| |||||||||||||
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com)Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com)Posted Jul 14, 2007 15:00 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)In reply to: Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) by slef Parent article: Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com)
They never misjudged freedom in the first place. How much good does it do the cause of Free Software if large numbers of people install Linux to see what the fuss is about, find that Linux doesn't work very well, and go back to Windows?
Because that is what you get when you insist upon 100% free rather than 99% free.
I'd rather see people running Linux + an NVidia driver than Windows + an NVidia driver.
And the Ubuntu restricted drivers manager does a pretty good job of explaining to the user that they are about to introduce proprietary elements into their system, and letting them decide for themselves whether they want to do that.
How could anyone object to letting the user make an informed decision for himself? Unless what you really want is to manipulate them, of course. But no one who believes in Freedom would ever consider doing that, would they?
(Log in to post comments)
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 14, 2007 15:44 UTC (Sat) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] >How much good does it do the cause of Free Software if large numbers of people install Linux to see what the fuss is about, find that Linux doesn't work very well, and go back to Windows?
If you define the cause of Free Software to be achieving success in the marketplace, then what you say may be right. If you define the cause of Free Software to be coherently and consistently standing for a particular moral position vis a vis software freedom, then you're unambiguously wrong. So it depends.
Of course working for either of these goals can lead to the other, and I assume part of why you think market success is worth working for is that it will lead to moral success; so it comes down to a trade-off. Strategically sacrificing one's principles gains an advantage in the short term (more users! more exposure!), while weakening one's cause in the long term (oh, those principles we ignore when convenient? you should totally believe them, because, umm...).
Game theoretically, a trade-off like that makes sense if your win condition is in sight -- the short term benefits can put you over some threshold, and the long term effects stop mattering. The question is, why should we believe we are in the unique historical moment when that is true? People have been making exactly the argument you make for a long, long time, and paradoxically, it's the community's historical refusal to budge that has over the long run built up that free codebase that is so attractive in market terms. We could have brought some particular companies around earlier, etc., but no-one would remember that now, while the compromised licenses would still be haunting us.
Don't be so impatient. If world domination takes an extra year, so what...
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 14, 2007 16:08 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] I define it as allowing FOSS to benefit as many people as possible. You can keep the political motivations.
I disagree that a hardline fundamentalist approach will necessarily achieve the goal of maximizing the benefits of FOSS to the people of the world.
And I'm still asking how letting the user make an *informed* decision about the software loaded on his own machine can possibly be considered *less* Free than arrogantly *forcing* an inferior, or nonworking system upon him "for his own good".
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 14, 2007 19:31 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I define it as allowing FOSS to benefit as many people as possible. When exactly ? Today, tomorrow or 10 years from now ? You can keep the political motivations. Ah-ha. This means you don't care about long term (that's what "political motivations" are). This way was tried - and it was found that it does not work (remember Unix?)... I disagree that a hardline fundamentalist approach will necessarily achieve the goal of maximizing the benefits of FOSS to the people of the world. Nobody argues that "hardline fundamentalist approach" is always better. It's just that historically the guys who preached "hardline fundamentalist approach" usually fared better in long term then "pragmatists". The only exceptions I can recall are usage of Unix systems by RMS while GNU system was unusable for the development of GNU and usage of Unix for development of BSD (even if guys who did that were not aware that they are developing replacement for Unix). So I think it's Ok to use binary NVidia drivers if it's done by Nouveau developers, but I'm not convinced it's good to include them in general-purpose distribution... And I'm still asking how letting the user make an *informed* decision about the software loaded on his own machine can possibly be considered *less* Free than arrogantly *forcing* an inferior, or nonworking system upon him "for his own good". Who said user is "less free" in this case ? Of course user is "freer" in this case: not only can he use free software, he can also sell tomorrow's freedom for today's gain! Look how much it helped BSD...
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 14, 2007 20:07 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """Ah-ha. This means you don't care about long term (that's what "political motivations" are). """
That has got to be the most nonsensical equation of two dissimilar things that I have seen on this site in a long time.
Introducing more people to the benefits of FOSS is a perfectly good, and largely nonpolitical long term strategy. Some of them may choose to become raving Stallmanites, and some may not. It's really not my concern. But as long as they benefit, that is fine with me. And if they spread the goodness to others, that is even better.
"""
What are you talking about? The BSDs are doing fine from a technical standpoint.
