Having legal access to CODECs is a must
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Dec 30, 2006 1:28 PM EDT |
We need what Kevin Carmony has to offer, legal access to proprietary CODECs. We also need a Free video card. We also need better marketing, the message that Linux is the better choice has to get out, and clearly it isn't, we need to educate. We need to be in peoples faces about Linux, the ordinary mum and dad user has to become conscious of Linux, we have to get them asking salesmen does "Does it have Linux?". In order for Linux to florish, and displace Windows we need multiple solutions to the problems. When we have enough new users on board then we can change the world, until then we are just pissing in the wind. See also http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-dom... |
| bigg Dec 30, 2006 2:32 PM EDT |
> until then we are just pissing in the wind It depends on what your goal is. I think the free software world has done pretty good so far. A lot better than "pissing". My goal is to have a completely free operating system. If you want all the proprietary stuff, use Windows, It doesn't even cost that much. If the only goal is software with a price of zero dollars, the proprietary codecs can be downloaded free of charge, so you're in luck. If the goal is market share, join the Windows movement. You'll be joining a winning team. Use Freespire if you want. Just realize that it does nothing for free as in freedom software. Not everyone has a goal of achieving market share if it requires turning Linux proprietary. I do most of my multimedia in Windows. It makes little sense to me to waste time installing codecs on Linux when they work out of the box in Windows. Ogg files work out of the box on Linux. I am completely neutral on your position because I have a different view of the world. IMO, your strategy is a complete waste of time, thought, and financial resources. |
| herzeleid Dec 30, 2006 2:47 PM EDT |
Quoting: bigg: My goal is to have a completely free operating system.Great, looks like we have another gnu hurd user! As for me, I want an OS that I can use for *all* of my computer related activities.I don't want to be limited to using linux only for hobbyist activities, and then have to switch to some lame pee cee OS to do my online banking or play a 3D FPS on the internet or or watch movie trailers at quicktime.com Of all the OSes I've tried so far, linux gives me the least grief, by far. But there are some nagging issues. This whole business of slinking around as 2nd class citizens, with linux vendors saying "we have to ship you a crippled version of multimedia support, or somebody could sue us!" I say it's time for some linux vendor to grow a pair and figure out how to deal with this, once and for all. I don't really give a flying fig for Novell's microsoft "interoperability" breakthroughs - I couldn't care less whether it might now be easier to emulate linux under a microsoft OS. I'll tell you what I would rather they worked on: I'd rather they had put their effort towards negotiating whatever licensing deals they would have to make to ship working multimedia support. How does apple do it? Come on, we're tired of playing the part of the poor cousins, let's get this taken care of. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 3:07 PM EDT |
>My goal is to have a completely free operating system My goal is to have as free a computer environment as I possibly can. That includes being free to do the things I need to do and free to do the things I want to do. That includes being free to avoid pieces of crap like Windows. |
| hkwint Dec 30, 2006 3:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:I say it's time for some linux vendor to grow a pair and figure out how to deal with this, once and for all I agree entirely. So here's the problem we face: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/codecs-status.html Look at it. It's a real mess. Now, Microsoft pays some price for all Media Players to enable Windows users to legally use these proprietary codecs. How about this idea: If there was some 'company' (or better, foundation without profit aim) that would contact all the owners of the IP for these codecs? Then, we could bundle them, with a legal license, and sell it for around $10 or so (at least, I hope). Once we sell them, we could raise the attention of the IP owners, and ask them to co-operate. The package should be distro-agnostic (darn, I hate .deb and .rpm files!). You could wonder how many people would want to pay for it. I am one of them. I am using these proprietary codecs illegal now, and it makes me feel bad. Nonetheless, I simply need those codecs for my day to day work, though I entirely agree we would be better of without them, and people should use free codecs to encode stuff. If you are curious: I am not in the camp of avoiding any proprietary thing (hell, I am forced to use AutoCAD and Windows 2000 every day), but I would like to avoid it as much as possible and try to raise attention at the vendors. Moreover, Linux works better for me than Windows does at the moment, and I wouldn't want to switch back to Windows. I even start to like RMS and his viewpoints, and contributed to the FSF, for those assuming I don't care about my freedom. But, I'm a little pragmatic, some stuff just needs to be done, and some of those stuff requires proprietary crap. I'm doing what I can to avoid it, but I confess I still use my Hotmail e-mail address (badly locked-in to MSN, but that's a whole different story!) |
| tracyanne Dec 30, 2006 3:22 PM EDT |
