| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Resisting the binary blobResisting the binary blobPosted Nov 15, 2006 0:39 UTC (Wed) by emkey (guest, #144)In reply to: Resisting the binary blob by khim Parent article: Resisting the binary blob
Fundamentally I and a fair number of other people want a real alternative to Microsoft. I happen to feel that as a general rule open source software is a superior model that will win out in the long term, but with one qualifier... It has to gain significant market share first. The battle in the server realm has been largely won. The next step is the desktop. To gain ground there binary drivers are a requirement for now. I don't like this, but I'm a pragmatist.
Don't talk to me about fundamental freedoms when the fundamental freedom I care most about is my right to choose something other than a Microsoft product in twenty years time.
(Log in to post comments)
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 15, 2006 2:29 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] What would be the point at "winning the desktop for open source", only that the system is not really open source, and moreover depends in fundamental ways on closed source pieces to even minimally work? I, for one, prefer open source because it (mostly) works just fine, and (very important!) if it works with some piece of hardware today, it'll probably do so for the foreseable future, even if the vendor of said device would dearly like me to shell out for a yearly "upgrade", and nugde in that direction by just leaving their binary drivers to rot.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 16, 2006 18:43 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] The point is that 95% of and ideal world is a lot better then 0% of an ideal world.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 24, 2006 6:32 UTC (Fri) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648) [Link] To get anything resembling an ideal world, we must be firm in our demands.Binary drivers are not acceptable in the long run, and we should make it as undesirable as we can for vendors to produce them.
Putting pressure on vendors works, and things are much better now because
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 15, 2006 8:14 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It has to gain significant market share first. Market share is irrelevant if you don't have control. Lotus 1-2-3 and Wordperfect had "market share" in 1990. Microsoft had control. By the 1995 Lotus 1-2-3 and Worperfect become irrelevant. They are still around, but... who really cares about them ? Today it's about MS Office and OpenOffice.org, not about former gigants... Don't talk to me about fundamental freedoms when the fundamental freedom I care most about is my right to choose something other than a Microsoft product in twenty years time. The only way to make this fredoom reality is to reject binary blobs today. Sorry. Either you are talking about "something other than a Microsoft in twenty years time" or you are talking about "working system, right here, right now". There are no middle ground. Why ? It's easy. Microsoft's most famous strategy is embrace, extend, extinguish. Do you really think Microsoft will hesistate to apply the strategy it perfected for the last 30 years to kill "something other than a Microsoft product" ? Binary blobs are just begging for this strategy to be applied. Turn blind eye first (that's what the Microsoft is doing), then wait while the same technology is used in Linux and in Windows drivers - and finally ask vendors of few key drivers to "remove their IP" (to make drivers inferior to their Windows ones) - poof no more alternative. Purrfect.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 15, 2006 14:57 UTC (Wed) by pbardet (guest, #22762) [Link] MS had control because the had Windows and they could break any API easily to fail other software for unknown reasons...I just hope Linux will prove it's better without using those tactics. That's why I'm opposed to any MS contributions to the Linux world as they're currently trying through Novell.
I don't see why because one distribution uses a binary blob, development will stop on the free version for all other distributions, especially the hard code open-source ones. You can't compare commercial and open-source software development.
The only reason people don't want binary drivers, is because they fear it will actually win in the end. It's up to the open-source programmers to prove them wrong. But it's so much easier to try to prevent things from happening than creating.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 15, 2006 15:25 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] I don't see why because one distribution uses a binary blob, development will stop on the free version for all other distributions, especially the hard code open-source ones.On the other hand, just because one distribution doesn't include binary blobs doesn't mean that development will stop on all the not-so-free distributions. I don't see that you have made any compelling arguments why FC should include them, other than you seem want them. In your original post you mentioned that FC is one of the more popular distributions, and then go on to assume that they would be even more popular if they were to include binary blobs. Could it be that they would become less popular if they included them?
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 16, 2006 18:50 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] The only way to make this freedom reality is to reject binary blobs today.And you base this assumption on what exactly? Idealism goes nowhere in the real world. I don't like that, but it's a reality. Open Source software has done well to date because there is a good and compelling business case for it. At this point the perception is that this isn't true on the desktop. Linux needs to make significant inroads on the desktop for that to change. And lack of driver support is a significant impediment to having that happen. The good news? Binary drivers exist that solve most of the problems. The bad news? There is no bad news, though some people seem obsessed with pretending there is.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 17, 2006 7:38 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Binary drivers exist that solve most of the problems.I wish that was true. Unfortunately it is not. Binary drivers just add more problems to an already fragile desktop market:
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 30, 2006 19:38 UTC (Thu) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Binary drivers do not in and of themselves prevent free drivers. Ergo, they cause no problems in that arena. Which pretty much makes every point you raised moot.
Again, there is no issue here. None. What we have is a very obscure and largely pointless pseudo religious objection by some people.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Dec 1, 2006 3:01 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] If the binary drivers are installed by default, instead of the free drivers, then every single one of man_ls's points is valid. Binary drivers prevent free drivers when the user doesn't know that the free driver exists.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 17, 2006 23:03 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] Idealism goes nowhere in the real world. ... The bad news? There is no bad news, though some people seem obsessed with pretending there is.And you call khim idealistic? Whoa, my irony-meter just exploded... You want a compelling business case? I made the business case for my last job. It went something like this: open source gives you control (binary blobs don't, period); it tends to give you security (binary blobs are much murkier in this regard); and it tends to give you reliability (binary blobs tend not to). It's also cheap, but that was merely fourth or fifth on the list. Those are the features that businesses care about. As for the desktop: personally, I really don't care if there's a business case for it, compelling or otherwise. The business cases for FLOSS servers showed up long after open source itself did, and large market share is relevant only if it advances the FLOSS cause. A large market share that's 95% composed of binary-blob users is utterly useless as a tool to convince device makers to open their specifications, so who needs it? More power to Fedora and Red Hat, says I. Greg
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 16, 2006 18:58 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > I happen to feel that as a general rule open source software is a superior model that will win out in the long term, but with one qualifier... It has to gain significant market share first.
