Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired) [LWN.net]

Wired reports from the Desktop Linux Conference, where Bruce Perens has announced backing for a new, desktop-oriented version of the Debian distribution. "The companies supporting UserLinux will also contribute developers to the project. In return, they'll get an operating system with unlimited seats and options for paid technical support, ideally, from a variety of competing service providers. UserLinux should be available in six months, and discs containing a consumer version of UserLinux could hit retail store shelves shortly thereafter."

to post comments

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 14:46 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (49 responses)

I think an important Perens quote from the article is:
"UserLinux would only depart from Debian for software that is not open source"

so, UserLinux will be Debian + proprietary software. A dissapointing step back in my (not surprising) opinion.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 15:47 UTC (Tue) by macemoneta (guest, #2717) [Link] (5 responses)

Yes, I agree. I'd rather use Fedora Core, which is all open source, as a base. I would rather see the open source drivers used for the video cards, and leave the proprietary closed source drivers as a download from the vendor. Real end-users don't install operating systems or even video cards. The person doing this on their behalf can install a proprietary product if necessary.

For example, the open source video drivers are fine, if you aren't playing games (corporate desktop, or a home user that plays Shisen-Sho instead of Chromium). In those environments, the stability and automatic maintenance (yum system service) are the primary concerns.

Real gamers are used to downloading, installing, and tweaking drivers. Even if you give them the latest and greatest at the time of distribution, they will still go to the vendors site to get the next update level.

Including proprietary source for this reason is meaningless and, as you pointed out, definitely a step back.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 16:46 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] (1 responses)

"I would rather see the open source drivers used for the video cards"

Due to this I wont buy any ATI or NVIDIA. Basically stuck with Intel enhanced graphics.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 13, 2003 10:46 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

What exactly is wrong with the completely open Radeon drivers in the kernel and in
XFree86?

Yes, I know, they give me 73 fps where the proprietary closed ones would give me 75 fps. I
couldn't possibly care less.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 16:47 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] (1 responses)

> Yes, I agree. I'd rather use Fedora Core, which is all open source, as a base.

I don't understand. You would prefer Fedora + proprietary that Debian + proprietary ? Debian is all open-source the same way.

As for the rest of you comment, I agree with you.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 16:55 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Or is it really Fedora + Illegal

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:06 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Customers are paying for a software platform suited for their particular industry. Telling them to download the 3D card drivers separately wouldn't be acceptable to them. But it's possible that those drivers might only be in their "load" rather than the publicly distributed version, as long as the drivers aren't free software.

Bruce

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 16:23 UTC (Tue) by Dabuk (subscriber, #1507) [Link] (1 responses)

A possible consequence of this would be that non-free would be unnecessary in Debian and could be removed. Possibly a step forward...

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:09 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I am not offering to take over Debian's non-free, although someone probably will. I have no desire to deal with any more non-free software than I am required to by customer contracts. I have reserved nonfree.org for the people who want to take over Debian's non-free, whenever that happens.

Thanks

Bruce

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 16:47 UTC (Tue) by proski (guest, #104) [Link]

And what would you make different if you were creating UserLinux and had some money earmarked for that? Would you hire someone to develop additional free software separately from Debian? Or you would invest into some packages already present in Debian? What would you do about hardware that is only supported by non-free software? Would you sell boxed sets? If yes, how would you deal with returns from users whose hardware is only supported by non-free software?

I don't see any need in forking free software to make it user friendly. Nobody is trying on pursose to make or keep it non-friendly to users.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 17:24 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (17 responses)

I'm a pragmatist. I could care less what is "pure" and what is "impure". Can I download it for free? If the answer is yes then I'm happy. If I have the option of paying for support as well then my day just got that much brighter.

I want a viable alternative to Microsofts bloated OS offering. In the end that is the only thing that matters to me.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:17 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (16 responses)

The people who actually develop the software find that asking for Open Source is not inconsistent with pragmatism. Proprietary software can create no end of problems for our customers. For example, the 3D drivers in question do not support simple but essential things they need to do, that would be absolutely trivial modifications if the code were Open Source.

So, when you see me using anything that is not free software in a product, it's because I'm between a rock and a hard place.