quote:: It depends on what your goal is. I think the free software world has done pretty good so far. A lot better than "pissing". ::quote I've been using Linux since 2000, and things have changed very little since then. We haven't done pretty good, but, even if we had, now is not the time to sit back and relax. According to some analysts desktop Linux is used by about 1% of the market, personally I think it's a lot more, based on the number of people I've moved to Linux over the last year, more like 3% to 5%, but that is still no where near enough, Mac is at least twice that. We need legal access to those CODECs, to carry us over until the patents on them run out. We need legal acess to those patents so that computer system Manufactureres can include them by default, along with the Linux distribution they bundle with the hardware. We need legal access to those CODECs because in order to gain sufficient market share to make a damn difference, we need to make desktop Linux an "unPack, Plugin, Turn on" option for as many of the unsophisticated non technical users as possible. We need legal access to those CODECs, so that retailers can legally sell computer systems with those CODECs bundled with the system. BUT. That's not the whole of the story. We need things like the Free video card, and Free wireless cards, and Free hardware of all descriptions, because in and of themselves they are useful objectives, and second because it will force the hardware manufacturers to reassess their priorities. AND, we must market Linux. When was the last time you saw an ad for Linux, any distribution, when was the last time you saw Linux, any distribution, being used by the protagonist in a movie. I haven't seen one ever where I live. Perhaps one solution the the problem of how we market Linux is to create a Marketing organisation, after all if there can be a legal organisation that deals with legal issues that affect Linux and Free Open Source Software, why not a marketing organisation that promotes Linux and Free software in the same way that any marketing company promotes any other product. Until there are people walking into Harvey Norman or Walmart or whatever the superstore in you area is called, and asking the salesman about Linux, Linux will not have mind share. |
| jimf Dec 30, 2006 3:30 PM EDT |
> I've been using Linux since 2000, and things have changed very little since then. Lol, try loading that desktop from 2000 and then try to tell me it isn't eons away from what we can get now. I do agree that the estimate of the number of Linux desktops out there is way low. I really think it probably is close to the Mac share, but that's just what I've seen. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 3:57 PM EDT |
>and things have changed very little since then With regard to the desktop, things can seem that way. Desktop Linux users remain a small "out there" minority, and it is still difficult to do some things on a Linux computer. I work in a Unix shop, and I think I am the only technical person in the place who relies solely on Linux outside of the workplace. The company even set me up with a notebook computer because they don't support use of a Linux-based VPN client for remote access to their network. Now there's a cost-efficient solution for you! But...Things are very different. For one thing, Linux is no longer an oddball recommendation in non-desktop applications. You may still have to overcome a proprietary bias, but you won't get laughed out of the room. For another, the Linux desktops themselves are SO MUCH BETTER than they used to be. OpenOffice is still the Old StarOffice, but it's on steroids now. Firefox and Opera have resolved the browser question (and konqueror is good enough for most uses). Better still...if you use OpenOffice, Firefox, Postgres, and the Gimp on Windows (yes, they all run on Windows), it's easy to use them on Linux. And -- Oh my goodness!!!! -- as hokey as it still can seem, printing is EVER SO MUCH BETTER than it was in 2000. Problems remain, but there is a threshold effect. Reach one step, you enable more users. Then, things don't seem to change much until the next sticking point is cleared. But... progress keeps getting made and sticking points keep getting cleared. |
| jimf Dec 30, 2006 4:47 PM EDT |
> the Linux desktops themselves are SO MUCH BETTER Got that right, along with a much better choice of apps, and all of the apps more mature. Take something like gimp, starting off as little more than a basic paint program and now the equal of Adobe. Three years ago I couldn't even find a decent front end for a databse. Now there are at least three choices. The progress continues... |
| bigg Dec 30, 2006 5:00 PM EDT |
> Great, looks like we have another gnu hurd user! Okay. I guess because my goal is completely free OS, I must be using hurd. A completely free OS does not exist, because IMO it has to meet a certain threshold for usability to count. Hurd is nowhere close. There is an implicit assumption that everyone wants Linux market share, and I'm saying I could care less. What codecs are you currently unable to get? Or are you saying they have to work out of the box rather than clicking three times to install them? If we are talking about proprietary drivers that enable your hardware to work, that's a different story. I think Freespire is a great idea because some people want it. I even downloaded a copy. > That includes being free to do the things I need to do and free to do the things I want to do. Agreed. I just don't agree with the OP that free software is useless without the codecs. We sure haven't heard Freespire mentioned on CNN or Bloomberg lately, so codecs are not a magical potion. > I've been using Linux since 2000, and things have changed very little since then. I saw you smoking out back with Rob Enderle. |
