| |||||||||||||
Free is too expensive (Economist)Free is too expensive (Economist)Posted Apr 3, 2012 6:19 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Free is too expensive (Economist) by rqosa Parent article: Free is too expensive (Economist)
Back when I used to use Mac OS X occasionally, I remember not being able to run some things because they required a newer version of the OS (which costs money). Yeah. This happens. Perhaps one of the reasons for why MacOS has less then 10% of desktop. Even so it fits in I've forgotten more than you'll ever know adage: number of programs which you can easily run on MacOS and Windows still dwarfs number of programs which you can run on Linux even if you'll not count oddballs which require too-new or too-old version of MacOS and Windows. The situation isn't as bad as you make it sound. Running old programs on a newer distribution is usually just a matter of installing old libraries, and distributions might even provide packages of those old libraries. Sure. And the current 1% of users correlates with number of people who not only know about that but consider the time required to hunt and install these fair price for the Linux use. Article we are discussing here claims Linux used to have 2.5% of desktop 10 years ago - this is consistent with this explanation: desktop grew about 3x times, but proportion of people which will tolerate this nonsense shrank. Most people never knew how to cope with these problems (and have no interest in finding out) and some people who do know how to do that decided they have more interesting things to do.
(Log in to post comments)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 6, 2012 2:37 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > number of programs which you can easily run on MacOS and Windows still dwarfs number of programs which you can run on Linux even if you'll not count oddballs which require too-new or too-old version of MacOS and Windows. But if that's why Linux has less usage share, then backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't matter — it's because of lock-in, not lack of backwards/forward compatibility. > Most people never knew how to cope with these problems (and have no interest in finding out) Sure, many users want programs to "just work" without needing to tinker with them. But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer. That's why the user/developer community isn't willing to have a situation where "you must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare" just for the sake of attracting the kind of user who's not willing to get their hands dirty. (For example, it's better to have 10000 users where 1000 of them contribute to the software, than to have 1 million users where only 50 of them contribute to the software.)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 6, 2012 7:31 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>But if that's why Linux has less usage share, then backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't matter — it's because of lock-in, not lack of backwards/forward compatibility.
That argument is growing old. Mac OS X started from basically the same position as Linux. I.e. no native software and a crufty compatibility layer (Classic Environment vs. Wine) with another major OS.
Yet Mac OS X captured more than 10% of the market, even though it requires overpriced proprietary hardware.
Android gains more users each month then the total number of Linux Desktop users. Even the frigging Windows Mobile has more users then Linux Desktop.
>Sure, many users want programs to "just work" without needing to tinker with them.
>But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer.
>For example, it's better to have 10000 users where 1000 of them contribute to the software, than to have 1 million users where only 50 of them contribute to the software.
Nope, it isn't. Because 1 million users would be able to sponsor (say) 100 full-time professional developers, artists, testers, help writers. Who are going to produce software that these users really like.
Of course, if your target is to create a playground for developers, then I suggest looking at OpenBSD ( http://lwn.net/Articles/449697/ ):
Well, the only problem is that one day you might find yourself without open hardware capable of running your OS. And nobody would care about you.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 6, 2012 8:24 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That argument is growing old. Mac OS X started from basically the same position as Linux. I.e. no native software and a crufty compatibility layer (Classic Environment vs. Wine) with another major OS. Situation there is quite different. MacOS was basically frozen when MacOS X was introduced and no new releases were expected. Ever. Some programs were abandoned as a result, some were ported to new platform but it was never the case that you an access to the new version of a program - but you needed to abandon MacOS X to have it. Well, you had the ability to switch to Windows, but while it had lots of new goodies it also was unable to run lots of old MacOS programs, too. Wine, on the other hand is always playing catch-up. And the attitude of Linux pundits does not help. Even if someone releases some software for Linux using winelib the reaction is OPEN SOURCE IT UNDER OSI APPROVED LICENSE!!!. Later the developer does the logical thing: abandons Linux altogether. This is typical response and it creates vicious cycle: some company releases something for Linux, public outcry is “gimme source”, program is withdrawn, Linux is added to blacklist as “don't try this: money sink without any gratitude”, users continue to switch to MacOS X (well, some go back to Windows).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 0:25 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > > But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer. > Wrong. I can download VisualStudio Express (for free!) and start developing Windows Phone applications in 3 minutes. With nice tutorials, great help system and one of the best IDEs. But that doesn't let you develop Windows Phone itself, nor the platform API libraries bundled with it, nor the majority of applications for it. And it really is true that the core purpose of FLOSS is to let every user become a developer of the software that they use. As a consequence, in FLOSS, "user-friendliness" doesn't just mean making it easy to use the software, it also means making it easy to develop the software. Because (in all but a few of the biggest projects) no one is being paid to work on the software, the project needs to recruit new volunteer developers from its user base, or else it will die. That's why having a Windows-like situation of "you must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare" in the name of easy backwards compatibility would be bad for FLOSS, even if it did succeed in attracting more users. > 1 million users would be able to sponsor (say) 100 full-time professional developers, artists, testers, help writers. I won't believe it's possible for a FLOSS project to fund 100 full-time professional developers with donations from end-users until I see it, and I haven't seen it yet. (The project that's closest to what you describe is probably Linux itself, which has hardware manufacturers employing developers, but that business model won't work for the vast majority of projects.) > one day you might find yourself without open hardware capable of running your OS. That's a real problem, but the fundamental cause of it is that the majority of users don't see why locked-down hardware is a bad thing for them — it prevents them from developing the software they use, but that's not something they would do anyway, so why should they care? (They actually should care, for reasons such as avoiding lock-in, having a larger base of developers, having the possibility that the developers may fork the software in case of a bad mantainer, … but these reasons aren't readily apparent to someone who doesn't know anything about software development.) You seem to be suggesting that attracting users who don't care about being able to develop the software they use to Linux will help ensure the future availability of open hardware, but I don't believe it — I think it would more likely lead to a locked-down hardware platform that runs Linux (and maybe this even already exists, in the form of locked-down Android devices).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 11:26 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] That's a real problem, but the fundamental cause of it is that the majority of users don't see why locked-down hardware is a bad thing for them Of course not! It's good for them! This is what they want! Let's forget about FOSS for the minute and think about consumer devices. Radio, TV, phones (mobile and not mobile). Once upon time all these decides were combined from parts which were easy to replace and it was easy to tinker with them. Some even included principal schemes in documentation! Today they usually have undetachable connectros (components are soldered on using surface-mount technology instead of sockets) and in general are non-serviceable (usually you need specialized tool to even open the cover). Why is that? Well, these are cheaper. They are more robust, they rarely need fixes and if one of them will break it's usually simpler to replace it rather then to fix it. Some people need/want to tinker with electronics - and we have specialized shops and devices for them. But these devices usually sell some of the same parts (sometimes differently packaged)! If you'll try to create separate ecosystem "just for tinkerers" you'll quickly find out that it's not sustainable - there are just not enough of them! They actually should care, for reasons such as avoiding lock-in, having a larger base of developers, having the possibility that the developers may fork the software in case of a bad mantainer, … but these reasons aren't readily apparent to someone who doesn't know anything about software development. You asking users to give up concrete advantages for nebulous freedoms (which they don't want and don't need). It just does not work. You seem to be suggesting that attracting users who don't care about being able to develop the software they use to Linux will help ensure the future availability of open hardware, but I don't believe it — I think it would more likely lead to a locked-down hardware platform that runs Linux Sorry, but this is the only choice. Most of hardware in the future will be locked - simply because users don't case. This battle is already lost: smartphones outsell PCs already - and you can not replace OS on most of them (even if the bootloader is not locked you often don't have an image to use with it). Now we are at the next battle: make sure there are some unlocked hardware which can be used if you want to tinker with it. If most devices are locked yet use FOSS-friendly components then there will be some unlocked (or unlockable) devices for tinkerers. If devices are build around proprietary standards then there will be no FOSS-friendly devices at all. Maybe this even already exists, in the form of locked-down Android devices. Android is good example. Before Android most phones were tightly-locked and it was basically impossible to run your own OS on mobile devices. Openmoko tried to solve this problem in the fashion you suggest, but failed miserably - and it was obvious it'll fail from the onset. Android gave us CyanogenMod and plethora of the devices you can use it with. Sure, you may argue that some imaginary world where all devices are free will be better, but this is not in the cards. Today Linux desktop survives on coattails of server market (where "freedom to tinker" is still important and will be important for foreseeable future), but it looks like Microsoft is finally wising up to the problem. If Microsoft will split standards for the desktop (fully locked up with some concessions to the enterprise - see how Apple does this with iOS) and server then this will be the end of desktop Linux (and Intel will be very happy indeed because people will finally stop using cheap desktop components for servers).