| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offeringIBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offeringPosted Dec 4, 2008 19:42 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767)In reply to: IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering by kragil Parent article: IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering
Well, I've been thinking about this. And I think I have pretty well put it in order. Jef and I, while we agree on a lot of things, disagree on some things, as well. Looking at the landscape, which as a consultant I see every day, FOSS is hugely underutilized by the mainstream.
My goal, and I think Canonical's goal, is essentially a positive one: Increase the usage of FOSS in this world. Jef's goal is (apparently) essentially a negative one: Stamp out proprietary software. (Note that I do *not* include Fedora in that sentence.) These goals have a common ground, but it is important to recognize that they are different.
If I see a product doing well that is 90% FOSS and 10% proprietary, I see that as a good thing. Perhaps not optimal. But a net positive. When Jef sees such a thing, he apparently sees it as evil, and tries his best to eradicate it. This has, in this case, taken the form of targeted and relentless attacks disguised as innocent concern for the community.
That is a welcome development for those who oppose FOSS, because the most effective way to attack a community is to get the members to attack each other. (There was a great Twilight Zone episode about that, BTW.) And if the members do it of their own accord, without the FOSS opponent having to get its hands dirty, that's even better.
Regarding Fedora's position in all this, my opinion of which I should probably clarify, I see it as being thus:
--
(Those were my words and not a quote from anywhere.)
The important thing to note in that is that it stops short of attacking users, distros, and developers who hold differing opinions. I can respect that position. What I cannot respect is Jef taking it the further step of setting out upon a personal vendetta against anyone who disagrees with his position that stamping out proprietary software is imperative, and should be our primary goal. I simply cannot condone that attitude at all.
One other thing. Jef is, effectively, a representative of Fedora. And, rightly or wrongly, my opinion of the Fedora community has been tarnished somewhat by his campaign. Maybe I'm alone in that, and maybe not. But it's something that Jef might consider.
Thank you for you attention,
(Log in to post comments)
IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering Posted Dec 4, 2008 19:51 UTC (Thu) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]
> regardless of the net benefits to FOSS.
It is not "regardless of the net benefits to FOSS". We believe that there is a net __loss__ of benefits to FOSS arising from ubunto's incorporation of proprietary drivers into their product line. From this point of view Ubunto is aiding and abetting the enemy.
Cry
IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering Posted Dec 4, 2008 20:11 UTC (Thu) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
Which demonstrates that you are more interested, for whatever reason, in stamping out software that you do not like than in promoting software you like.
When you say "we", are you presuming to speak for Fedora? The Fedora community? Just you and Jef? Who is "we"? Do the other members of "we" agree with you?
IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering Posted Dec 4, 2008 21:41 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
There is a inherent tension between promoting FOSS and promoting proprietary software if your support for Free software is principled rather than just on a case by case basis. FSF has demonstrated that conflict repeatedly but there are other efforts as well.
Benjamin Mako Hill did a presentation which offers the perspective that pointing out flaws in day to day life with using proprietary software may be a better tactics than just pointing out advantages of using Free software
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20080808-00
The website http://revealingerrors.com/ from him is very interesting. You might consider that negative marketing and perhaps it is but I wouldn't be dismissive of the effectiveness of this strategy.
IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering Posted Dec 8, 2008 11:13 UTC (Mon) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]
If those drivers help make the system usable, more power to them. On my Fedora-laptop, my WiFi does not work. I spent 30 minutes trying to get it to work, but no use. So I decided to replace fedora with something else (not just because of that, there were other reasons as well). So how did that benefit Free Softtware in any shape or form? I had a laptop that did not function properly. Had I been a user migrating from Windows or Mac to Linux, I would have gotten the impression that Linux is crap. Again: where is the benefit for free software?
IBM's new Ubuntu-based desktop offering Posted Dec 6, 2008 1:15 UTC (Sat) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link] Jef is, effectively, a representative of Fedora. And, rightly or wrongly, my opinion of the Fedora community has been tarnished somewhat by his campaign. Maybe I'm alone in that, and maybe not.No, you are not alone in that. The fact that he is a Fedora Board member and that his trolling crusade has been allowed to go on here for so long without the rest of the Fedora Board saying something has definitely caused me to lose some of my respect for the Fedora project. And I'm almost starting to be of the opinion that he should get banned from LWN.