Bruce

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:50 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (15 responses)

If its a choice between no driver or a driver that lacks a bit of functionality then I'll take the second even if it isn't "Free".

Giving away ones code is a choice. The sense of entitlement by many in the Linux community leaves me less then impressed frankly. Write your own or pay somebody to write it and give it away. OpenSource is a choice. It is not a religion, it is not a mandate. It is highly counter productive to be dogmatic about it.

In the end OpenSource will win out over propriatary software for the same reason that loosly regulated free market economies won out over communism. IE, its a superior model. Trying to shove it down peoples throats will only delay that day.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 19:09 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (13 responses)

If GNU/Linux users are happy to use proprietary drivers, why would we ever be given Free drivers? (or even specs.)

With proprietary drivers, you can only use a version of linux that's compatible with those drivers. You can't upgrade or change your kernel without support from your driver vendor. Would you like to know what a driver is doing? is it gathering info? has it introduced a security hole to your kernel? should the performance be improved?

By using proprietary software, we can have drivers in the short term but we have nothing in the long term. I'd rather take the pragmatic approach by holding out for freedom.

(If you're afraid of the word "freedom", think of "lack of restrictions")

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 20:09 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (8 responses)

I don't value my freedom any higher then anyone elses. Which might explain why I've taken the stance I have on this.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 20:50 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (7 responses)

I don't understand either of your sentences.

I value freedom for society as a whole. I don't see restricting people from modifying published software as a freedom, this is a grant of control. Unfortunately it's legal, just like the Patriot Act, but legal doesn't make it right.

I see your stance as short-sighted. Like saying "I want jam today!", with an implied "I'll trade all my future jam entitlements for it".

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 21:14 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (6 responses)

There's that sense of entitlement again. If you're not familer with the word entitlement then I suggest you look it up...

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 21:29 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (5 responses)

Members of a just society are entitled to freedom. If you're not getting freedom, it doesn't mean you're not entitled to it.

You seem to have a very low opion about how you deserve to be treated. I suppose if you set the bar low enough, you can never be dissapointed, but that's no way to live.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 21:44 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (4 responses)

I hope you understand that everything you just said was double speak. Have you read George Orwell's 1984? If not I highly recommend it.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 21:58 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

Again I can't understand your point. I'm now assuming your just trolling so I'll call it a day at this point.

1984 is indeed a great book (no space in doublespeak).

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 22:08 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (2 responses)

The point is you are essentially saying that slavery is freedom, that your vision of the future is the perfect one and that anyone else is just plain wrong and misguided...

I find that people often fail to understand me when I'm hitting a bit to close to home. I think it must be an inbuilt psychological defense mechanism.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 22:09 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

Although now that I think about it Animal Farm was more likley the book I had in mind.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 13, 2003 12:28 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

Err, emkey, getting all defensive and attacking people personally when somebody disagrees with your position is far more indicative of irrational behavior than simply sticking to your position is.

-Rob

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 20:53 UTC (Tue) by proski (guest, #104) [Link] (1 responses)

Satisfaction with any particular driver cannot be represented by one byte. There are good drivers, bad (not working) drivers and something in between. Why there will be free drivers? Because we need them and want to write them. Even if non-free drivers exist.

Why would anybody work on bochs if everybody is happy with Vmware? Why would anybody work on Mozilla if everybody is happy with Netscape? Maybe your assumptions are wrong? Maybe not everybody is happy?

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 21:23 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link]

Exactly.

Freedom means choice. Choice means not everyone has to make the same choice or even like the other choices that are available.

I really dislike the portion of the OpenSource community that is waging a war of genocide on all other philosophies. I find it counterproductive, immature and highly dysfunctional frankly. OpenSource has come as far as it is because it has substantial merit. It will continue to advance for the same reason.

All that energy would be much better spent on fighting the various laws that are being passed to impede OpenSource.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 21:07 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

You are making a false binary distinction. Open Source users are willing, but not happy to use proprietary drivers. A proprietary driver is better than no driver, but, for a variety of reasons, not as good as a Free driver. Hardware accessible only with a proprietary driver should be seen as likely to break in time, and as presently crippled. Obviously, these are undesireable, but the hardware even broken this much, may be better than the alternative hardware's full capabilities.