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 13:47 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Of course not! It's good for them! This is what they want! If someone actively prefers (rather than just doesn't care) general-purpose computing hardware to be locked down, like the iDevices are, then that person is fundamentally opposed to the core ideology of Free Software: users deserve to have complete control over the software and hardware that they use. The FLOSS community shouldn't be trying to bring those people into the userbase, unless they first convert to the FLOSS ideology. (And if you actively prefer locked down devices, which it sounds like you do, then you are obviously an enemy of this community!) > You asking users to give up concrete advantages for nebulous freedoms (which they don't want and don't need). That's what the FSF has always done, since the very beginning. > It just does not work. If it didn't work, then FLOSS would never have gained any significant amount of users in the first place. Clearly that's not the case. One reason why it does in fact work is that the freedoms aren't "nebulous" like you say, but instead there are real concrete benefits to them. For example, back when I used Windows 3.11, often something would not work (or would mysteriously stop working), and I would have no idea how it might be fixable, but now that I use Linux, I'm more often able to fix problems on my own. > Sorry, but this is the only choice. Most of hardware in the future will be locked - simply because users don't case. It sounds like you're trying to convince the FLOSS community to accept Linux-on-locked-down-hardware, because it's more important to have Linux gain lots of technically-illiterate users than it is to preserve user freedom. But we'll never accept that, because we don't care about "Linux" as such; freedom is all that matters to us. Also, "Most of hardware" doesn't matter — what matters is that enough unlocked hardware remains available on the market, at low enough prices. And right now there seems to be plenty of such hardware, including desktop/notebook/server PCs (as they always have been) as well as the likes of the BeagleBoard, PandaBoard, IGEP, and the upcoming Vivaldi tablet.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 15:45 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] > You asking users to give up concrete advantages for nebulous freedoms (which they don't want and don't need). Sorry, but facts don't support your claims. First release of GCC supported VAX and SunOS. Later Cygnus developed extensive system which brought GNU tools to users of proprietary OSes and it was enthusiastically endorsed by FSF. And even when Linux finally made GNU/Linux OS usable support for users of other platforms continued. RMS and FSF may sound like stuck-up zealots at times but they are very practical when it's important. > It just does not work. See above. All the FOSS “success stories” (server, embedded, Android, etc) are in places where people care about normal users and not just about FOSS lovers. On desktop, where distributions reject such people Linux is confined to aforementioned 1% and lives at mercy of proprietary brethren: most (if not all) hardware for desktop is created without Linux in mind. Linux support is added later if at all. Compare support for server-related hardware (CPUs, NICs, etc) and for Desktop-oriented one (GPUs, WiFi, etc) This is dangerous situation to be in.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 16:39 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > First release of GCC supported VAX and SunOS. Later Cygnus developed extensive system which brought GNU tools to users of proprietary OSes and it was enthusiastically endorsed by FSF. And even when Linux finally made GNU/Linux OS usable support for users of other platforms continued. None of which negates my point. Using free software has always involved giving up certain "concrete advantages" (in the early pre-Linux days, the disadvantages would have been forgoing first-party support from the system vendor, and spending extra effort to installand keep up to date a bunch of third-party software across all systems in the administrative domain) but getting other concrete advantages (such as the ability to fix problems yourself, the "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow" effect, the likelihood that a project with a bad maintainer will be forked rather than killed off entirely, etc.) in return for the ones given up. > All the FOSS “success stories” (server, embedded, Android, etc) are in places where people care about normal users In the examples you cited above (Cygnus, GCC on VAX and SunOS), how did "Joe Average"-type users matter at all? The people who decided to switch over to GNU tools on those minicomputer/workstation platforms were developers and system administrators, not technically-illiterate end users.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 17:20 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The people who decided to switch over to GNU tools on those minicomputer/workstation platforms were developers and system administrators, not technically-illiterate end users. “Joe Average” != “someone dumb and stupid”. “Joe Average” is Joe, you know, Average. VAX and SunOS users typically knew how to compile things and for them Cygnus solution was “good enough”. In fact it was easier to use them many alternative commercial offers. Today Joe Average no longer knows or cares about compilation of programs from scratch. Thus the same solution is rejected. In the early pre-Linux days, the disadvantages would have been forgoing first-party support from the system vendor, and spending extra effort to install and keep up to date a bunch of third-party software across all systems in the administrative domain. Bullshit. GNU software was always parallel-installable and never required “forgoing first-party support from the system vendor”. But getting other concrete advantages (such as the ability to fix problems yourself, the "with many eyes, all bugs are shallow" effect, the likelihood that a project with a bad maintainer will be forked rather than killed off entirely, etc.) in return for the ones given up. Bullshit again. Most users of GNU software in these days cared about additional features, not about source availability. The fact that bash included nice command-line editing facility was more important then the fact that it included sources. The fact that GCC was free (while SunOS compiler was expensive) was the driving force, not the code availability. Sure, at some point a lot of users have “looked under the hood” (because they had the ability) and some even become contributors, but it was never (or almost never) the motivation for the initial installation of GNU tools.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 18:55 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > VAX and SunOS users typically knew how to compile things I know firsthand that many VAX users didn't have anywhere close to that level of technical expertise. For example, people used to use dumb terminals on a VAX (or other minicomputer) for email at work (I remember one such place that used Pine on VMS, for example), or for using their employer's in-house applications, or even for searching public library catalogs. These users knew less about computers than most people today, and yet they probably outnumbered (by far) those who did know how to compile things. > Bullshit. GNU software was always parallel-installable and never required “forgoing first-party support from the system vendor”. Yes it did — the more that someone was using GNU software (or other third-party software, generally), the more they'd have to rely on other sources of help than the first-party system vendor. It's just that back then they were still using plenty of software from the system vendor, whereas with GNU/Linux on commodity hardware now, the proportion of non-system-vendor software has increased to almost 100% — though of course, some high-end server hardware vendors actually have first-party support for GNU/Linux now. > Most users of GNU software in these days cared about additional features, not about source availability. […] it was never (or almost never) the motivation for the initial installation of GNU tools. But that just goes to show that it's entirely possible for FLOSS to compete against proprietary software on practical features, and win. And it's not just a coincidence, either — the greater functionality of GCC and coreutils was a direct consequence of the ability of skilled users to join the developer-base, thus giving them a larger and more meritocratic developer-base than their proprietary counterparts had.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 23:03 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Yet Mac OS X captured more than 10% of the market, even though it requires overpriced proprietary hardware. Yes, but that's not because people specifically want OS X and therefore need to buy a Mac, it's because they want a Mac in the first place, which is a different ballgame altogether. People would buy Macs even if they came with a GUI version of CP/M, as long as there was a big-enough Apple logo on the computer. This is because for many people, buying Apple stuff is a life style decision, rather than a technical decision. Sort of like being vegetarian. If Apple wasn't manufacturing its own PCs and OS X was an after-market OS to be installed on generic PCs like Linux is today, it would be just as (un)popular as Linux, simply because most people can't be bothered to change the OS on their computer. It would also have the same hardware support/developer buy-in issues, only worse because there would be less free stuff available and fewer hardware manufacturers would be interested in supporting with drivers or using it for their own products.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 0:08 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
Is there any OS that doesn't come pre-loaded on systems that has achieved any noticeable market penetration?