| tuxchick Dec 30, 2006 5:15 PM EDT |
>I saw you smoking out back with Rob Enderle. Oooo, low blow! That's the tech equivalent of Godwin's Law. Boo hiss! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law |
| jimf Dec 30, 2006 5:21 PM EDT |
> That's the tech equivalent of Godwin's Law. Boo hiss! yeah, but your reference does say "Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt." |
| herzeleid Dec 30, 2006 5:25 PM EDT |
Quoting: bigg: Okay. I guess because my goal is completely free OS, I must be using hurd. A completely free OS does not exist, because IMO it has to meet a certain threshold for usability to count. Hurd is nowhere close. There is an implicit assumption that everyone wants Linux market share, and I'm saying I could care less.That sounds nice at first, but after a bit of thought you realize it's a dangerous proposition. Sure, it would be great if there were 3 linux users in the world, and they could freely use their OS to do anything and everything which any other OSes are allowed to do. But there are forces at work to prevent such wonderful egalitarian access, because without a certain critical mass of users for a platform, it disappears from the radar screen, and meaningful access to internet services will cease. Yes, the ultimate irony, the internet, which was built on unix technology, could eventually require a pee cee OS to access any meaningful content therein. Quoting: digg: What codecs are you currently unable to get? Or are you saying they have to work out of the box rather than clicking three times to install them? If we are talking about proprietary drivers that enable your hardware to work, that's a different story.I'm a senior unix administrator, so naturally my multimedia stuff works fine. But that's beside the point. If it doesn't work for Aunt Mildred, and for Joe 6-pak, it's not going to fly. |
| tuxchick Dec 30, 2006 6:20 PM EDT |
Aunt Mildred and Joe 6-pak don't find much joy on Windows, either. I could devote the rest of my life to assisting clueless windoze users, except they're cheapskates and don't want to pay for help, and I loathe windows. But that's beside the point. There are number of issues all tangled up here: 1. native Linux drivers and codecs 2. FOSS drivers and codecs 3. gaining market share for Linux 4. gaining market share for individual distributions 5. taking users away from Windows 6. software freedom My fear is the big distributors like Ubuntu will be satisfied with #1, and not pay enough attention to #2 and #6. And that distributors like Ubuntu and Linspire will go all nuts over #4, to the detriment of Linux as a whole. I don't see either one of them trying to win over Windows users; they're poaching existing Linux users. I am very thankful to the folks who keep pressing for #6 by working with vendors and reverse-engineering and all the other time-consuming, difficult chores they do. OTOH (there are so many hands) a little freedom is better than no freedom, and getting people to change their habits is always a long process. So I suppose any progress is good. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 6:28 PM EDT |
TC - I think you're right -- but I'm not sure how bad/alarming/whatever it is that you are right. The big distros are businesses trying to make money to keep the lights on. Even when their hearts are in the right places, they can find themselves constrained by the bill collectors. That does, however, work both ways -- bedeviled, unfortunately by chickens and eggs -- It obviously is better for the distros themselves to distribute FOSS drivers, codecs, etc, because there are no royalty payments, etc. Trouble is, how do you get them developed (something that would cost distros beacoup bucks) so that they can be distributed? |
| jimf Dec 30, 2006 7:02 PM EDT |
> except they're cheapskates and don't want to pay for help You noticed that too huh ;-)... But, they'll put up with paying for windows, and bad treatment by MS, and restrictive DRM, and virus up the wazoo... That is soo counter intuitive. |
| bigg Dec 30, 2006 8:05 PM EDT |
> Oooo, low blow! That's the tech equivalent of Godwin's Law. Boo hiss! Okay, my apologies, let me put it in different terms. Have you ever used Linux (seriously)? Do you have any idea how much things have changed since 2004? We have a much better alternative to Windows now than we did back in 2004. Perhaps a Super Bowl ad will help. I'll pledge $5. Things must be a lot better. After all, we now have Freespire, which gives us the magical codecs. |
| tuxchick Dec 30, 2006 8:26 PM EDT |
Much better, biggs. It's so awful to compare anyone to dunderle that I think we need to save it for very special occasions. Like when pushing an offending person into a volcano or siccing the dingoes on them or lining them up for a stoning isn't severe enough. I have my doubts about a Superbowl ad. If we did a wardrobe malfunction with any of the usual Linux luminaries, it could have an adverse effect, like cause a barfing pandemic. |
| jimf Dec 30, 2006 8:33 PM EDT |
> they're poaching existing Linux users. That may be true for the 'buntu's', I'm not so sure about Linspire. Still the attitudes of both Distros are more than a little questionable in their support of FOSS. > I suppose any progress is good. It beats stagnation, but, I wonder if it's 'real' progress. |
| tracyanne Dec 30, 2006 9:05 PM EDT |