Using a card with the nVidia driver is a bit like using a card with a bad connection to the motherboard. Every so often, the card pops out of the slot and stops working. It's obviously in the vendor's best interests to avoid this situation if they possibly can, especially for unsupported non-technical users, because it hurts their reputation if users find that their graphic card stops working on occasion. It doesn't matter to the end user whether the reason the card stops working is that the driver isn't Free and has to be maintained by the vendor or whether the card just has poor heat sink properties and shuts itself off if you use it too much. In either case, people will take it to be fixed, complain, and consider a different vendor for their next purchase.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 1:37 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"With proprietary drivers, you can only use a version of linux that's compatible with those drivers. You can't upgrade or change your kernel without support from your driver vendor."

I'm not really pushing for proprietary drivers, but the above is not correct. As well demonstrated here at LWN (http://lwn.net/Articles/55085/), kernel developers have been busy determining driver model without any vendor interferance.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 13, 2003 12:25 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

If its a choice between no driver or a driver that lacks a bit of functionality then I'll take the second even if it isn't "Free".

...and I, whenever possible, will buy hardware that *does* have a Free driver.

(Which is getting harder and harder for video cards. Damn the manufacturers. ATI used to be good, but it sounds like they haven't released specs for their R300 cards-- is that correct?)

-Rob

(Not) Yet Another Step Back

Posted Nov 11, 2003 17:28 UTC (Tue) by Webexcess (guest, #197) [Link]

This distro seems targetted at people that are on all-proprietary systems. How can moving from all-proprietary to very-slightly-proprietary be a bad thing?

How long will it be before many of them realise "I can hire anyone to fix most of the problems with my system, what's with these damn buggy video drivers? Let's buy some hardware that works with free software!"

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 17:52 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"so, UserLinux will be Debian + proprietary software..."

But there always has been Linux/FLOSS + proprietary software in a way or another,..., and the worst is no software at all like in the driver front...
If tactics impose is better to give one step back, and reenforce general acceptance, then give two steps foward...

I belive the solution is more technical(i.e):- a general split driver model ala I2O without IOPs, than political or religious...

Because if the kernel is "hardened" right now to the point of no "interaction" what so ever with NO-GPL or NO-Open-Source code, Linux will always be a "orphan" OS like the BSDs were before...

I can understand the commercial concerns behind Red Hat and others,..., but what i cant understand is why they dont see that without wide and large adoption of Linux/FLOSS, there isn't a solid commercial future, and without a solid Desktop Linux there is no possible wide and large adoption... and without strong projects on Desktop standards and evangelization, from ground zero if it must, no wide and large adoption and no commercial future.

"GUESS" Bill's Microsoft never sold a server system, discounting the Xenix experiments, before the 40's anniversary of its Chief Bloatware Architect,..., and now, they have the dominance (>50%) in servers too.

Is like Red Hat wanted to niche market itself by force!!!

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 17:57 UTC (Tue) by penguinwarriors (guest, #11563) [Link]

for me, the #1 issue is getting rid of the Micro$oft monopoly.

if we can say to our spouses, friends, family, BUSINESSES, etc that there is
a VIABLE alternative to windblows, then thats ok for me. I use debian, i love debian, but my daughter uses windows because she can play any games she wants without worrying about wine config, etc, etc, etc. My wife uses windblows because its what shes used to (crashes and all). once there are (REAL ?) games for linux, my daughter will use linux (probably) 100% of the time. we've paid for windows (proprietary) games before, we'll pay for linux proprietary games and software IF IT IS DEEMED NECESSARY.

all i want is to give people valid reasons for dumping windows. if they then want to use UserLinux, Debian, Mandrake, LFS, whatever, then so be it.

anything in the name of ridding the world of Microsoftians

for me... Linux is my God, Debian is my religion.
(Linux is what I believe in, Debian is how i want it given to me)
:-)

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:00 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (17 responses)

The specific proprietary software in mind is 3D card drivers. We need to find a 3D manufacturer willing to work with Open Source again (darn nVidia for killing 3Dfx) but for now the customers require these drivers. The bottom line is that the project will produce "Enterprise Debian", putting all of the work (except for a tiny little bit that they won't take) directly into the Debian project.