I would go out on a limb a bit and say that Linux is probably 100x as popular as the next closest competitor if you were to exclude pre-loaded OS installs.
That says a lot of good things about Linux, and you have to wonder where it would be if it wasn't for the Microsoft shenanigans.
and no, I don't consider the "distro that nobody has heard of" shipped pre-loaded on the early netbook machines to qualify as Linux being pre-loaded.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 9:20 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I would go out on a limb a bit and say that Linux is probably 100x as popular as the next closest competitor if you were to exclude pre-loaded OS installs. Yup. Linux desktop is large fish in this aquarium. But there are the problem: master of said aquarium can displace it at any time. The question: can Linux desktop survive in the ocean? and no, I don't consider the "distro that nobody has heard of" shipped pre-loaded on the early netbook machines to qualify as Linux being pre-loaded. Why not? It was the first time Linux desktop was seriously pitted against older contenders. It was eaten alive. I hope people who'll try to do that next time will be better prepared. But it looks these preparations will require complete divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions. Which is sad because said distributions did many things right.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 10:42 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] But it looks these preparations will require complete divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions. Which is sad because said distributions did many things right. A computer manufacturer could do a lot worse than team up with somebody who will provide support for one of the major long-lifecycle distributions like Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). That would ensure a reasonable time between upgrades (which are usually seamless) as well as timely security patches, and a wide, easily-accessible selection of software from the get-go. Also these distributions are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So far this hasn't been seriously tried AFAIK. It is important to emphasise that these distributions already come with lots of software that people would otherwise have to obtain, possibly at very considerable expense, from the open third-party market or an »app store«. So it's not as if one would immediately need lots of buy-in from third-party software developers (as in OS X). Certainly somebody who uses their computer mainly to surf the web, to write e-mail and letters, even to deal with holiday photographs, to catalogue books or DVDs or a stamp collection, and many other things that occur in the usual home or SOHO use, could go a very long way without having to install anything from outside the distribution's repositories. Of course if the prime purpose of the computer in question is to run the newest Windows games, a Windows machine is likely to be the better bet – but that isn't going to change however much Linux is modified. It may not actually be worth the trouble.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 14:34 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] A computer manufacturer could do a lot worse than team up with somebody who will provide support for one of the major long-lifecycle distributions like Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). That would ensure a reasonable time between upgrades (which are usually seamless) as well as timely security patches, and a wide, easily-accessible selection of software from the get-go. Also these distributions are unlikely to go away anytime soon. So far this hasn't been seriously tried AFAIK. This will never be “seriously tried” because of poor ROI: if there are no lock-in then how can you recoup your expenses? This is the case where Linux's greatest strength becomes it's greatest weakness. Of course if the prime purpose of the computer in question is to run the newest Windows games, a Windows machine is likely to be the better bet – but that isn't going to change however much Linux is modified. It may not actually be worth the trouble. Of course direct attack is hopeless! Linux must do something which MacOS and Windows just can't do and then grow from such niche to the full-blown desktop. There are some ideas about what exactly this niche can be - different companies play with different niches. The problem is that it looks like all such attempts will happen with something like Android or webOS: Linux which has nothing to do with traditional Linux desktop.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 15:07 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This will never be “seriously tried” because of poor ROI: if there are no lock-in then how can you recoup your expenses? If you're a hardware manufacturer such as HP or Dell you're not interested in lock-in – you're interested in moving boxes. Anything that looks like it might move more boxes is worth looking into. The problem is to get things going in the first place; once you have a system set up, there is no reason why supporting Linux would need to be any more expensive than supporting Windows. (In the long run it may even be cheaper.) »Lock-in« doesn't enter into it from a hardware manufacturer's point of view because nobody is »locked into« generic PC hardware that you can get from dozens of manufacturers. Even if you're into high-end kit you can always get that from any of half a dozen manufacturers. (Apple is an anomaly here because Apple is no longer a computer maker, it's a life style. People are hooked on Apple in a way that they never get hooked on Dell or Asus. However, to a large extent OS X suffers from the same uptake problems as Linux; it just doesn't matter because Apple makes three quarters of its money selling stuff that isn't running OS X in the first place, anyway.) There is nothing in principle to prevent someone like HP or Dell from offering Linux als a pre-installed alternative on all of its machines other than that the margins you get from moving boxes do not lend themselves to experiments. Microsoft has a nice little positive-feedback loop going that will ensure that as long as 95% of PC buyers buy Windows pre-installed, the hardware makers aren't keen on being the first to sink investment money into something new – and Microsoft is trying to keep things that way: The real reason Linux isn't preinstalled more is that Microsoft provides kickbacks to hardware manufacturers like HP or Dell to »recommend« Windows.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 16:48 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yeah, sure.
Microsoft doesn't provide kickbacks in Russia, Ukraine and lots of other countries. You can easily buy laptops and computers running FreeDOS there. Guess what's the first thing people do after they buy them?
Hint: it generally involves a CD with pirated Windows.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 17:14 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] OK. So Microsoft doesn't waste money on kickbacks to manufacturers in countries where people won't pay for Windows in the first place. What does that prove? It certainly doesn't prove Linux couldn't compete with Windows on a level playing field. What is easier to come by for non-geeks in Russia and Ukraine, a CD with pirated Windows or a CD with Linux? What about CDs with pirated Windows games? Also, Microsoft could easily crack down on pirated copies of Windows if they wanted to. However, that would be utterly counterproductive because it would just make Linux look more attractive in comparison. Microsoft knows very well that hanging on to their 95% market share is worth a bunch of pirated CDs in Russia.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 17:29 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I often hear laments: "Oh, if only Windows wasn't preinstalled. We'd rule the world with Linux, surely!"
They are definitely not true as I see a counter-example with my own eyes.
>It certainly doesn't prove Linux couldn't compete with Windows on a level playing field. What is easier to come by for non-geeks in Russia and Ukraine, a CD with pirated Windows or a CD with Linux?
A CD with Linux - broadband access is ubiquitous and cheap. I have 100mbit Ethernet connection for $8 a month, so I can download Ubuntu install CD in about 30 seconds. Of course, I can do the same for a Windows install DVD.
So I'd say they are on a level footing.
>What about CDs with pirated Windows games?
