Linux-2.6.33-libre released [LWN.net]

Linux-2.6.33-libre released

Posted Mar 2, 2010 15:52 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
In reply to: Linux-2.6.33-libre released by Janne
Parent article: Linux-2.6.33-libre released

Like I said, instead of wasting time in an effort that does't really benefit free software at all, we should be investing those resources in actually making free software better, so more and more people choose free software over proprietary software.

When you wrote "we" in the above, I think you actually meant to write "you", unless you're actually involved in this initiative and have taken the bizarre decision to criticise it publicly. In any case, since it doesn't look as if you're giving friendly advice ("handful of extremeists [sic]"), I guess those involved might want to look a bit further for strategy tips.

That said, with the more prominent strategic initiatives in the area of making Free Software more popular stuck in the mire of "shiny, shinier, shiniest" while abandoning basic functionality and reliability, they might be looking for some time. Meanwhile, beyond the narrow experience of a bunch of desktop users whose "Nvidia is working fine now", proprietary hardware remains a continuous and real problem.

(Log in to post comments)

Linux-2.6.33-libre released

Posted Mar 3, 2010 7:11 UTC (Wed) by Janne (guest, #40891) [Link]

"When you wrote "we" in the above, I think you actually meant to write "you", unless you're
actually involved in this initiative and have taken the bizarre decision to criticise it publicly."

Well, I consider myself to be a part of the community, as are the people behind Linux-libre.

"In any case, since it doesn't look as if you're giving friendly advice ("handful of extremeists
[sic]"), I guess those involved might want to look a bit further for strategy tips."

It seems to me that the motivator behind this project is the idea that mere existence of
proprietary code is bad in on itself, and it needs to be removed. Even if those bits just sat in the
HD unused. I, for one, can't see the harm. Sure, they could cause harm if they were being used,
but the user can choose to avoid hardware that needs proprietary code. So why do we need
Linux-libre?

"That said, with the more prominent strategic initiatives in the area of making Free Software
more popular stuck in the mire of "shiny, shinier, shiniest" while abandoning basic functionality
and reliability"

Those two are not opposites, you can have both. You need both. And the people who make
software sexy are usually different from the people who work on the plumbing.

If we only focused on the latter (functionality and reliability) we would all be running Emacs.
Emacs might be good for certain users, but 99.9% of worlds population would choose something
else, and that "something else" would be Windows or MacOS. How exactly would free software be
better off then?

If we want to liberate users, we need to make free software appealing to the masses. If we want
more free hardware, we need more users. And if getting more users means making the software
"shiny", then so be it.

It's quite telling that you consider software that looks good and sexy to be a bad thing. No
wonder Linux is stuck at around 1% of the market.

"Meanwhile, beyond the narrow experience of a bunch of desktop users whose "Nvidia is working
fine now", proprietary hardware remains a continuous and real problem."

If they are a problem, then don't use them.

Linux-2.6.33-libre released

Posted Mar 3, 2010 17:10 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]

It seems to me that the motivator behind this project is the idea that mere existence of proprietary code is bad in on itself, and it needs to be removed. Even if those bits just sat in the HD unused. I, for one, can't see the harm.

One motivation for Debian's audit of the binary blobs was that the ownership of such data (and ability to redistribute it) was in question. I don't regard that as a harmless situation.

Those two are not opposites, you can have both. You need both. And the people who make software sexy are usually different from the people who work on the plumbing.

Haven't you just contradicted yourself? Maybe the people working on this particular plumbing don't feel qualified or well-positioned to make Linux "sexy". "We" can work on both, and that also means that "we" can be "wasting time" doing both.

It's quite telling that you consider software that looks good and sexy to be a bad thing. No wonder Linux is stuck at around 1% of the market.

No, but it's interesting that you have chosen to misrepresent my position as taking an all-or-nothing choice between "sexy" software and reliable software. When you have people complaining about, for example, the functional state of KDE 4 versus KDE 3 while people bang the drum for "new and exciting" paradigms, desktop effects, and so on, it's clear that someone has to make the case for keeping the fundamental stuff working.

And most people just want stuff that just works, "sexy" or not. The notion that a user interface has to have lots of flashing, whizzing stuff before the average person will consider using it is based on a very narrow view, typically focused through the lenses of Mac OS X and Windows Vista/7, and is frequently unsupported by actual user observations.

If they are a problem, then don't use them.

Fine advice for anyone trying to source components for an open hardware project that doesn't involve just picking up a motherboard and the rest of the off-the-shelf gear from some retail outlet.