Note that I created Debian's free software policies and would hardly be opposed to them.

Bruce

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:03 UTC (Tue) by penguinwarriors (guest, #11563) [Link]

hey bruce!

do this. make it so. PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:11 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (11 responses)

There are a whole series of items that are issues: the newest wireless cards don't have source-available drivers because there's nothing to stop users from telling them to use forbidden frequencies or power levels; there are issues with patented video formats, DVD CSS, MP3, and the like. The question is how far down the slippery slope you go.

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:29 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (10 responses)

I think we can use market force to address some of these problems. The wireless card driver issue is not necessarily about what people tell you it's about. Broadcomm doesn't even release documentation of its MIPS-based CPU, and we do have Open Source drivers for some wireless cards that could be modified to operate the cards outside of their FCC type-approval, without any FCC complaint.

I find the 3D card situation especially vexing. And regarding the closed video formats, I don't think I have to go there with this system.

Bruce

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 12, 2003 6:14 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] (9 responses)

I'm not sure, but if the problem is, that there aren't any good 3D cards available, that would be open source, then isn't it possible to arrange some OPEN HARDWARE project, that will produce a nice, powerful OPEN AND DOCUMENTED 3D card. If the distro will ship in a packaged, paper/plastic/shiny/boxed form, then it shouldn't be difficult to include the open 3D video card into the box???? Not to mention, vendors could be attempted to start producing the harware, as all the designwork will have been done by then and the card will have a nice user base.

I can absolutely confidently suggest two estonian highly skilled, trustworthy, companies: Artec Design(by the way, they use Debian in house) and Liewenthal Elecronics. I konow those companies because two of my friends have been working there. I have been to CeBIT2003 at Hannover, Germany, and it seem's to me, that it's relly not a problem for any of the prementioned companies or almost any other elecronics company(Elcoteq?) to organize some volume production(let's say, 2000 units for a small vlume as a start, 200 000 units later?).

So, if hardware industry can't produce something, that's needed, THEY WILL HAVE COMPEDITION!!! Now, how would that be for some capitalism???

Here are some links for those, who haven't heared of free hardware projects before: http://www.opencores.org | Leon 1 CPU | F-CPU | free-IP | Free Model Foundry | http://www.freeio.org | http://opencollector.org

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 12, 2003 10:07 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] (8 responses)

And then you would have to worry about HARDWARE patents in addition to software patents. The field of 3D cards is still so new that there are bound to be lots of hardware patents related to them in force. It would take serious money to license them for this hypothetical card.

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 12, 2003 16:11 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] (7 responses)

I live in Europe. Well, this 3D issue is a nice example of a chilling
effect, that patents have on technology adaption and innovation.
By the way, everyone is allowed to assamble patented things for him/her-self for his or hers personal usage. Now, it's also
allowed to do reaserch for him/her-self, atleast here, in Europe, and it's also allowed to publish one's reasearch/development results. It
look's bad and risky, but couldn't there be any such workarounds,
that a Linux Distro ships with a unsoldered printed circuit board
and, separate, unsoldered chips, let's say, some high-end or special
purpose FPGA's?

Then anyone can go to a specific web-page, look up
the instructions, how to program the FPGA's and solder the thing together
by oneself(or order some soldering and "footprint"
loading services from some local TV-repairs)?? OK, it isn't going to
be my mother, but ...an average Linux user....??? May-be.

OK, if that doesn't work, then let's dump U.$.A. and Japan
from the worlds map, but if the Europeans have brains enough to forbid software and math patents, then atleast 1/4 of the world can live with fine and open hardware. Hmm, I wish I had time for that.... looks's really intereasting project.

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 12, 2003 18:47 UTC (Wed) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link] (4 responses)

I live in Europe. Well, this 3D issue is a nice example of a chilling effect, that patents have on technology adaption and innovation.

I have to disagree. If there were not hardware patents, then whenever, say, ATI came out with a new innovation, some IBM would copy it and lower prices to destroy their business. Because of manufacturing economies of scale, it would be impossible for small firms to capitalize on innovations, and large firms with manufacturing advantages would enjoy monopsony power (single buyer, vs. monopoly = single seller) over the market for such innovations.