quote:: Lol, try loading that desktop from 2000 and then try to tell me it isn't eons away from what we can get now. ::quote Yes the desktop is far and away better, yes the FOSS applications are far and away better, that is why I have absolutely no problem recommending Linux to joe public type users. BUT, I still have to do the same pavane as I used to have to do back in 2000, in order to get multimedia working properly, and joe public want multi media NOW, they want it working, and they don't want to have to go search the web for the PLF repositories, assuming they've even heard of them, they want to be able to purchase any old printer from Harvey Norman or Walmart or and they want to unpack it and plug it in, and if necessary they want that damn CD that comes with the printer to have the right drivers for their printer. That's what they expect. When I set up a Linux computer for joe public I do the three step, not them. Everything works when they get the computer, just like it does when they get their windows computer from Harvey Norman - interest free for 12 months, nothing pay till this time next year. I might stress here, that it's not all about the lack of proprietary drivers and CODECS, that is just a small part of it. A lot of it is about perception. When Joe Public think about Linux - about the same time as I mention it to them - they think too hard, too technical, too new, too never tried it, it's for geeks, they think can I use X,Y or Z, and if the answer is no, they are not interested, they don't conceptualise that there may be better alternatives, or that there are alternatives. Linux will not gain market share soon, and it must, unless we market Linux and FOSS. Unless Linux is in peoples faces, Unless there are marketing campaigns that show off Linux and FOSS at it best, unless we step out from under shadow of Linux is just like Windows Linux will not get traction. After all why should people change to something that is just like Windows, after all it took them a damn long time to learn how to use Windows, so why should they exert themselves even more to learn Linux. We have to take control of the Dialogue, we have to market Linux on it's good points, and there are many, lack of Viruses, greater security, and at the level that Joe public uses it, a damn site easier than Windows, and many time less frustrating. Linspire's CNR, and Xandros's installer are a doddle to use (I use Mandriva, by the way), even easier than Drakconf. But in order to really market Linux on it's good points, and to really take advantage of those goodpoints, we also need to include the Good points that Windows has, easy free (as in beer) for the user, legal access to the CODECs, and the Hardware drivers. The patents on most of the CODECs will run out soon, and if we use them to gain the market share that Linux deserves, we can change the system. In the mean time we need to get good Open hardware projects off the ground, so that we no longer need rely on those proprietary hardware drivers. But we can't afford to sit around and wait until those Open Hardware projects bare fruit, we have to Sell Linux NOW. |
| tracyanne Dec 30, 2006 9:10 PM EDT |
quote:; My fear is the big distributors like Ubuntu will be satisfied with #1, ::quote Eric S Raymond proposed a solution to this problem, see the link in my first post. |
| tracyanne Dec 30, 2006 9:33 PM EDT |
Here's a joke for you. My boss just rang, he wants me to bring my Mandriva Install disk to work so that he can save his Windows server, which seems to be having trouble booting. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 1:26 AM EDT |
> We need what Kevin Carmony has to offer, legal access to proprietary CODECs. No, we need to convince people to use Free codecs like Theora. You'll never fix the problem otherwise, as people will just move onto the next non-Free codec and you'll be right back where you started. |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2006 3:17 AM EDT |
quote:: No, we need to convince people to use Free codecs like Theora. You'll never fix the problem otherwise, as people will just move onto the next non-Free codec and you'll be right back where you started. ::quote We don't have time to convince people to use free CODECs. We have to get people using Linux first, and we have to gain sufficient market share before we can convince anyone to do anything, when we have market share, then we can move to free CODECs, and in any case the patents will run out on many of the CODECs in the next few years. This http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt is one of the reasons why we need to push for market share. Vista's content protection requirements are both an opportunity and a barrier to Linux. quote:: Seems Vista's "content protection" requirements will force hardware makers to do several awful things at once, mostly by burning DRM into hardware. Needless to say, this will screw up things for Linux's customary hermit-crab approach to running on generic hardware. Because, if Microsoft succeeds, there won't be generic hardware. White boxes won't be able to run Vista. They'll only run Vista's ancestors and competitors. Vista-ready boxes will be white in the manner of Apple's: in color only. - Doc Searls ::quote But the Linux and Free an Open Source community has to grab the opportunity now, before it becomes a barrier. But to take advantage of the opportunity, we have to offer Mr and Mrs Joe Public the multimedia CODECs they currently use. If we do not this will be an opportunity wasted. the other reason we must take this opportunity, while it is still available is this http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-dom... which I posted a link to in my first post. The Eric S. Raymond and Rob Landley analysis of which OS will or could replace Windows 32 bit, in other words what the 64 bit OS might be. That could easily be Linux, but it can only be Linux if Linux has sufficient market share soon. According to Raymond and Landly that soon is 2008. Market share for any of the candidates Windows-64, Linux-64, or OSX, will be determined by the number of non technical users, Mr and Mrs Joe Public, and they won't be persuaded that Theora is good, no matter how good Theora is, no matter how good any free CODEC is. Not in time for Linux to take advantage of this opportunity. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 4:37 AM EDT |