If it undermines or abandons its key point of differentiation to gain a few more users now, how is it *ever* going to acquire major market share?
The one thing free software has that can never be taken away is its ethical basis - but when so many people are so quick to advocate surrendering it wholesale for a little bit of convenience right now, perhaps it doesn't *need* to be taken.
Oh, and you want "a real alternative to Microsoft"? Buy a Mac; for if Microsoft were to release Windows under a free software licence, the community would welcome their conversion with open arms. Free software is about principles, not alternatives; choice is merely the shoddy counterfeit of freedom.
I refuse to subscribe to the view that principles are worth less than the sacrifices necessary to maintain them, which seems to be what is being advocated here. For those who think they are, there are two perfectly good operating systems out there in widespread use, and likely one or the other of them came gratis with the last computer you bought. But consider the adjectives usually used to describe people who postpone their purported principles to purchase petty popularity.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 17, 2006 0:34 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] The one thing free software has that can never be taken away is its ethical basisWhat in particular makes free software more ethical than for pay software? And can those rule be applied generally, or are they specific to software only? Is free software actually free? I refuse to subscribe to the view that principles are worth less than the sacrifices necessary to maintain them I refuse to be sacrificed for a principle that A, I don't agree with and B, I don't believe to have a factual basis. I've elaborated more on my point in other responses to the up thread post I made. I won't repeat myself here.
Today's quiz Posted Nov 17, 2006 7:59 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] What in particular makes free software more ethical than for pay software?Nothing, considering that free software can also be for pay software. And can those rule be applied generally, or are they specific to software only?If you refer to free vs proprietary software, yes: the rule is that helping others is good, while not sharing good things (like your knowledge) is bad. Not even primary school knowledge, this is kindergarten stuff. Is free software actually free?A very old question; the best answer is to define what you mean by free. This is why the GNU project publishes the free software definition. If you agree with the definition then it is free. Others have a different definition, or an even more different definition. So you get to make the decision. I refuse to be sacrificed for a principle that A, I don't agree with and B, I don't believe to have a factual basis.A principle which you don't seem to understand, since it is pretty practical in nature. And yet you benefit from the fruits of said principle... Well, whatever one says of your position, you are in good company.
Today's quiz Posted Nov 17, 2006 16:13 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] You imply that the kernel guys don't understand a principle that normal people are supposed to have learned in Kindergarten? You can't be serious.
Today's quiz Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:47 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Not really. It is a bit confusing because there are two sets of principles here. The first one is the set of principles embodied in free software: that software must be free (just as speech, since it is another form of human expression), that proprietary (closed) software is bad, that binary blobs have bad consequences.I explained that this set of principles applies generally because it derives from another, simpler set of principles: that helping others is good, and not sharing good things is bad. Not all children learn these ideas; remember the greedy kid in the corner who has all the goods but no friends. What is worse: we tend to forget those principles as we grow up. What our correspondent here (as well as certain kernel developers) don't seem to understand is that both sets of principles are very much the same; or, being more precise, we do not agree to the extent of the equivalence. Both are practical in nature, since they have immediate, real-world consequences (as the Open Source crowd likes to point out). Both can be theoretically justified (as in games theory or elaborate essays). And both have ethical consequences which you have to consider. Many kernel devs don't think that the Kindergarten principle of helping others necessarily applies to their work, which is fine -- but wrong. Torvalds in particular seems to think that it is only about sharing code between professionals (tit-for-tat, a famous Kindergarten principle + games theoretical concept [as I have just learned]), but that Tivo-like locked down systems (which do not certainly help others) are OK. Again, not enough thought is given to the consequences of one's actions, which is not so surprising since you have to be a bit obsessive to think things through in this manner.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 22, 2006 14:25 UTC (Wed) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > I refuse to be sacrificed for a principle that A, I don't agree with and B, I don't believe to have a factual basis.
As I say, there is plenty of other software from which you can choose; some of it is even gratis. But you appear to be demanding that people who started doing something on a point of principle discard that point of principle to make your life easier, and that's not "you not being sacrificed" - that's you behaving like a petulant child.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 22, 2006 14:30 UTC (Wed) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] Oops - should have said this before posting my other comment.
> What in particular makes free software more ethical than for pay software? And can those rule be applied generally, or are they specific to software only?
Free software is not "more ethical than for-pay software", and I didn't say it was. I said its ethical basis - ie. the moral decision which led to the creation of free software as a concept - was its differentiator; I didn't imply anything about whether that moral decision was better or worse than others.
I guess, from this, the real problem you have with free software is that *it makes you feel judged*. Except it doesn't - YOU make you feel judged; free software only sets and seeks to protect its own standards, it doesn't seek to bring the rest of the world into compliance with it. That certainly accords with one generally accepted definition of freedom.
> Is free software actually free?
Now that question has to be a piece of FUD right up there with some of Ballmer's finest... Careful; your agenda is showing.
Resisting the binary blob Posted Nov 24, 2006 3:28 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] Sure, lets make everything work out of the box. Let's make it easy toinstall and run on anything.
Explain to me how having binary blobs, or closed proprietary bits of
The desktop is almost there. Most of the major components work very well.
The only thing that keeps this whole mess working at all is the fact that
Maybe someone can make things work now. But what about next year when the
I speak from experience. I have had to try to maintain a few systems with
And how is that supposed to gain large numbers of users?
Derek
|
|
||||||||||||