Banning Posted Dec 6, 2008 1:30 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] FWIW, he's not going to get banned from LWN. We've cut off a couple of really blatant comment spammers, but nobody else. I really don't want to change that.OTOH, I have been pondering the individual comment filter idea a bit. Now that we have a reasonable server, we can think about doing things like that. There's another project to finish first, then I might take a stab at it. Even then, though, I sure hope it won't prove to be a very popular feature...
Banning Posted Dec 6, 2008 1:49 UTC (Sat) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
In all fairness....
If you opened up the LWN codebase you'd probably already had several people sending in the necessary patches to implement Spaleta filtering.
If I'm going to be a broken record about the advantages of opening up Launchpad as a way for Ubuntu users to fix community facing processes without having to wait for Canonical to do it.... you're going to get a dose of it as well. Stop screwing around and open up the LWN code so LWN users can create the feature to filter me out.
Here's an idea, make a commitment to release the codebase of LWN when Canonical releases the codebase for Launchpad. Right now that's November of next year.
Banning Posted Dec 10, 2008 20:30 UTC (Wed) by net_bh (guest, #28735) [Link]
Here is replying to my favourite "waste of time". FYI, Canonical announced at the ongoing UDS that Launchpad is being opened up in July '09.
Banning Posted Dec 10, 2008 20:35 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Did they also announce which license they will be using?
-jef
Banning Posted Dec 10, 2008 20:59 UTC (Wed) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
It will be AGPL.
But this will make you happy: Not all of it will be open sourced in july. AFAIK the build backend soyuz will stay closed. So about 95 % will be open source I guess. But that is just a very small part of LP and only very few people have the hardware to really use it.
Banning Posted Dec 10, 2008 21:26 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
That sort of rationale is a copout.
https://launchpad.net/soyuz
Whenever you upload a package to Ubuntu, or need build information for that package, or download a package from the archive, you are using Soyuz. We also consider the mirror management and other distro-related portions of Launchpad to be part of the Soyuz subsystem."
Is Canonical really saying that the processes managed by Soyuz would not benefit from open development and contribution directly from the community of Ubuntu developers? Really?
The benefits of the open development process have absolutely nothing to do with the number of people who can directly run the code on iron they own.
How many non-Canonical employees in the Ubuntu community make direct use of Soyuz? How many of those people have expressed frustration at some aspect of how it works over the years? How many of those people if given the chance would be able to submit an enhancement to the codebase that benefited every single Ubuntu community member who needed to use Soyuz to do the work that they do?
https://bugs.launchpad.net/soyuz/+bugs
Either Shuttleworth really believes that an open process is the better way to innovate or he does not. I guess if we are to believe Shuttleworth then Suyoz isn't in need of any more innovation...any more work. But the buglist suggests otherwise. Really what's the point of a public bug tracker for a closed source codebase? You can't commit a patch..all you can do is complain and complain and cross your fingers that the developers get around to fixing your bug for you. Pointless. Is that really what Canonical want's to see for Soyuz..lots and lots of Ubuntu community members filing bugs against the component but not having the ability to dig in and help fix any of it. Yeah that's a great way to manage an open community...hold back access to contribute to the very tools they have to use to build things. Awesome!
-jef
Banning Posted Dec 10, 2008 21:50 UTC (Wed) by kragil (guest, #34373) [Link]
I told you it would make you happy. At least you are predictable :)
And .. well .. they have to start somewhere and LP is _so much more_ than just a bug tracker like you seem to imply.
Banning Posted Dec 10, 2008 22:08 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Red Hat most assuredly uses proprietary tech for its corporate operations.
Can you point to a single pieces of closed source tech that Fedora uses in the infrastructure that the Fedora contributing community is asked to interact with? Cuz I can't.
-jef
Banning Posted Dec 6, 2008 7:09 UTC (Sat) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
The ability to comment (psuedo)-anonymously and/or send a message to a poster privately would be useful too, this thread has made me realise..
|
|
||||||||||||