So perhaps you are referring to the user base or general community interest. If so, compare gNewSense with Ubuntu on those metrics. (That last 1% of "no compromise" is the only real difference, so it is a good comparison.)
From that perspective, look how much the hardline approach helped gNewSense, currently #82 on Distrowatch.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that distrowatch rankings are far from a golden standard. But the difference between 76 page hits per day, and 2825 page hits per day should tell you something about how successful gNewSense's 100% Free approach has been in spreading the benefits, and the ideology, of FOSS.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 9:07 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That has got to be the most nonsensical equation of two dissimilar things that I have seen on this site in a long time. Why ? Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. If the group of people decides that they don't care about future and only care about tomorrow - that's decision too. Introducing more people to the benefits of FOSS is a perfectly good, and largely nonpolitical long term strategy. Sorry, "introducing more people to the benefits of FOSS" (no matter the cost) is a political strategy. Just not a very good one. So perhaps you are referring to the user base or general community interest. If so, compare gNewSense with Ubuntu on those metrics. (That last 1% of "no compromise" is the only real difference, so it is a good comparison.) This is stupid comparison. It's obvious that any strategy oriented not for the long haul but for the tomorrow's win should win tomorrow - otherwise it's just 100% flawed. But is it good as a long-time strategy ? Hard to say. But if you think working GCJ had nothing to do with GPL'ed JDK - then you are sorely mistaken. If you think binary components will help free software - then why BSD's are mostly forgotten ? I'm not sure what balance is good as a long-term strategy, but to say that anything that "introduces more people to the benefits of FOSS" is good... it's not even funny
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 15:36 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """But if you think working GCJ had nothing to do with GPL'ed JDK - then you are sorely mistaken. """
Here you make a good point. It has nothing to do with whether giving new users what they need to get started with a FOSS OS is a good thing. But it is a good point.
Note here that the work on gcj is not about withholding functionality from users, but about doing the hard work of writing the OSS code to replace a proprietary program.
And I will *always* give that a big hip, hip, hurrah! Although it is possible to contribute in a multitude of other ways, working hard writing OSS code is still the most important thing that a person can do to support FOSS. We need coders, filling in the huge gaps in our functionality, like business accounting and point of sale systems, a *lot* more than we need more people criticizing other users for having the audacity to use a proprietary video driver. And frankly, I can't help but feel that the latter group really need to get a life, and start doing something that is actually helpful to the FOSS world.
Where people sometimes get confused, is in thinking that if they withhold the ability to print from Aunt Mabel, an opensource alternative will appear on the scene sooner.
And that is simply a non sequitur. People with the skills to write the print driver, and the mindset to make it open-source, are quite able to decide for themselves whether using the proprietary driver is for them or not, pick their distro, 100% Free or not, and add the proprietary driver, if necessary, and if they choose.
Mabel is not going to get so frustrated that she writes an OSS printer driver herself. She's going to call her whizkid grandson and ask for Windows, which all of her friends use, and are printing quite happily.
You just can't foist a non-working OS onto new users and expect to do anything but turn them off of it for a long time.
Mabel may not be up to writing a driver. But she is certainly good at writing letters to her representatives in congress about how she wants to see fewer of her tax dollars going to the purchase of expensive software, when perfectly good software to replace it is available for free. (Yeah, I know. That's political.)
But she only writes letters like that for causes she believes in. And if that software essentially broke her computer, she's not going to write that letter. ( Especially since she can't print! ;-) )
The number of users users with an interest *does* matter.
So, I'll answer slef's question, here. I'm looking at helping the most people today AND in the future. And I believe that my strategy is likely to be more effective than that of setting people up with broken systems out of some misguided sense of purity.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 16:40 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] It occurs to me that I should probably clarify a few issues.
In no particular order:
I am certainly not *opposed* to 100% free distros. I think they're great. But at the same time, I do not oppose 99% free distros, either. Both have their parts to play.
I do support Ubuntu's policy of warning the user about the installation of nonfree software and letting them make a decision.
My laptop uses 100% OSS software. My desktop is not quite 100%. I greatly enjoy the Quake and Doom series of games, not all of which are OSS.
I don't care for Linspire's and Xandros' policy of just ignoring the issue, and would not recommend them to new users.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 10:50 UTC (Sun) by slef (subscriber, #14720) [Link] Firstly, trying to divide the freedom choice from political motivations is already absurd.