Actually, they are becoming quite rare. Why would you bother with buying CDs when you can download anything you want for free?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 18:28 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
and how many computer manufacturers build systems exclusively for those markets?
and what slice of the overall computer industry are these markets?
I suspect that the answers to both are very small numbers.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:43 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] These both are wrong questions. The answers to both are: there are more then enough computer manufacturers and they represent huge slice of computer industry (China alone is large enough), but in places where Windows is free and Linux is free Windows wins hands down. It's not even a contest. And since you can not attach any non-zero price to Linux (this will immediately make your Linux offer non-noncompetitive) the end result is that there are still no chance for “serious try”. People somehow expect that “serious try” will be “identical push for Windows and Linux” but it just does not work: Windows in incumbent, identical push will always favor it, you need bigger push to succeed - and where money for said push will come from? You can not even use typical bundling strategy (where producer of demo version of commercial program pays you dollar or two) because Linux distributions are typically designed to repel any and all proprietary commercial developers as we are discussing here.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 21:12 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
where linux and windows are both 'free', windows will win due to the network effect.
but if microsoft didn't allow for the piracy of windows to maintain this, they would not both be free.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 21:57 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] This is exactly what I'm saying. It's not up to the Microsoft to determine if given country has high piracy or not. But in both cases Windows wins: if piracy is high the Windows wins because of network effect, if it's low then Microsoft makes good money and spends some of it via kickbacks to promote Windows. Windows wins in both cases. Q.E.D.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 20:35 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] There is nothing in principle to prevent someone like HP or Dell from offering Linux als a pre-installed alternative on all of its machines other than that the margins you get from moving boxes do not lend themselves to experiments. Ever wondered why systems with Linux preinstalled are always separate models (often with the same hardware but still with separate nomenclature article)? Apparently there are just this little teeeny agreement. The problem is to get things going in the first place; once you have a system set up, there is no reason why supporting Linux would need to be any more expensive than supporting Windows. Not enough. You need bigger margins, not the same margins, or else the whole exercise is pointless. For that manufacturer need some kind of lock-in - that's what I'm talking about. And indeed when nettop story started vendors tried to produce such lock-in - but unsuccessfully. In the long run it may even be cheaper. PC business is very low margin business. Companies just don't have luxury to think about long term: if they'll start producing losses then the end can come very fast. »Lock-in« doesn't enter into it from a hardware manufacturer's point of view because nobody is »locked into« generic PC hardware that you can get from dozens of manufacturers. Sure. But why start expensive and complex program which may jeopardize your relationship with Microsoft if the end result are the same tiny margins you already have?
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 22:48 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] You need bigger margins, not the same margins, or else the whole exercise is pointless. For that manufacturer need some kind of lock-in - that's what I'm talking about. As a PC manufacturer, you can't »lock in« people to your hardware (unless you're Apple, but we already said that special rules apply to Apple). If anything, a desire to create lock-in would be an argument in favour of preinstalling Linux as long as your Linux distribution is good enough and supports your machine well, because as long as you're the only one selling such a machine people will continue being your customers. This works for Apple – Macintoshes could just as well run Windows but people tend to stick with the OS X that comes with the machine. The margins on Macs aren't quite like the ones on iPhones, but we don't see Apple complain. In the same vein, if a good computer came pre-installed with a good, supported mainstream Linux like Debian (rather than the low-end boxes with weird Linux distributions that hardware manufacturers tend to offer if they offer anything at all), most people would probably stay with that because putting anything else on it would be more of a hassle than it was worth.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 11, 2012 6:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If anything, a desire to create lock-in would be an argument in favour of preinstalling Linux as long as your Linux distribution is good enough and supports your machine well, because as long as you're the only one selling such a machine people will continue being your customers. Nope. Others sell similar machines, too. Both tiny firms with full selection of models (tiny selection because firms are tiny) and large companies like Dell, HP, or Lenovo - but with few models (again: Linux is not large enough to support the large range of models). This works for Apple – Macintoshes could just as well run Windows but people tend to stick with the OS X that comes with the machine. Some actually install Linux and/or Windows, but that's not the point. The point is that MacOS works poorly on anything else and Apple vigorously ensures that there will be no machines with Hackintosh preinstalled. This is where lock-in scheme starts to work and this is what you can not do with Linux. In the same vein, if a good computer came pre-installed with a good, supported mainstream Linux like Debian (rather than the low-end boxes with weird Linux distributions that hardware manufacturers tend to offer if they offer anything at all), most people would probably stay with that because putting anything else on it would be more of a hassle than it was worth. This was tried many times. It does not work. People find something deficient with tiny selection of “Linux preinstalled” offers and buy something else instead. And it makes no sense to create as many models with Linux as you create models with Windows if you expect 10x-100x less buyers.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 11, 2012 7:53 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] This was tried many times. It does not work. People find something deficient with tiny selection of “Linux preinstalled” offers and buy something else instead. When I bought my current computer (an HP business notebook), HP did offer one configuration with Linux preinstalled. That was the bottom-of-the-line configuration with the slowest CPU and GPU, the lowest screen resolution, the smallest hard disk and half the RAM of the one I eventually got. It does not come as a big surprise that under these circumstances buying the machine with Linux preinstalled is not the option most customers will take. On the »plus« side, the machine I bought in the end is also very nice for Linux, with basically everything working out of the box using Debian (I've so far not missed the fingerprint reader, and somebody like HP could probably get that supported by leaning on the chip manufacturer). It does make one wonder why HP does not offer a Linux preinstall for the top-of-the-line configuration rather than the bottom one. In my experience, installing Linux on notebooks has become a lot easier over the years. Whether this is due to improvements in Linux itself or the manufacturers moving towards supported components is difficult to tell (probably a mixture of both), but the presence of any configurations of a model with Linux preinstalled is a good sign because it indicates that Linux will probably work well on the other configurations, too. There is certainly nothing technical that prevents manufacturers from offering more Linux preinstalls – the reason why this doesn't happen more often is mostly to do with Microsoft's sleazy business practices.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 10, 2012 10:57 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the distros selected for the early netbooks were not any of the bigger name, well supported distros. They were ones that virtually nobody had heard of, that had no significant community around them, and then the vendors provided no updates for them on top of that.
