example and start making their video content available in ogg formats. It would be beneficial to them, because at the moment, using Gentoo GNU/Linux, I can't even get the (Warning: dirty word in obscene language follows. If you are under 18 skip the next word) GetTheFacts page to display properly.
I'm eager to find out how they are going to deny open media formats would be better, more stable, easier to upgrade, more convenient and especially cheaper for their customers and themselves (probably, they will deny) . OK, I confess, just another good excuse to spam Microsoft, but it would make up a nice read. If we are starting advocacy for open media formats, we might as well start with 'someone' that could convert a lot of others, don't we?
> > I can also guarantee you 2.4 had plenty of bugs as well, and they are still finding bugs in 2.4.
> Agreed. But it appears that 2.6 has more.
Appears, to whom? Certainly not to me, and especially if one takes into account the severity of bugs. All software has bugs, but consider this: 2.4 had major mm problems and other infuriating issues for quite awhile, not becoming really stable until about 2.4.20 or so. OTOH 2.6 was already production quality at 2.6.5.
Some anecdotal evidence - We have 40 production servers that have been running 2.6.5, and rock solid for a couple years now. In fact, moving the servers from a 2.4 kernel to a different distro with a 2.6 kernel solved some nasty dns reliability issues. We used to have to babysit bind with a cron job that checked every 3 minutes to see if it was still alive, because it had a nasty tendency to die several times a week with some failed assertion or other. The dns servers on the 2.6 kernel have not died once in the 2 years they've been running.
> Agreed. But it appears that 2.6 has more.
Appears, to whom? Certainly not to me, and especially if one takes into account the severity of bugs. All software has bugs, but consider this: 2.4 had major mm problems and other infuriating issues for quite awhile, not becoming really stable until about 2.4.20 or so. OTOH 2.6 was already production quality at 2.6.5.
Some anecdotal evidence - We have 40 production servers that have been running 2.6.5, and rock solid for a couple years now. In fact, moving the servers from a 2.4 kernel to a different distro with a 2.6 kernel solved some nasty dns reliability issues. We used to have to babysit bind with a cron job that checked every 3 minutes to see if it was still alive, because it had a nasty tendency to die several times a week with some failed assertion or other. The dns servers on the 2.6 kernel have not died once in the 2 years they've been running.
> 2.4 had major mm problems and other infuriating issues for quite awhile, not becoming really stable until about 2.4.20 or so.
What part of "Slackware" did you not understand? :)
I moved to the 2.4 kernel with Slackware 8.1, which used the 2.4.18 kernel. Slackware 8.0 used the 2.2.19 kernel as the default. The date on the CD for the 2.4.18 kernel is 5/31/2002.
> We used to have to babysit bind with a cron job that checked every 3 minutes to see if it was still alive, because it had a nasty tendency to die several times a week with some failed assertion or other.
Your servers don't run Slackware, do they? :)
Anyway, I use the default kernel for my distribution. Unless I have a good reason to change, I'll continue to do so. And no, I don't have any good reason to change distributions. I've tried a number of the others (Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, and PCLinuxOS among them). I prefer Slackware. If I had to switch, it would probably be to Zenwalk (which does use a 2.6 kernel as the default).
What part of "Slackware" did you not understand? :)
I moved to the 2.4 kernel with Slackware 8.1, which used the 2.4.18 kernel. Slackware 8.0 used the 2.2.19 kernel as the default. The date on the CD for the 2.4.18 kernel is 5/31/2002.
> We used to have to babysit bind with a cron job that checked every 3 minutes to see if it was still alive, because it had a nasty tendency to die several times a week with some failed assertion or other.
Your servers don't run Slackware, do they? :)
Anyway, I use the default kernel for my distribution. Unless I have a good reason to change, I'll continue to do so. And no, I don't have any good reason to change distributions. I've tried a number of the others (Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, Mepis, and PCLinuxOS among them). I prefer Slackware. If I had to switch, it would probably be to Zenwalk (which does use a 2.6 kernel as the default).
Quoting: Your servers don't run Slackware, do they? :)Unfortunately we couldn't find good vendor support for slackware, but I am a long time fan of Bob Dobbs, so to speak. I came of age using Slackware - and BTW kudos to Pat for all his great work on that classy distro.
FWIW, the flaky 2.4-based servers were redhat, and the rock solid 2.6-based servers are suse.
> Unfortunately we couldn't find good vendor support for slackware...
Yeah. The support issue is the only real reason Slackware is not enterprise ready. Unfortunate, as it's only real competitor in stability is Debian.
Yeah. The support issue is the only real reason Slackware is not enterprise ready. Unfortunate, as it's only real competitor in stability is Debian.
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
The ATI/NVidia domination looks to me to be a very unhealthy market situation... Kind of like our two party system. Basically, we've gone from 5-6+ major players down to the two that now control virtually the whole market. ATI acts with total arrogance that is rivaled only by MS, and NVidia is better only by comparison. Neither is particularly friendly to Linux, or the GPL.
Being an engineer and not a programmer either, Don's idea really strikes a practical note. I can't help but think that there are now enough Linux users so that whoever comes up with a video card that runs flawlessly under Linux and supplies GPL'd drivers would have a captive market and a potential cash cow on their hands. I can't understand why someone hasn't already tapped this market.