> We don't have time to convince people to use free CODECs. Yes you do. You're just not willing to do the advocacy work and are being seduced by short term "market share" gains for long term failure. We didn't get to where we are now by giving up every time advocacy was difficult. Let's look at the codec situation. The majority of games now ship their music in ogg format, and many portable players support it. You can get plugins for Windows DirectSound and Apple Quicktime to enable it on all players on those platforms. Speex is in use in both teamspeak and ventrilo, the two most common voice chat applications around. It's now time to do advocacy for Theora, or help speed up the reference encoder which is currently very slow. I've only seen one game ship its video in Theora format, and it should be an easy sell to that sector seeing as they're currently paying a royalty for Bink Video. Pick a sector, and get to work doing advocacy. |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2006 5:17 AM EDT |
Without Market share there is no future for Linux, it will remain on the margins. Without market share we can change nothing. If we miss this opportunity Linux on the desktop will probably never happen. |
| jimf Dec 31, 2006 5:30 AM EDT |
> If we miss this opportunity Linux on the desktop will probably never happen. What optimism! Spoken like a true Ubuntuite ;-) |
| bigg Dec 31, 2006 7:25 AM EDT |
> What optimism! Spoken like a true Ubuntuite ;-) More like an Eric Raymondite. As I now realize you are a disciple of ESR, I will leave the conversation. No sense going any further. |
| herzeleid Dec 31, 2006 9:12 AM EDT |
Quoting: bigg: As I now realize you are a disciple of ESR, I will leave the conversation. No sense going any further.If you disagree with her point, why not address the issues on their own merits, don't just take your ball and go home because you don't like Eric Raymond. IMHO ESR is no dummy, regardless of whether I always agree with him - but let's not forget that it was Linus T himself who made the case that the viability of linux on the desktop is crucial to its long term survival. Forget about personalities, what say you about the issues? |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
> except they're cheapskates and don't want to pay for help, That may be true to an extent, but not universally. Most of the people I support are more than willing to pay for work on their home machines, often more than is necessary. A recent user had a machine which wouldn't boot (inaccessible boot device) after a power failure. A quick boot from an XP disk and running chkdsk fixed the problem. She didn't understand why I only wanted $5 for fixing the problem. I tried to explain that it only took about 5 minutes of my time, the rest was just letting the chkdsk run, and I think it finally got through. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 9:43 AM EDT |
> Without Market share there is no future for Linux You realize everything that's come before this point has been from following the philosophy and doing advocacy, not abandoning it for some short term "market share" right? If not, look how well those that abandoned it did. We have ESR's OSI initiative which is pretty easy to call a perceived failure considering the #1 question about a license is now "Is it GPL-compatible?" instead of the previous "Is it Open Source?". We have the proprietary branches of XFree86 to enable acceleration where it couldn't be done freely, which.. wait, they're all out of business, aren't they? There's Codeweaver who sought to get Microsoft's applications up on GNU/Linux rather than build Free replacements, and they're.. uh, anyone heard from them recently? There's w32codecs which is a lawsuit waiting to happen as they're basically warez, and the best two examples, Caldera and Novell - their plans to skip the whole Freedom thing and bootstrap their position with proprietary software.. didn't go so well. :) Stick to the plan. It's worked for 20 years. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 9:56 AM EDT |
> There's Codeweaver who sought to get Microsoft's applications up on GNU/Linux rather than build Free replacements, and they're.. uh, anyone heard from them recently? AFAIK, Codeweavers is doing fine. I believe the same can be said for Cedega, though it's harder to tell. They fill niche markets, but they do so very well, and people are willing to pay for those niche services. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 9:57 AM EDT |
> If we did a wardrobe malfunction with any of the usual Linux luminaries, it could have an adverse effect, like cause a barfing pandemic. So, TC, does this mean you're volunteering? :) |
| dcparris Dec 31, 2006 10:45 AM EDT |