That's hardly justification for saying that such installations will require "a divorce from the world of traditional Linux distributions", In fact, it's more a matter of showing that if you do make such a divorce, it's going to take a lot more effort on your part to make things work.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 6, 2012 8:06 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] But if that's why Linux has less usage share, then backwards/forwards compatibility doesn't matter — it's because of lock-in, not lack of backwards/forward compatibility. More like lock-out. If you keep the existing application and convince people to create new ones then number of available applications grows and then you can try to attract new users which will make platform more attractive to developers which will give you new apps, etc. Take a look on NextSTEP/MacOS plight. NEXTStep was extremely cool computer (it had rave reviews, etc), yet even Steve Jobs was unable to sell it. Does it mean that he was incompetent back then and only become ruthless, successful businessman after it's return to Apple? No: he led the Pixar at the same which revolutionized the animation and went on to the very successful IPO. Later it was sold to Disney and Disney's stow formed the majority of Steve Job's wealth in 2011. But when Jobs returned to Apple NEXTStep underwent a lot of cosmetic changes which resulted in contemporary 6-7% market for MacOS X. MacOS was at about 4.5% in 1996 when Steve returned. It does not look like much but keep in mind that 4.5% is about the same market share as MacOS X was couple of years ago. Steve's first priority was to keep existing users happy. That's why MacOS X development took years (it was released five years after NeXT was bought and for one more year it was not a default OS for newly sold computers). Later, when Apple got other strongholds (iPod, iPhone, iPad) it become more demanding to their developers - and still when developers threaten stampede Apple retreats (take a look on push against sandbox, for example). Linux desktop, on the other hand, imposes more restrictions, breaks applications all the time and yes, has smaller (and shrinking!) market share. Yet it's developers claim everything is peachy and they are on the road to success. Is it honest delusion or inability to face reality? But users like those are unlikely to contribute to the development of the programs they use, and the entire purpose of FLOSS is to make it possible for every user to become a developer. Users are unlikely to contribute. But this is not why they are important. The apps for said users don't grow on trees. Someone develops them. But if most users are not on Linux then most developers are not on Linux either. If they don't care or, even worse, don't know about Linux then they will not become Linux developers in any case. That's why the user/developer community isn't willing to have a situation where "you must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare" just for the sake of attracting the kind of user who's not willing to get their hands dirty. No? Then why all these pointless shiny changes features and breakage to the workflow of the existing users? Why the push for social? This behavior just does not adds up. Either you want to attract “dumb users” or you don't want to do that. If the first case you need to guarantee they'll see not just shiny new desktop, but lots of shiny new applications (and games), too, in the second case you should keep the existing users happy. Today Linux desktop combines worst qualities of both approaches.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 1:18 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Linux desktop, on the other hand, imposes more restrictions Like what? > breaks applications all the time But you can still run them, as I've already said… > and yes, has smaller (and shrinking!) market share. According to what study? > Yet it's developers claim everything is peachy and they are on the road to success. Is it honest delusion or inability to face reality? No, it's because the developer base and rate of development are both increasing steadily. That's all that really matters for the survival of a project — a project that can recruit new developers will survive, whereas a project that can't will die even if it has lots of users. > But if most users are not on Linux then most developers are not on Linux either. You seem to be assuming that the proportion of users who are also developers is the same for every platform, but I believe that it's much higher for Unix/Linux than it is for Windows, MacOS, Android, and iOS. And the reason for that is simple: for this category of users, Linux is far more "user-friendly" than any other system. > Then why all these pointless shiny changes features and breakage to the workflow of the existing users? Why the push for social? Speaking as a KDE user, I don't know what you're talking about here. The user experience for me hasn't changed much throughout the last 8 years — and that's how I like it! Whereas what you seem to be saying to people like me is essentially "Go away, you don't exist. The Linux desktop should be designed for the technically-ignorant masses, not for you." But those aren't the ones who are developing the system, nor are they funding its development, so (fortunately!) there's no chance that the changes you suggest will ever happen.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 12:06 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Like what? There are no SDK besides LSB. Thus you either need to spend huge amount of time trying to understand what APIs are safe to use and which are not or you are stuck with pitiful API set. But you can still run them, as I've already said… I can run them. You can run them. Joe Average can not - and that's the problem. According to what study? According to statcounter, for example. Actually it looks like recently the slide stopped. In fact it showed the largest result in April: 0.85% (it had 0.84% in July 2008). Of course March's result is 0.83% and April is not yet finished thus it's possible that it was some kind of blimp... But do you really feel 0.01% growth in five years is good result? That's all that really matters for the survival of a project — a project that can recruit new developers will survive, whereas a project that can't will die even if it has lots of users. And the projects which lose the hardware to run on will become irrelevant even if there are bazillion developers. Take a look on GPE, Opie, etc. They also had growing number of participants and boasted their cool features. Where are they today? Well, they still alive and even produce new releases (but AFAICS number of developers is no longer growing)... which you can run on emulators or vintage hardware bought on eBay. If that's your goal, then I have no objections, actually. Feel free to continue. You seem to be assuming that the proportion of users who are also developers is the same for every platform, but I believe that it's much higher for Unix/Linux than it is for Windows, MacOS, Android, and iOS. No. I assume most developers are not hobbyists and they follow users. If users are on Linux (for example in HPC space) then most developers are on Linux. If the users are on Windows (for example on Desktop) then most developers are on Windows. It's as simple as that. But those aren't the ones who are developing the system, nor are they funding its development, so (fortunately!) there's no chance that the changes you suggest will ever happen. Don't be so quick to assert that. I know enough people in various companies who think about Linux desktop. Most of them, of course, just ignore FOSS pundits, but I wanted to see if they can be coopted. Well, looks like “my way or the highway” is their principal stance… and since there are no way in hell their way can be acceptable by general public… well, the die is cast. Just remember: in the end it was your choice. I'm actually cautiously optimistic WRT Linux desktop. I think in about 5-7 years Linux will have the same presence on desktop as it has on mobiles today (about 50%), and, of course, FOSS pundits will continue to moan that this is not what they meant when they talked about “year of Linux desktop”.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 14:32 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > There are no SDK besides LSB. That's not a "restriction". > Thus you either need to spend huge amount of time trying to understand what APIs are safe to use In practice, it's not so difficult to know what APIs are safe to use. > I can run them. You can run them. Joe Average can not - and that's the problem. In that case, the real problem here is that "Joe Average" isn't computer-literate enough. Because our fundamental goal isn't to increase the usage share of Linux, it's to get the public at large to start caring about software freedom — and better computer literacy is probably a prerequisite for that. (I seem to remember one of Stallman's essays suggesting that office workers should learn how to write Elisp code to do the common tasks they need to do.) Maybe RaspberryPi will help with that, even if its hardware is a little more locked-down then we'd like. > But do you really feel 0.01% growth in five years is good result? Even if those figures are valid (and I don't believe they are), it doesn't matter, because "growth" (of the userbase) isn't what we care about. All we (current Linux desktop users) care about is that the software continues to be developed and continues to have the characteristics that attracted us to it in the first place (including user-freedom, which you keep telling us that we need to give up). > Take a look on GPE, Opie, etc. The reason those projects are dying is not because of locked-down hardware; instead, it's because they were designed for old PDAs with much less CPU/GPU power and smaller screens than the mobile devices of today. Today's equivalent devices have no need for Qt Embedded — they can run full Qt X11, so we have Plasma Active to fulfill the role that Qtopia/OPIE once served. > there are no way in hell their way can be acceptable by general public… The FLOSS community's goal is, and always has been, to convince the general public that software freedom is important. We must never give up on that goal, and we never will. Because it's really a matter of political power — in a computer-dependent society, if people aren't in control of their own computing environment, that means that other people are in control of it, and therefore those other people have power over them. And this is all just a part of our broader political goal, which is to have a society where no one has power over anyone else; in other words, anarchism. That's the only way to have true "liberty and justice for all".