With software, things are quite different because anyone can "manufacture" it with approximately zero marginal cost.

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 12, 2003 22:43 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] (2 responses)

Hmm, Thanks for a great comment!! I see a point in Your text. It look's that we're stuck. But, the assumption of Your text is, that the consumers will always buy the cheaper version, right? Hmm, if that could somehow be
made false, than my assertion regarding to the patents chilling effect would
hold.

I have to think of it. So far I can only bring a real life example of
a small bakery on a street corner, that still sells cookies and grows, though
there are big bakeries in town and many cookies available from local food stores. Luckily, unlike in the U.S.A., cookies are not patentable in Europe.
The problem with that example is, that the small bakery adds value to the cookies by the environment and by providing them freshly, but in case of PCB manufacturing, I don't know, what could the small business advantages be over the giants, let's say, IBM, or SUN.

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 13, 2003 17:24 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] (1 responses)

"I don't know, what could the small business advantages be over the giants, let's say, IBM, or SUN."

It can only be added valuable services. If you think of any -"3th"- wave, economical sector or whatever they name it(recommned Peter Drucker and Alvin Tofler books);... In the case of PCB = finished product it must be in integration, since every computer machine i can think of has many different PCBs and or different OSes,... and maintenance and support...

The theory of a System in a Chip, is a "oast",..., because every system must have plenty of connections to the outside that cannot be directly plugable to the chip.

Microsoft is yet today a 2th Wave company, an industrial one, that has been forcing for to long people to take computers has a radio receiver, a lock-in pill, as if a Wintel = Ford T... but a single solution has proved not to be the best solution, and is going to get worst as "MUCH SMALLER(tm)", fast and local businesses transform the IT world into a 3th wave or services paradigma!

That is why M$ NGSCB/Paladium is a major "HARDWARE" lock-in attempt, because they know if they dont lock-in, they have to change or die!....

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 13, 2003 21:36 UTC (Thu) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Well, I'm glad to have so many nice comments!!! :D Hey, but that looks's really intereasting? So, it turns out, that elecronics's could also be
manufactured locally, like cookies, and provided freshly??????

For instance, if there existed some general design of, let's say, a 3D video card, somewhere as a "cooky recepy", which would consist of all code and
technical specifications and even files for PCB layout, then enyone
could download it as a "coopbook recepy" and start providing the hardware
locally, freshly, WIHT THE VALUE-ADDING SERVICES??? May be one of those services could be tuning or making special client-specific modifications to the hardware just like firms, that set up varoius servers and network
systems, tweak Linux an alike.

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 12, 2003 23:13 UTC (Wed) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Hey, but if the 3D cards are protected by PATENTS anyway, then
the manufacturers can't say, that by providing detailed technical
information about it's card or even providing the VHDL-source and
schematic capture files for the proprietary chip and the card would
put them in a disadvantaged position relative to it's compeditors---the
compeditors can't manufacture or copy the stuff anyway.

But as we see, we do have problems writing new drivers for the equipment and
the develompment is chilled by the lack of information, right? So
how about a new law, that states, that if the equipment contains
patented techologies and therefore the IP is protected, then the
sufficient technical information MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE to anyone,
who want's to use the product as an enduser or designer. If anyone
is afraid, that he/she infriges some patents and hopes, that by
keeping everithing closed will help him/her to get away with it,
then it's easy to say to her/him, that nobody is allowed to infrige
patents anyway and by opening thins up, we can also enforce the
patent law more efficiently. Well, now, that's like turning the
cannons around 180 degrees!!!!

If I'm not mistaken, then one of the original purposes of patents
was to get the technology to wider use in the community and to have
the technical information, that is related to the patented invention,
available to anyone.

Any comments? What are my pitfalls thistime?

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 13, 2003 15:42 UTC (Thu) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link] (1 responses)

Bruce has already said that this distro's users won't find downloading a video driver to make their system work acceptable (it's probably tricky without a display, apart from anything else :-), so I really don't think a system where they have to solder their video card together first and program an FPGA (in order to avoid downloading the driver) is going to fly either.