Tracyanne, if you really don't believe we have time, I would guess that you are still fairly young, and that you have very little grasp of guerrilla warfare. I agree that we need to market our software more - I have written about it myself, have raised the issue in e-mail lists and even had a banner campaign over at matheteuo.org that no one joined. Since we recently revamped, you won't see much over there now, but I'm working on it. Some of the links are in place, but not the banners. Now, if I could convince everyone else to put up banners and links and marketing materials, we might have something. I, like several of the others, do not care for the taint of non-libre codecs or drivers in GNU/Linux. If people want that, let them download and add it in themselves. I am of the opinion that the major distros should team up for a concerted push for libre licenses for the most-used codecs, or do the reverse engineering thing. I would do it, but with my programming skills, my project would just drive everyone back to non-libre stuff. ;-) Can you - are you willing to - participate in a marketing effort? OOo and Mozilla both have marketing teams. If you can start a marketing project, go for it. It sure beats talking (I'm not trying to imply that's all you're doing btw). |
| bigg Dec 31, 2006 12:24 PM EDT |
> If you disagree with her point, why not address the issues on their own merits, don't just take your ball and go home because you don't like Eric Raymond. I've made my view clear: codecs are not magic pixie dust, and they are available if you want them. One thing we will never hear is an executive saying, "Since Linux users have faithfully used our proprietary codecs, we will now open them up." It's a fact of life and we have to face that fact if we want free codecs. I have nothing else to add. It's not ESR that bothers me, it's his disciples. They take what he writes as Gospel. It would be like arguing with a Jerry Falwell disciple about, well, anything. Eric Raymond said it, so it must be true. He's done some good things for us, but that doesn't mean he's never wrong. |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2006 1:28 PM EDT |
quote:: Tracyanne, if you really don't believe we have time, I would guess that you are still fairly young, and that you have very little grasp of guerrilla warfare ::quote You would would you, Well I've been in the IT game for a while now, in fact I started programming commercially on a PDP 11/70. And I'm no disciple of Eric S Raymond, he just happened to articulate something that I've been thinking for a while. Romantic notions of Guerrilla war are not going to going to get Linux anywhere. Religious ferver will achieve nothing. There is an opportunity here for Linux, we should not waste it. quote:: I, like several of the others, do not care for the taint of non-libre codecs or drivers in GNU/Linux. If people want that, let them download and add it in themselves. ::quote I'd prefer Free CODECS, if they were available, and Free Drivers, if they were available, and I think the community should be going full steam to develop Free CODECs and Free Drivers, and Free hardware. BUT. We need to seize an opportunity while it lasts. If we don't Linux will continue to be marginalised. To use your Guerrilla warfare analogy, this is a weakness in the enemy that we can and should exploit. There are people out there, and based on my feel from talking to Mr and Mrs Joe Public type people, a significant number, who would switch to Linux right now if they could continue to do what they do now. The only thing that will sway the hardware manufacturers is bums on seats. quote:: Can you - are you willing to - participate in a marketing effort? OOo and Mozilla both have marketing teams. If you can start a marketing project, go for it. It sure beats talking (I'm not trying to imply that's all you're doing btw). ::quote Yes, I am willing. I currently post regularly on several non Linux non technical Forums where they have a place where people can talk about computers. In other words I'm talking directly to people who are potential Linux users. I also run computer skills classes on Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday nights, a major part of the curriculum is Linux and Free and Open Source Software, several of my students are now Linux and FOSS users. But It doesn't pay the bills, and I have to work at a job I don't care much for - programming web applications on Windows computers. I will do anything reasonable that's within my power to help Linux become the operating system of choice for the majority of people, that inculdes using non Free CODECs, and non Free Drivers when there is nothing else available. At the moment the majority of Joe Public aren't even aware of Linux, and aren't even choosing not to use it, and those that are aware of Linux are choosing not to use it because they perceive, and rightly so, that you can't just play your movies and your MP3s and all the things they know will just work on Windows. And that you can't just use this ot that hardware. They see Linux as inconvenient. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 1:39 PM EDT |
> ESR ... Jerry Falwell Considering that ESR is vehemently non-Christian, that's an absolutely devastating comparison. |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2006 1:40 PM EDT |