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 17:03 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] In that case, the real problem here is that "Joe Average" isn't computer-literate enough. No, the real problem is that times have changed. Joe Average is quite computer-literate today. S/he knows how to use spreadsheets and web browsers, s/he knows how to create blog and publish video on YouTube. What Joe Average does not know and does not want to know is how to program. Just like s/he does not know how to fix the car. These skills were important when IT industry and automotive industry were young, but today… they expect that it'll be done by professionals. Because our fundamental goal isn't to increase the usage share of Linux, it's to get the public at large to start caring about software freedom — and better computer literacy is probably a prerequisite for that. I doubt it's even possible. The most you can do it mobilize general public when some changes threaten them directly (see SOPA/PIPA). But when it's something abstract… they don't really care. All we (current Linux desktop users) care about is that the software continues to be developed and continues to have the characteristics that attracted us to it in the first place (including user-freedom, which you keep telling us that we need to give up). Bullshit. Some Linux users genuinely care about software freedom and put it before everything else. But most of them are happy to use proprietary software if the need arises: ATI/nVidia drivers, Flash player, etc. It's hard to find Linux user who rejects them. The reason those projects are dying is not because of locked-down hardware; instead, it's because they were designed for old PDAs with much less CPU/GPU power and smaller screens than the mobile devices of today. Today's equivalent devices have no need for Qt Embedded — they can run full Qt X11, so we have Plasma Active to fulfill the role that Qtopia/OPIE once served. Than why there are tons of devices which use Android and nothing with Plasma Active? And this is all just a part of our broader political goal, which is to have a society where no one has power over anyone else; in other words, anarchism. That's the only way to have true "liberty and justice for all". Sorry to burst your bubble but this is impossible. Creation of silicone components is highly centralized business thus large corporations will always be in charge. If someone will find and way to cheaply replicate computer hardware then may be, just may be, you fantasies will have a chance to become reality. But till that happens they will remain pure vapor.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 18:21 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > What Joe Average does not know and does not want to know is how to program. If you don't believe that as many people as possible should be able to program, then you're rejecting the core ideology of FLOSS. Because if there's only a small elite who are able to develop software, that small elite will have power over others — and people having power over others is inherently wrong. There can be no argument whatsoever that it's not inherently wrong — it's a core value that needs no justification. It just is. > Than why there are tons of devices which use Android and nothing with Plasma Active? Because the phone carriers are hostile to user-freedom, and also because Plasma Active is new and immature. It's not true, though, that "nothing" runs Plasma Active, and the amount of devices it supports will increase over time. And it's not even the only current FLOSS mobile UX; there's Nemo Mobile, and there's CyanogenMod. > Some Linux users genuinely care about software freedom and put it before everything else. But most of them are happy to use proprietary software if the need arises: ATI/nVidia drivers, Flash player, etc. It's hard to find Linux user who rejects them. While it's true that just about all Linux desktop users are using at least some proprietary software (almost all of them are using proprietary system firmware / BIOS, for example), that in no way implies that software freedom wasn't part of what attracted them to Linux in the first place — and that is the point I was making. Or to put it another way, suppose there's a "desktop Linux" platform that's a lot like iOS: it runs on locked-down devices only, and it only runs software from a single "app store" (unless you pay for a "developer subscription"). What's in it for me? (Nothing.) Why would I care that it has a Linux kernel somewhere inside? (I wouldn't.) You seem to be suggesting that this is what the future of the Linux desktop should look like — but the current user-base and developer-base want nothing like that. > large corporations will always be in charge. Another world is possible. All it will take is for FLOSS community members and other true believers to enter the heart of the capitalist system, and then destroy it from within. Because anything would be better than the current system — anything AT ALL! Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we'll keep the BLACK flag flying here…
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 20:26 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Because if there's only a small elite who are able to develop software, that small elite will have power over others — and people having power over others is inherently wrong. Small? Elite? What are you smoking? Very small percentage of people know how to farm today (and food is essential for living!) - does it mean they are “small elite with have power over others”? Very small percentage of people know how to stitch boots (and in many countries you can literally die without proper boots!) - does it mean they are “small elite with have power over others”? Contemporary society is highly differentiated and any given skill (beyond small number of basics like the ability to speak) is only known to small percentage of it. Why programming should be any different? On the contrary: I've worked as CS teacher some time ago and it's obvious to me that most people will never be able to program. Never. That's just fact of life. You can not do anything about it. You can ignore these people or you may adopt them somehow, but the society where most people know how to program is just impossible. There can be no argument whatsoever that it's not inherently wrong — it's a core value that needs no justification. Whatever. You may as well declare Law of Gravity as something “inherently wrong” - it'll not care. Just like I don't care about your crazy declarations. It's not true, though, that "nothing" runs Plasma Active, and the amount of devices it supports will increase over time. And it's not even the only current FLOSS mobile UX; there's Nemo Mobile, You forgot about webOS which is open source now. Yes, there are enough failed FOSS projects and I'm sure there will be many more. People just refuse to learn. and there's CyanogenMod. This is different kettle of fish. CyanogenMod is the only project with clear long-term perspective. Because it has evil twin designed for Joe Average - regular Android. If Android will fail at some point (for example if WP15 will kill it) then CyanogenMod, Plasma Active and other simlar projects will have no hardware to run on. You seem to be suggesting that this is what the future of the Linux desktop should look like — but the current user-base and developer-base want nothing like that. s/should/would/ It's either that or nothing at all. If Linux will form the platform which is used by Joe Average then there will be sibling platform for FOSS-lovers. If Linux will continue to form 1% of desktop and Microsoft will succeed in separation of closed Windows-only desktop platform from server (where Linux is not in danger for foreseeable future) then Linux desktop will be extinct.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 20:56 UTC (Sat) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link] You forgot about webOS which is open source now. Not yet it isn't...
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 7:31 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > does it mean they are “small elite with have power over others”? If other people were actively excluded from joining that group (as is the case when copyright and/or patents and/or lack of source code exclude people who do know how to program from being able to modify the software that they use), then it might. Because if society depends on something that is under the control of an exclusive elite group, they will have political power over the whole society. That's why the core goal of FLOSS has always been to increase the amount of people who have control over the software they use. (And that's also why even non-programmers stand to benefit from FLOSS — with a large and non-exclusive base of developers, non-developer users have more options to turn to when developers/maintainers go against the users' interests.) > Whatever. You may as well declare Law of Gravity as something “inherently wrong” - it'll not care. Just like I don't care about your crazy declarations. What you dismiss as "crazy declarations" are nothing less than the core ideals that the 18th century French and American revolutionaries believed in. > Yes, there are enough failed FOSS projects and I'm sure there will be many more. It's way too soon to say that Plasma Active and Nemo Mobile are "failed". I believe they'll be more successful than the ones you mentioned (OPIE and GPE) ever were — mainly because the hardware they're designed for is itself far more commercially successful than the old so-called "PDA" devices ever were. > CyanogenMod is the only project with clear long-term perspective. It has no more "long-term perspective" than the rest. The only reason it has a larger usage share than the others is from riding on the coattails of it's "evil twin". > If Android will fail at some point (for example if WP15 will kill it) then CyanogenMod, Plasma Active and other simlar projects will have no hardware to run on. If that were true, then it would have been impossible for OPIE and GPE to run on hardware made for Windows CE (Jornada / iPAQ), but they did. And it's not guaranteed that Android being successful will ensure that unlocked hardware will be available in the future — for a while it seemed like there would be no more unlocked Android phones, when the Nexus One was cancelled. > It's either that or nothing at all. If Linux will form the platform which is used by Joe Average then there will be sibling platform for FOSS-lovers. Again, there's no guarantee of that. iOS is descended from FLOSS (Mach and 4.3BSD), and yet it has no "sibling platform for FOSS-lovers". And there's no reason why a (desktop or mobile) OS based on GPLv2-licensed Linux couldn't be just the same — indeed, Android could easily become like that if Google and the device manufacturers chose to stamp out all unlocked hardware. The only real solution is for there to be a large enough niche market of people who actively prefer unlocked hardware, regardless of whether it's desktop or mobile. (And I believe that Google, for the moment at least, understands that there is such demand for unlocked hardware, or else there never would have been the Nexus product line.) That's why it's crucially important to make the case to the public at large about the benefits of user-freedom (and in particular the ways that locked-down hardware restrict it).