I'm all in favour of open hardware (both in the specs/docs sense and the completely open designs sense). Indeed we have been building and selling open-hardware designs for a couple of years now (LART, JTAG/JTUX and Balloon). At the moment this only works for developers, who are prepared to pay the premium in exchange for getting all the specs and the rights to second-source/build their own should they need to. In PC-land video cards it seems there aren't enough people who care to make a difference yet. Indeed, if I understand correctly there there are now only 2 suppliers of 3D video cards and neither of them have free drivers then caring isn't enough - someone has to offer an alternative. There must _be_ other manufacturers of video cards, mustn't there? There always seem to be loads I have to choose between to get X to work :-) Have all the others realy gone bust/given up?

I have a practical need for a modern video card with free drivers as I need to put one in a desktop ARM (Xscale) machine. That means a free driver because I assume that all the binary drivers are only supplied for x86, never mind the other potential problems.

HW patents and open HW

Posted Nov 14, 2003 6:05 UTC (Fri) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Hmm, I don't know basically anything about the company, but I found the following link: http://www.xgitech.com . It has grown out of Xabre, a company that claimed itself to be a GPU producer. I found the Xabre from the CeBIT2003, so they, or atleast their "derivative", does seem to be alive in some kind of form.

I hope so

Posted Nov 11, 2003 19:58 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

Your statement worried me because it was an unlimited acceptance of proprietary software, video drivers were only stated as a justification.

Much like Disney asking for longer copyright law for the sake of mickey mouse. The justification can be just a distraction.

A set of "User[GNU/]Linux Free Software Guidelines" would be reasuring, even if they did permit the use of proprietary drivers when stuck.

I hope so

Posted Nov 12, 2003 2:26 UTC (Wed) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Good point, strong Guidelines would probably be the best solution.

It is very desirable to have control over the software you are using (and even if it's only the
ability to compile it yourself and see which compiler flag was messed up by your vendor).

But, this is "User Linux" for a good reason, I presume. This is a system that allows to "use"
Linux for any type of work, as opposed to for most plus giving e.g. a sales person the right
to develop any missing functionality freely themselves.

For a while, it would have been a nightmare to "use" Linux as your only platform, without,
e.g., Acrobat Reader available. Yes, it was not "developable" (how ironic, given its hideous
appearance and various annoying bugs in the versions of that time - what in the world did
Adobe think they were gaining by keeping the "viewing" part of their all-encompassing pdf
agenda hidden??) - but for "use", the choice was this, or have trouble with pdf.

There just need to be a clear statement somewhere that sets narrow limits for the inclusion
of proprietary stuff. In the long run, nobody gains if the user gets angry with "Linux"
because the binary 3D driver crashed again.

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 12, 2003 2:47 UTC (Wed) by zone (guest, #3633) [Link]

> We need to find a 3D manufacturer willing to work with Open Source again

If UserLinux is successful and consumers are happy with the proprietary 3D support that it provides, what motivation would a manufacturer have to create Free Software drivers? A: None. They could be confident knowing that proprietary solutions work for all their customers, with just a few fringe users "still stuck on that Free Software wagon".

With a truly Free Linux distribution on all those desktops, hardware manufacturers would be much more inclined to release Free drivers in order to get inroads into that market.

Including any proprietary software in a Linux distribution at this point is a quick fix solution that can only have bad consequences in the future.

As an aside, Bruce, getting the message to consumers that Free is the right thing is still more important than getting the technology to them. If they understand (as I believe they will) that Free is better than proprietary, it won't matter if it takes six months or six years, when it comes it will be something more than an alternative to Windows, it will be a social movement that will be hard if not impossible to turn around.

Not quite so bad as you think

Posted Nov 13, 2003 13:51 UTC (Thu) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link]

We need to find a 3D manufacturer willing to work with Open Source again

Pardon me if this is obvious, but has anyone with any real clout contacted XGI about this? See the relevant slashdot story.

The links in the story point out that they are planning to release Linux drivers, but there's no information on whether they're going to be libre. Maybe one could positively affect that. Also, a new challenger in the market needs ways to differentiate itself.