quote:; I've made my view clear: codecs are not magic pixie dust, and they are available if you want them. One thing we will never hear is an executive saying, "Since Linux users have faithfully used our proprietary codecs, we will now open them up." It's a fact of life and we have to face that fact if we want free codecs. I have nothing else to add. ::quote No CODECs are not majic pixie dust, they are a means to an end. No you won't here an executive say that. That is why non Free CODECs are simply a part of the picture, the bit that makes it possible for current non Linux users to say, "Hey linux is secure and stable and it will run our stuff", lets use Linux. We also need Free CODECs and Free Drivers and Free Hardware. So that the executive will for forced to say "Linux is being used by the majority of people, and they can rely on Free CODECs, Drivers and Hardware, we need to sell to this market, we need to make our product Free". Corporations do whatever it takes to keep the shareholders happy, or else they go under, and if selling product based on Free hardware or Free CODECs is what it takes that's what they do. At the moment the only question Mr Executive will ask is "what's in it for my shareholders?" and the answer at the moment is "nothing". |
| bigg Dec 31, 2006 4:33 PM EDT |
> Considering that ESR is vehemently non-Christian, that's an absolutely devastating comparison. Well, Jerry Fallwell would define me as non-Christian, even though I've been a church leader. I doubt very much that either cares about my opinion of them. > forced to say "Linux is being used by the majority of people, and they can rely on Free CODECs, Drivers and Hardware, we need to sell to this market, we need to make our product Free". The only power we have is to not use what they are selling. That's it. You do realize that Windows users could demand free codecs but don't. If they need proprietary codecs on Linux to get them to convert, what will change about their wilingness to boycott proprietary codecs once they are on Linux? It's a tough problem, but it seems odd that the solution would be to use what they are offering. It's like saying we should spend our money on the cars with the lowest quality so that we can have a large market to threaten the company into making higher quality cars. Repeating myself, the only power we have is to not use what they are selling. If we use proprietary codecs, we reduce the economic incentive to free them. And if you aren't afraid after watching what happened with Flash 9, you don't learn very quickly. That was pretty damaging to Linux. |
| dcparris Dec 31, 2006 4:40 PM EDT |
I don't see how using proprietary drivers convinces anyone that we don't want them. That's just plain screwy. When I don't want something, I refuse to use it. |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2006 5:51 PM EDT |
quote:: Repeating myself, the only power we have is to not use what they are selling. ::quote In which case we have no power at all, as there are not enough Linux users to make a damn difference. In what way does 1% of the market not using a product have any affect on the bottom line of a corporate quote:: If we use proprietary codecs, we reduce the economic incentive to free them. ::quote If the proprietary CODECs are available so that Joe Public will use Linux, this creates a market that can be used as a lever. quote:: And if you aren't afraid after watching what happened with Flash 9, you don't learn very quickly. That was pretty damaging to Linux. ::quote They didn't open source it, could that be because there are not enough Linux users to make sufficient difference should they get pissed off about the code not being Free. As I said the CODECs and the Drivers are a small part of it, they are the lever that gets more bums on seats. |
| tuxchick Dec 31, 2006 6:41 PM EDT |
>>If we did a wardrobe malfunction with any of the usual Linux luminaries, it could have an adverse effect, like cause a barfing pandemic.
> So, TC, does this mean you're volunteering? :) NO NO and NO!! Think of the children! |
| tracyanne Dec 31, 2006 11:18 PM EDT |
quote:: You do realize that Windows users could demand free codecs but don't. ::quote More importantly, Microsoft could demand Free CODECs, and Free and Open drivers, when ever they demand something they get it because they have market share, but, in this case, they don't. They don't because they don't want Free and Open CODECs or Drivers. On the other hand Linux Distributors do, and with market share to back them up they could demand them. But once again, the CODECs and the Drivers are a small part of it, they are the lever needed to gain market share. If the community continues to develop better Free CODECs and Free hardware, and continues to reverse engineer Drivers, when combined with bums on seats, Linux distributors will have a huge amount of bargaining power, and that's what's important, because the hardware manufacturers won't do it our way unless they perceive that they need to do it our way for the sake of their business. |
| Teron Jan 01, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
IMHO, if we want to get free codecs to spread: 1. Get proprietary programs to support them. Winamp and Real, for example, play .oggs pretty well (Though it's been a long time since I used either as my main media player, so I could be wrong about Real) THE most important step is to simply make as many people as possible to use .ogg-capable programs, be they free or closed. We just need to get them to use the programs, it isn't necessary to convert a single song to .ogg (yet) 2. After getting people using programs they like, that CAN play .ogg if necessary, we need to start encoding our stuff in .ogg format. Eventually, people will have .ogg files on their computer that they probably can just send to others - and they'll work. This is the time to tell people why .ogg beats mp3. 