Freespire is not Free
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick2 May 09, 2006 8:56 AM EDT |
"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. |
| grouch May 09, 2006 9:11 AM EDT |
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. |
| tuxchick2 May 09, 2006 9:37 AM EDT |
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. |
| jimf May 09, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
tuxchick said:
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. |
| tuxchick2 May 09, 2006 10:11 AM EDT |
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. |
| jimf May 09, 2006 11:22 AM EDT |
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. |
| ExWindowsUser May 09, 2006 11:29 AM EDT |
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! |
| dcparris May 09, 2006 11:44 AM EDT |
> 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. :-) |
| ExWindowsUser May 10, 2006 3:18 AM EDT |
> 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? |
| monkymind May 10, 2006 3:26 AM EDT |
> Maybe "Gratispire" or "Openspire" would work? Cathedral Spire might be more appropriate ;-> |
| dcparris May 10, 2006 8:43 AM EDT |
> 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. ;-) |
| crazyarlo May 10, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
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. |
| grouch May 10, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon May 10, 2006 10:00 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| dinotrac May 10, 2006 11:12 AM EDT |
jdixon - On the other hand, has Linus stopped claiming world domination as a goal? |
| jdixon May 10, 2006 7:05 PM EDT |
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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!