Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 16, 2006 0:22 UTC (Sat) by vblum (guest, #1151)
Parent article: "BadVista.org": FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista

I think Linus had a good point when he argued that technical superiority was the really important thing; in the end, that will promote free software best. This here is purely about campaigning against someone else's actual work (and yes, work it is, even if I'm happily not exposed to it). What for?

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Dec 16, 2006 0:47 UTC (Sat) by krishna (guest, #24080) [Link]

Well, without the FSF's GPL, linux would be under a BSD-license. Isn't the existence of the GPL (a legal issue, not one of technical superiority) crucial to the adoption of free software? The campaign here is about freedoms being taken away, not that Vista is packed with eye candy or takes more memory to run.

I believe here that FSF is trying to preserve the freedoms that allow technical superiority/innovation to take place, and to say why they're important.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 16, 2006 1:09 UTC (Sat) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

Infighting and constant fragmentation didn't help the BSD folk any in regards to "market share".

I understand and tend to agree with the arguments as to the GPL's superiority, but I don't think that explains the entire difference in adoption.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 16, 2006 11:20 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Actually it does. Not only BSD camp was hurt by fragmentation itself (a lot of code was in proprietary branches and is lost forever) but the fear of fragmentation was also a big problem.

Actually GPL is great because
1. Anyone have the right to fork the projects and
2. Anyone have the right to merge projects

Both are critical: 1 means that there are will be no lock-in and 2 means there are will be no useless duplicates thus no useless waste of resources.

Novell's agreement is direct attack on 2 - that's why community is so hostile...

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 17, 2006 14:23 UTC (Sun) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]

This is nonsense, the early versions of Linux weren't released under the BSD, nor GPL. The license resembled GPL more than BSD, as sharing changes and being free were the main points.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 16, 2006 1:12 UTC (Sat) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link]

... technical superiority was the really important thing; in the end that will promote free software best.

Technical superiority of the Beta video format didn't get it very far in the competition against VHS. From a maket point of view, it's more important to address a specific problem/need/want in a timely manner, with plenty of backing. Whether a particular solution works worse (though not terribly so) than the best solution, is of secondary importance. A relevant example is Sony's Playstation 2: it still steamrolled Xbox 1, not because it was better, but because it was there first.

The same applies to open source software. As much as I like using it because of the freedom it affords (freedom to mix'n'match, freedom to modify, not costing the earth), the Windows "solution" is good enough for 90% of people. It "works" now and has "worked" for a while. It plays DVDs, let's people play games, do word-processing, send emails and browse the web. There is really no compelling reason (though lots of little reasons) for people to switch en masse away from it. Most people don't care about DRM or other issues that are perceived as esoteric and/or philosophical. They just want the bloody thing to work. Case point: open source software needs more than technical superiority.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 21, 2006 4:14 UTC (Thu) by Erich_J_Ritzmann (guest, #39670) [Link]

The prevalence of a product in the marketplace is more about the user experience than about
something as abstract as technical superiority. The latter, while interesting, is not all important.

Interestingly, Linux outshines Windows in many respects. In some ways OS X outshines Linux --
out of the box graphics are leagues better than what I've seen on Linux or Windows, for example.
Most OS X software you get with it is well-designed, with excellent attention to how users will
interact with it. It's an excellent environment when you just want to get things done and not
have to assemble the car before driving to the grocery store.

But, more to your point ... wasn't Beta a single company product protected with many patents
and royalty payments high? Whereas VHS was a standard which a plethora of companies bought
into because it was a more open standard? I simplify slightly to make a point. Linux seems more
like VHS in the early days in many ways. Beta had an early market lead but then was
overwhelmed by the VHS flood.

Windows has an early lead. However, as it becomes harder to copy, i.e. the company refers to
this as pirating, more people will look for alternatives. Most of the world's population does not
yet use a computer. That is about to change over the next ten years. The key to Linux' success
will in part be determined by early adoption in the developing world. Its price and the ability to
readily localize it for languages which Microsoft will ignore, will be key to its uptake. The other
important point to get -- we need to get the UI consistent and designed from the perspective of
the user -- currently there is too little of that in Linux.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 22, 2006 15:40 UTC (Fri) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link]

VHS and Beta weren't enough different for consumers to perceive any difference beyond that they were incompatible, and compatibility was the most desirable thing. It was eventually attained by VHS coming to dominate the market, and video rental stores eventually ceasing to offer Beta movies.

Had every VHS player cost 10-15% more than a similar Beta one because of a licensing fee, the story would almost certainly have played out differently. In any case it's not relevant to Linux vs M$ - the story there is that the market is already dominated by M$. Linux is the newcomer trying to break in with a better product at a totally unbeatable price (zero). Don't under-estimate how much the average Joe is willing to pay for the familiar (and Microsoft's biggest mistake with Vista may come to be seen as having changed the user interface yet again!)

It's a lot more like Ghandi's struggle for Indian independance: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Well, we've reached stage 3.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 16, 2006 1:20 UTC (Sat) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link]

I don't know what world Linus is living in, but technical superiority is certainly not the most important thing in the world I live in. Technical superiority trails marketing, public relations as well as first impressions.

Now DefectivebyDesign.org has a real catchy name and it sticks in your head. That's a winner. But BadVista.org? Bo-ring! Dullsville. It's a loser. And like "Bad Santa", it implies that there's really a "Good Vista". Is that what we're supposed to think?

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 17, 2006 11:55 UTC (Sun) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

What about "VisionLessVista"? All the "new&cool" stuff in Vista
is plagiated from Mac OSX.

Or "DReaMVista.nightmare" and logo of a consumer's heart (shaped
MP3 player) with DRM stake driven through it?

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 18, 2006 3:32 UTC (Mon) by jimmybgood (guest, #26142) [Link]

They should have picked, RestrictedVista.org or possibly ObstructedVista.org. After all, it's RS who refers to DRM as digital restrictions management, isn't it?

ObstructedVista makes more sense, but I like the sound of RestrictedVista better.

Is this about free software?

Posted Dec 18, 2006 21:25 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

I'd go for VistaSux.org. And while at that, somebody make ZuneSux.org as well. Because iPod rulez!

Technical superiority

Posted Dec 16, 2006 4:05 UTC (Sat) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link]

Yes, I think technical superiority has a lot to do with the long-term success of Free Software.

Notice I said long-term. Note also that there are plenty of examples of commercial products that lost out in the marketplace to rivals that were arguably technically inferior in many ways. There's the hoary old Beta-versus-VHS example; in the era of operating systems, don't forget BeOS, or the earlier OS/2.

However, the operating system and other software examples I can think of are all closed-source. The companies that developed them had only a finite amount of capital to develop and promote their products; after several years without any significant market penetration, their investors got antsy and abandoned them, and that was that.

What makes Free Software different is that it's not beholden to any one company in this way. After all, it's taken fifteen years for Linux to get to the point where it is today. If it had been a closed-source product, would any company have had that much patience to persevere with it? No way.

So, ultimately, Free Software has better staying power than any closed-source product. What keeps the closed-source products in the game is the fact that they make a profit. But that profit comes at a cost, in terms of ever-growing complexity and feature bloat, because those are the only selling points you've got over your competition. At some point you evolve yourself into a cul-de-sac, and I think with Vista, Microsoft has finally reached that point.