3. Ask those of the converted who buy CDs to rip their discs in .ogg format and perhaps rerip a single album a month or something to .ogg 4. All of this is made a lot easier by giving the "victim" an ogg/mp3 compatible music player as a birthday present, for example. People won't convert if they can't take their music with them. 5. If you can convert some of your "victims" into anti-DRM (at least)/pro-OGG (at best) activists, then all the better. 6. Viral infection should do the job. It's slow, but should work, if given time. EDIT: Along the years, my music collection has been in many different formats. I think it was MP3 first, then WMA (it's better tech, wasn't a FOSS fella back then), then AAC (When I bought my Pod). Now it's MP3 again, because I don't want to be locked into Pods/etc. again. At some point, it was in ogg, too. When my collection was .ogg or AAC, I was constantly facing problems sending stuff to people because their players didn't support my less-common formats. Would you like me to compile a list of 'doze-based music software that supports .ogg? (OS X can be solved by a plugin from xiph.org. Get that for all of your mac-using friends) |
| jsusanka Jan 01, 2007 6:16 PM EDT |
"The company even set me up with a notebook computer because they don't support use of a Linux-based VPN client for remote access to their network. Now there's a cost-efficient solution for you!" same place with my work except I will go one better - they use the cisco vpn client on windows and cisco even makes a linux client but my work won't support anything except windows and so they have to issue me a laptop. go figure - probably something in the microsoft coporate agreement about supporting non windows clients that won't allow them to. but hey I am sure the golf games are good when these coporate agreements are reached. |
| dinotrac Jan 01, 2007 6:21 PM EDT |
>ame place with my work except I will go one better - they use the cisco vpn client on windows and cisco even makes a linux client but my work won't support anything except windows and so they have to issue me a laptop. That is exactly my situation. Sigh. |
| herzeleid Jan 01, 2007 6:52 PM EDT |
Quoting: same place with my work except I will go one better - they use the cisco vpn client on windows and cisco even makes a linux client but my work won't support anything except windows and so they have to issue me a laptop.Same here - typical PHB thinking, straight out of dilbert. However, I've secured a copy of the cisco linux vpn client and will be looking at getting that working. The only real use I have for the expee laptop is as a dumb terminal to connect to my employers unix servers from home, and one silly legacy app that only works with msie. The other 99.9% of my time I'm using linux, so it would be a great thing to get away from the silly expee vpn client and start enjoying all the comfort and power of a linux desktop when I remotely access the servers from home. |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 02, 2007 1:52 AM EDT |
>legacy app that only works with msie You can run IE on Linux, too. I use it on PCLOS. |
| helios Jan 02, 2007 2:48 AM EDT |
"...If you want all the proprietary stuff, use Windows,..." That sir, is without a doubt proof positive that Linux Elitists will do what they can to "protect their turf" Freedom is all-inclusive, Freedom is Absolute, Freedom knows no boundries or caveats. You may have the right to say things like this, and I have defended with my blood and flesh your right to say it. I have also defended my right to tell you that you are not only wrong...you are damaging a nobel effort. Yes, the Binary Blob is a temporary evil...give the community a chance to work something out in the interim. There is no reason to cripple our computing experience in exchange for a restrictive ideal....forcefed to those new to our community. h |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2007 3:16 AM EDT |
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. |
| Teron Jan 02, 2007 6:49 AM EDT |
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) |
| herzeleid Jan 02, 2007 7:34 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Jan 02, 2007 10:16 AM EDT |
> ...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. :( |
| rijelkentaurus Jan 02, 2007 12:48 PM EDT |
>and I haven't been able to track down what's wrong yet. Umm...Slackware? 8P |
| jdixon Jan 02, 2007 1:27 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| herzeleid Jan 02, 2007 1:34 PM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Jan 02, 2007 3:02 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 02, 2007 3:09 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| jimf Jan 02, 2007 3:17 PM EDT |
> 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). |
| herzeleid Jan 02, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
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. |
| herzeleid Jan 02, 2007 4:29 PM EDT |
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. |
| herzeleid Jan 02, 2007 4:31 PM EDT |
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. |
| jimf Jan 02, 2007 4:33 PM EDT |
> it, only affected ext3 users Correct. I also agree on using reiserfs, which is great with a desktop enviorment. |
| jdixon Jan 02, 2007 4:51 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| hkwint Jan 03, 2007 3:58 AM EDT |
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? |
| herzeleid Jan 03, 2007 8:49 AM EDT |
> > 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. |
| jdixon Jan 03, 2007 7:24 PM EDT |
> 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). |
| herzeleid Jan 03, 2007 10:04 PM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Jan 04, 2007 3:08 AM EDT |
> 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. |
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!