Yet Another Step Back (NonWired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:08 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Unfortunately, in the US no business can safely distribute an open source MP3 player, DVD player, or video player that decodes patented formats. Currently this kind of multimedia support can be downloaded from the net, from overseas or from locals who are violating the law. So, it appears that Bruce's distro will have to choose between purity, legality, or winning on the desktop (can't have all three).

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 17:11 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

GREAT !

Only hope that UserLinux would also help to endorse wide acceptance of Desktop Linux Standards (freedesktop.org(?)),... because more importante than filling the gaps of anyone particular vendor, is to promote methods that anyone can follow, from corporate vendor to mom & pops stand.

Guess, this is the fight that enemies of Linux/FLOSS never wished would happen!

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:16 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (1 responses)

Could this be a good approach for getting around the issues raised by the "broadcast flag?"

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 18:32 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

We still have opportunity to comment to FCC regarding the broadcast flag and Open Source software. Hopefully we can do some good there. I am not interested in facilitating closed broadcast receiving software.

Bruce

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 19:39 UTC (Tue) by debacle (subscriber, #7114) [Link] (3 responses)

I'm a Debian user and Debian maintainer myself, and I think Debian has to do some homework to become as "end-user-friendly" as e.g. Knoppix or Mandrake or SuSE:

Knoppix' just rocks, even if you prefer XFCE or GNOME over KDE. It would be great to integrate Knoppix 100% in Debian, e.g. allow running the d-i from Knoppix.
I saw Mandrake's graphical installer once, and it's very neat. I don't think it has as many install options as bf or d-i, but it looks better. A cool GTK+ frontend for d-i would maybe solve that.
SuSE's system configuration tool yast has no match in Debian. There's webmin, but it's not perfectly integrated into Debian. E.g. for Debian's default MTA, exim, there's no webmin module.

Debian is the best choice for UserLinux for many reasons, however, we have to learn from other distributions.

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 11, 2003 20:24 UTC (Tue) by crimsun (guest, #13750) [Link]

On the other hand, I prefer the relative simplicity and pragmatism [no-clutter] that the text-mode install allows. I haven't tried the new d-i yet.

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 1:16 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Klaus Knopper is perfectly happy about having various pieces of Knoppix incorporated into the mainstream Debian, and wondered why nobody had already done that. So, it's something I'd explore.

Bruce

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 18:50 UTC (Wed) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]

SuSE's system configuration tool yast has no match in Debian. There's webmin, but it's not perfectly integrated into Debian. E.g. for Debian's default MTA, exim, there's no webmin module.

And debconf (configuration "wizard" but better for a large fraction of all packages) has no match in SuSE, or anywhere else outside of Debian-based distros. In fact, it is the "system configuration tool" for the new debian-installer, so Debian is learning from best practices elsewhere, and going further.

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 7:45 UTC (Wed) by chuck (guest, #16786) [Link] (1 responses)

This sounds like a commercial entity, but with the goals of a non-profit entity. How is that going to work and how can we be assured it will no succumb to market pressures like Redhat and change its focus or direction?

Thanks,
Chuck

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 8:33 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

Not to be too contrary, but RedHat's commercial enterprise product is 100% open source. Download the srpms from their ftp site or its mirrors. Also, they are the driving force for Fedora Core. RedHat has more employees involved with Fedora than any previous release of RHL.

I think you need to study the situation a bit closer. RedHat is still a very stolid open source company.

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 14:06 UTC (Wed) by minichaz (guest, #630) [Link] (4 responses)

Errr... Is Debian the right place to start? I know that apt is superior to RPM and all that but Debian is nowhere near as ready for the mainstream as, say, Fedora.

Surely Fedora provides a good place to start for disto like Bruce is suggesting? It has the backing of Redhat (whatever you think of them they do a LOT for Linux), a great installer and a decent community (freshrpms.net, etc) already plus what proprietary software people do need (nvidia drivers, Java) is already available in suitable packages for the distro.

We don't need another Debian we need to drive Fedora forward.