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 10:11 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If other people were actively excluded from joining that group (as is the case when copyright and/or patents and/or lack of source code exclude people who do know how to program from being able to modify the software that they use), then it might. What this has to do with discussion in question? What you dismiss as "crazy declarations" are nothing less than the core ideals that the 18th century French and American revolutionaries believed in. Rilly? You must know how to program or you are not human are ideas of French and American revolutionaries? News to me. I've said: This is far cry from the “core ideals that the 18th century French and American revolutionaries”. It's one thing to empower people by giving them access to human knowledge. It's another thing to disqualify people by demanding them to learn things they don't really need or want. It's way too soon to say that Plasma Active and Nemo Mobile are "failed". They failed in the sames sense Linux desktop has failed. They don't come preinstalled (and will not come preinstalled in the future), they don't influence the markets they are in (hardware is designed to support Android 2.x or Android 4.x, never to support Plasma Active or Nemo Mobile), etc. The most they can hope for is something like Zaurus: niche product which will be on market for a few years mostly unnoticed and which will be later replaced with Android (or may be Windows8/9/10). They may survive as “curiosity project” like XMBC but this is side-attraction at best, this is not where future direction of the society is determined. If that were true, then it would have been impossible for OPIE and GPE to run on hardware made for Windows CE (Jornada / iPAQ), but they did. Sorry, but this is wrong. OPIE and GPE only had platform to run because Sharp created Linux-based PDA. And earlier efforts were also driven by companies, not by FOSS community. The same hardware was used for Windows CE devices thus it was an easy port (initially OPIE only supported Zaurus). When Sharp switched to Windows CE itself in 2007 OPIE and GPE lost the momentum, too. It's one thing to circumvent the bootloader and few unique components. It's another thing to port Linux to the hardware which has no public specification and which was never designed with Linux in mind. And it's not guaranteed that Android being successful will ensure that unlocked hardware will be available in the future — for a while it seemed like there would be no more unlocked Android phones, when the Nexus One was cancelled. That's separate issue. But if your hardware is using Linux-friendly components then to have free OS on it you basically only need to circumvent the bootloader. If your hardware is designed for totally different OS from the ground up then it's much, MUCH, MUCH harder. iOS is descended from FLOSS (Mach and 4.3BSD), and yet it has no "sibling platform for FOSS-lovers". iOS is only used by one producer which is quite explicitly is not interesting in filling all the niches. And it you can install Linux (Android) on iPhone - but it works significantly worse then Linux on Android handsets. The only real solution is for there to be a large enough niche market of people who actively prefer unlocked hardware, regardless of whether it's desktop or mobile. Bullshit. It just does not work. This approach was tried many times (Zaurus, OpenMoko, Nokia's Maemo/Meego efforts, etc). This niche market is just too small. It's large enough to support creation of a few devices from the components used by mainstream, but it's not large enough to support it's own separate ecosystem. That's why it's crucially important to make the case to the public at large about the benefits of user-freedom (and in particular the ways that locked-down hardware restrict it). “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”? That's definition of insanity. This way was tried and it just does not work. Time to move on: accept that public at large is just too ignorant to care about software freedom… and coopt it anyway. Internet community did that beautifully when it was threatened by SOPA/PIPA: general public don't care about copyright all that much (mostly because it's too ignorant about copyright-relevant issues), but it reacts when confronted with the danger of loss of their favorite toy. This means that FOSS long-term survival is guaranteed only if FOSS community will learn to create toys used by general public. If they will be threatened then you you can mobilize millions if not billions in a case of danger. If FOSS will be used only by some FOSS-lovers then the destruction of the whole ecosystem will just not be noticed by general public. FOSS community may be powerful, but it has an Achilles heel: ultimately it needs hardware to run on and said hardware can only be created by large companies. It is just as stupid to pretend that it's not important as it is to stupid to pretend that FOSS is powerless.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 10:54 UTC (Sun) by BlueLightning (subscriber, #38978) [Link]
As someone who was involved in the handhelds.org community for a long time and the current maintainer of Opie (yes, it's still barely alive) I feel that Opie and GPE are being bandied about here as if they have significant relevance to the discussion at hand. There are some parallels, but the situation was entirely different.
It was a few years ago now but after working for some time on handheld Linux I came to the unpleasant realisation that Opie, GPE and the Linux-based operating systems that they ran on where never, ever going to reach the masses. It was never going to happen.
Why not?
Because they never came pre-installed mass-market devices (among many reasons why not, at the time, GPL was a problem for many companies) and getting them onto existing devices was an exceedingly difficult and risky procedure even for the moderately competent - much more difficult than installing Linux on a PC. Unlike PCs, the hardware was almost completely closed and differed for almost every new device, and we couldn't keep up. Not to mention that building an OS for end-users for a mobile device was a gargantuan task for a group with fairly limited resources. The saddest thing of all though is that ultimately the effort was stymied by politics.
However, I wouldn't say the effort was a complete failure. We got a lot of real software development done, and out of the desire to be able to build an operating system grew the OpenEmbedded project, which flourished and has enjoyed commercial success that still continues to this day. Not to mention that developers who worked on various projects around handhelds.org had a lot of fun and learnt a great deal (myself included). This isn't particularly relevant to the desktop Linux discussion at hand, but worth noting.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 11:26 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] As someone who was involved in the handhelds.org community for a long time and the current maintainer of Opie (yes, it's still barely alive) I feel that Opie and GPE are being bandied about here as if they have significant relevance to the discussion at hand. Well, yes, is is. It was a few years ago now but after working for some time on handheld Linux I came to the unpleasant realisation that Opie, GPE and the Linux-based operating systems that they ran on where never, ever going to reach the masses. It was never going to happen. Hmm, that's my point exactly. Because they never came pre-installed mass-market devices (among many reasons why not, at the time, GPL was a problem for many companies) and getting them onto existing devices was an exceedingly difficult and risky procedure even for the moderately competent - much more difficult than installing Linux on a PC. Sure. But here is the problem: as time goes on it becomes harder to install Linux on PC, not easier. Not just things intended to close the ability to install Linux totally (like Secure Boot) - there are other efforts, too. These changes are slow because when they interfere with lives of general public general public pushes back, but the process is quite steady. Should we want till Linux desktop will reach the same stage as OPIE today? Or, perhaps, we need to do something to make sure it'll never happen. Note that even the reason which kept Linux niche open for years (you need some Linux-compatible hardware to develop server solutions) is no longer valid: Virtual PC works fine for that. Unlike PCs, the hardware was almost completely closed and differed for almost every new device, and we couldn't keep up. Well, the history repeats itself with GPU, at least. As Cyberax said: there's that sense of fin-de-siècle in the air - the current situation is unsustainable and Something Has To Happen. Either Linux desktop will finally reach general consumer or it'll die off. And the more I look on the situation the more likely it looks like we'll have both (like it happened on handhelds/mobiles): we'll get some kind of mainstream “Linux desktop”, but it'll be some kind of deep fork which will ignore most of the efforts which happened before it. Current distributions then follow the OPIE/GPE lead on the road to oblivion.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 16:30 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > as time goes on it becomes harder to install Linux on PC, not easier. Not in my experience. I first tried to install Linux on a PC around 1997 or 1998, and couldn't do it. Since then it's gradually gotten easier; the last few times I've installed Linux (most recent one was this past December or January), I had no trouble whatsoever. > Either Linux desktop will finally reach general consumer or it'll die off. That's pure FUD, nothing more.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 19:40 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] Oh, and: > Well, the history repeats itself with GPU, at least. Not so much; right now there are only three major desktop GPU manufacturers (Intel, AMD, nVidia), all of which have free drivers available for all GPU variants up to almost the newest ones, and the latter two manufacturers also have proprietary drivers for Linux. And for mobile GPUs, proprietary drivers for Linux are readily available, and work is underway on free drivers for one mobile GPU family/manufacturer.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 1:40 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Care to explain how can I use switchable GPUs (ATI and Intel - both officially supported) on my Sony VPCSE?