Secondly, I notice you avoided saying whether you are trying to benefit as many people as possible today, tomorrow, or in the long term. There are many who think that Ubuntu's approach is long-term-unsustainable, bordering on harmful. I want stuff I can repair and adapt for as long as I need it.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 10:52 UTC (Sun) by slef (subscriber, #14720) [Link] > And I'm still asking how letting the user make an *informed* decision about the software loaded on his own machine can possibly be considered *less* Free than arrogantly *forcing* an inferior, or nonworking system upon him "for his own good".
The question of whether someone who can sell themselves into slavery is freer than someone who is forbidden to do that by their government is an age-old debate and unlikely to be settled in comments on LWN.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 14:56 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] """The question of whether someone who can sell themselves into slavery is freer than someone who is forbidden to do that by their government is an age-old debate """
And totally irrelevant to the current discussion, because users are not selling themselves into slavery, but allowing their own hardware to work properly.
Comparing that to human slavery is beyond absurd.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 18:24 UTC (Sun) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link] > And I'm still asking how letting the user make an *informed* decision about the software loaded on his own machine can possibly be considered *less* Free than arrogantly *forcing* an inferior, or nonworking system upon him "for his own good".
Straw man. Nobody is holding users down and forcing them to install Linux. If someone wants to use a proprietary system, we can hardly stop them (trying to do so would be... ethically problematic). And barring radical changes in copyright law, proprietary systems will always be there.
The question is what sort of alternative we want to spend our time developing, supporting, and advocating. The fact that users have an option to use proprietary components does not oblige us to give those components free advertising.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 15, 2007 20:48 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] It's only a straw man argument if I am attributing a position to others which they do not actually hold.
In the sense that while a nontechnical user, meaning most users, might get a modern distro installed, they are not up to locating and installing, say, NVidia's driver without help from the distro. Without that driver their machine is broken. 3D doesn't work at all. In that sense, I *do* believe that people are advocating that nontechnical users be manipulated into doing what certain parties want them to do, namely, accepting a broken machine rather than using a propretary driver, by taking advantage of the user's lack of technical finesse.
And yes, I agree that doing so is ethically problematic. That is why I don't like it.
Totally "free" Ubuntu? That's the plan for Gobuntu (Linux.com) Posted Jul 17, 2007 21:41 UTC (Tue) by h2 (guest, #27965) [Link] Your argument is in fact a complete strawman, and I'm surprised you keep pushing it. Why? Very simple: gobuntu is not being marketed as the next ubuntu at all. Users will not be pushed to it, it is more of a proof of concept, designed to deliver, along with a standard ubuntu relese, a fully free one.
The only users I would expect to use this are users who are interested in seeing what a fully free desktop runs like on their hardware, and users who actually know and understand what a fully free desktop is, and why they want it. Aunt millie will not be running this.
This is a proof of concept as I understand it, as well as Ubuntu showing, I think, an awareness, and a willingness, to explore how working in a fully free environment will function.
The way you've been arguing in this thread readers would think that ubuntu is about to release a fully free desktop as their only option for their next release, thus forcing users into a situation of having non-functioning hardware. If this were true, your argument would be correct, but it's not true, and your argument is in fact a total strawman. Why you feel the need to expend so much energy pushing a point that isn't even under consideration is beyond me, but it's not particularly surprising given what I've seen in these pages recently.
Don't worry, grandma and aunt millie won't be running a fully free desktop, but ubuntu will be making one for those people who do want to do that. A matter of free choice, that is.
This goes along with the new Ubuntu tool that lets users see what parts of their systems are in fact non-free software. That is just a tool, to let people know what their systems are actually doing. I'm not a particular Ubuntu fan, but I think Mark's heart is in the right place this time on this set of projects, it's a good idea, and it helps lay the foundation for a future, more fully free, desktop. But it does not force users who do not want to explore what that will look like to use it. By no means.
Personally, I do not understand why some posters here react in such a defensive manner when it comes to the fsf, I talk to those guys sometimes, I admire their ethics and commitment, and if I decide to use some non free stuff to do task x or y, until free replacements for x or y appear, I am secure enough to not have to worry about what the fsf thinks, while still being able to respect that level of principle they have day to day. I don't have to pick the current extreme positions, 'pragmatic' vs 'principled', I can see the value in both. And I do things myself that are basically pragmatic, to help normal users come into a more free desktop. But even if I make these decisions, it doesn't then make me automatically unable to respect the more principled position of the fsf people. And I most certainly don't find it at all annoying. Even if I am not currently going to that point with my own stuff.
|
|||||||||||||