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 12, 2003 20:02 UTC (Wed) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]

Debian administration is vastly easier than Fedora, largely due to debconf. Debian also has a ton more packages than Fedora (13,000 and counting), which are under coordinated maintenance with centralized bug tracking, etc. Debian installation is hard, but with recent development of tools from Knoppix to Progeny's port of the RedHat Anaconda installer to Debian, I'd have to say that Debian is in outstanding shape for such a project.

Furthermore, its track record of ten years of non-profit excellence with over a thousand independent developers stands in stark contrast to Fedora's year or two of experience with one big corporate backer. RedHat is a great company and a leading supporter of GNU/Linux (I would add, more so than certain other distros with proprietary installers and maintenance tools), definitely most worthy of support. Contribute to Fedora if you like, but as a long-term base for derivative distros, I'll place my bets on Debian.

Debian has been the start of a few decent desktop distros

Posted Nov 12, 2003 21:25 UTC (Wed) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] (1 responses)

Errr... Is Debian the right place to start?

Xandros is Debian-based.
Libranet is Debian-based.

Given the amount of maintainence for Debian vs. wherever Fedora is going (who knows?), Debian makes an excellent starting point. As someone wanting to move over more of my desktop time to Linux and my desktop Linux away from Red Hat, I have been a bit disenchanted with the Desktop distributions I've played with. Xandros is not free, RedHat is too bloated in a standard install (they made some serious UI strides with Bluecurve, though), Librenet has their 'flagship edition' vs. a crippleware standard edition (see http://www.libranet.com/classic_comparison.html ), and Lycoris isn't a truely free desktop distribution either plus I've had some technical issues with it. I am exceited about the UserLinux concept. I haven't been fully pleased with the desktop Linux distributions I've used to date for a variety of reasons. By starting with Debian and building from there, I see a great amount of potential.

Debian has been the start of a few decent desktop distros

Posted Nov 13, 2003 18:37 UTC (Thu) by hazelsct (guest, #3659) [Link]

You forgot the loudest of the Debian-based distros: Lindows!

Is Debian the right place to start

Posted Nov 13, 2003 19:35 UTC (Thu) by haraldt (guest, #961) [Link]

In opposition to Redhat/Fedora, Debian is absolutely agnostic about who wants to build on top of their distibution. As far as the subproject submits their updates back to Debian, you can even have a good bit of cooperation.
Because Debian, by being non-profit, sees others as a chance at mutual benefit rather than competition, it's a much better place to start a fork.
Or what could appear like a fork, because it isn't

Now where does this come from? A guess.
It wasn't long time ago, I guess during the Novell aquistion brouhaha, I read mutterings that corporations like IBM and Oracle and the likes would have no trouble supporting Debian (with deb packages of their tools and their likes) if Debian would just form a "cooperate head" they could talk to. Anybody who knows Debian know that couldn't happen. It's against it's very philosophy.
But then again, there's no problem making a "brother" to Debian who could do just that. Who could cooperate with Debian wherever possible to reduce duplicate efforts, but otherwise just have a different focus. Is this where Userlinux is headed?

Yet Another Rendition of Linux (Wired)

Posted Nov 16, 2003 16:52 UTC (Sun) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link]

An interesting quote :

"The people who develop open-source code," Perens said, "are getting
tired of being told that they have to pay to use it."

So pay for what? Like paying RedHat $300,= for a desktop without a
mutilated KDE? Next the CEO-only Skulicz tells it audience to run windows
instead. In another confusing article about IBM in Australia :

"Linux on the desktop? Not Down Under, says IBM":
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/14/1068674368956.html

"An IBM spokesperson said all laptops sold in Australia had to be
pre-installed with Windows as they had an OEM agreement with Microsoft.
She said there were exceptions in some countries - and mentioned India -
but said this did not apply in Australia, no matter whether one was
buying a new or second-hand laptop."

One of the reasons that todays PC's are painted black, is that they are
touched by evil OEM software contracts? We better get a white box and
Userlinux instead.

So are OEM software contracts connected to premier Vendor PC's
the reason CEO's tell us that Desktop Linux is not viable, or do they
just want us to believe so? Technically Linux is as ready for the Desktop
as it ever can be. What we need are hardware manufactures and vendors
which are not crippled with certain OEM software contracts. Thats what is
needed today.

Robert