Right now I have to blacklist radeon driver, or it simply hangs with black screen.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 8:44 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
That's not because they're being evilly kept secret by nasty hardware manufacturers trying to destroy desktop Linux. It's because switchable GPUs is hard enough when they're *not* completely different GPUs with distinct drivers. Even the first case has only been working for a year or so.
(And the people working on these free drivers are funded by... AMD and Intel! Normally, you'll note, competitors.)
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 14:34 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
But that's exactly what khim and me is telling. Good switchable GPUs are a hard task to implement.
So vendors simply don't bother with Linux where it'll be useful only for a fraction of 1% of their users. NVidia hasn't even ported their Optimus technology to Linux in proprietary drivers.
In the area of switchable GPUs all we get is airled. And while he's a mega-super-developer, he can only do so much.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 17:47 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Which basically implies that people who don't want to learn how to build Linux systems and care for them should be considered defective and don't deserve lenience. It implies nothing of the sort. > It's one thing to empower people by giving them access to human knowledge. That is what I've been saying all along: if people don't have sufficient knowledge about the technologies they depend on, they are disempowered. And things like locked-down hardware and source-unavailable software have the effect of disempowering people by excluding them from access to this knowledge. Therefore, what you said earlier — locked-down hardware is "good for them!" — can't be true (and is totally contrary to the core ideals of the FSF and the FLOSS community at large). > They failed in the sames sense Linux desktop has failed. The way I see it, the Linux desktop is successful today and getting better all the time — and there's no reason why it has to be used by the majority to be "successful". (There's an old saying: "Unix is user-friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are." It was true then, and it's still true now.) > When Sharp switched to Windows CE itself in 2007 OPIE and GPE lost the momentum, too. Like I already said, the real reason why OPIE and GPE lost momentum was because the whole "PDA" device class was supplanted by smartphones and tablets. > It's one thing to circumvent the bootloader and few unique components. It's another thing to port Linux to the hardware which has no public specification and which was never designed with Linux in mind. The Windows CE devices were never designed with Linux in mind, and yet OPIE and GPE ran on them. And for another example: the BeagleBoard / PandaBoard / RaspberryPi / IGEPv2 class of devices probably would never have existed if it weren't for both:
> This way was tried and it just does not work. It did work — that's why we've got the PandaBoard et al., and the Nexus series, and probably also why the threat posed by EFI was defeated (at least it looks that way currently). > This means that FOSS long-term survival is guaranteed only if FOSS community will learn to create toys used by general public. If they will be threatened then you you can mobilize millions if not billions in a case of danger. The problem is that they won't be threatened (or at least they won't perceive any threat) by the unlocked hardware going out of production or the destruction of the FLOSS ecosystem. If the Nexus and whatever other unlocked Android devices all were discontinued today, the majority of Android users would barely even notice. You said so much yourself: "Of course not! It's good for them! This is what they want!"
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 19:20 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] Also, one more thing: > > It's one thing to circumvent the bootloader and few unique components. It's another thing to port Linux to the hardware which has no public specification and which was never designed with Linux in mind. What about Rockbox, then? It was quite successful on hardware that was never meant to run it or any other OS/firmware other than the manufacturer's own one, and it only declined because (same as with PDAs) the smartphone/tablet boom has decreased the usage share of DAP devices.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 16:25 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] Sorry, but this is wrong. OPIE and GPE only had platform to run because Sharp created Linux-based PDA.Sorry, but this is wrong. DEC^WCompaq Western Research Lab had been working on SA1100 StrongArm prototype hand-helds well before the Zaurus, with Linux.The Compaq iPaq was borne out of the Itsy work and, though it shipped with WinCE, Compaq WRL provided Linux friendly bootloader firmware and distributions, which were pretty easy to install. The only daunting step was running the WRL provided WinCE app to reflash the firmware - still easy though. DEC^WCompaq WRL remained a nexus of the Linux StrongArm handhelds community for a long time after (handhelds.org remained hosted there for years after). The Sharp Zaurus StrongArm Linux devices came after the Compaq iPaq. Also, they were, I think, harder to find. Compaq iPaqs were in a lot of shops at the time.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 8, 2012 23:22 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>Because the phone carriers are hostile to user-freedom, and also because Plasma Active is new and immature. It's not true, though, that "nothing" runs Plasma Active, and the amount of devices it supports will increase over time. And it's not even the only current FLOSS mobile UX; there's Nemo Mobile, and there's CyanogenMod.
Care for a prediction? Plasma Active won't run on more than a handful devices with by the end of 2013. It will be used by relatively few users, mostly computer geeks. Then it'll either slowly wither away and die or will continue as a small 'niche' product.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 9, 2012 21:14 UTC (Mon) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > or will continue as a small 'niche' product. There's nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned. KDE has always been a "niche product", and yet it has survived for over 15 years and still has a thriving developer community.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 1:37 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] Oh, and a few more things: > NEXTStep was extremely cool computer (it had rave reviews, etc) The computer, or the OS? As for the computer, ISTR reading that it cost as much as a Unix workstation while having no better hardware than a 680x0 Mac, and it didn't even have a hard disk drive (at least on early models). No wonder it sold poorly. > Steve's first priority was to keep existing users happy. And you know what? If the Linux desktop were to be changed so that developers "must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare", existing users would be very unhappy, because a large proportion of those existing users are developers (which is how it should be, according to FLOSS ideology).
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 12:12 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] If the Linux desktop were to be changed so that developers "must support old technology (often decade old technology) thus development is nightmare", existing users would be very unhappy, because a large proportion of those existing users are developers (which is how it should be, according to FLOSS ideology). Linux has larger proportion of developers among it's users but these are still minority. That's why we have this discussion on first place. If you want to kick out all the “mere users” away and keep only developers then perhaps it's better for you to join the OpenBSD camp? These people are at least honest: We hack OpenBSD for ourselves. Not for you. Not for the users. If the users end up enjoying what we have created for themselves, good for them. This may be because some of the users are have the same needs as us. But, then they are just lucking out, since we are doing it FOR OURSELVES.
Free is too expensive (Economist) Posted Apr 7, 2012 14:44 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > If you want to kick out all the “mere users” away and keep only developers That's a strawman. No one ever suggested "kicking out" users — there's nothing preventing users from migrating to Linux if they prefer it over the alternatives. It's just that its developer base (which makes up a large proportion of the user base) is not, and should not be, willing to make things more difficult for themselves, and other current Linux users, for the sake of pandering to techinally-illiterate people (and you yourself admitted that "development is nightmare" on the platforms that those technically-illiterate users are currently using). > perhaps it's better for you to join the OpenBSD camp? These people are at least honest They're honest, and we're honest too — as far as I'm concerned, there's no significant defference between us and them. (In fact, I have used OpenBSD in the past.)
|
|||||||||||||