Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 21:56 UTC, submitted by deanlinkous
Linspire "It was reported this week that Novell has banned all proprietary software from their Linux offerings. To me, this would be a bit like McDonalds announcing it will adopt an Atkins-only menu, selling only healthy, low-carb salads, and dropping fries, shakes, and the Big Mac as we know it. It might be a noble thing for McDonalds to only sell healthy items, but they would likely see a big decrease in customers. Most consumers want more balance in their menu choices, not less. Limiting choice, especially the most popular ones, is usually a bad idea."
Order by: Score:
Wrong topic?
by umccullough on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 22:06 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Is it me or does the Linspire icon suggest wrong topic?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Wrong topic?
by joelito_pr on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 22:32 UTC in reply to "Wrong topic?"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

The article It's written by no less than Kevin Carmony on Linspires's forums. Considering that, I don't think it's the wrong topic.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Wrong topic?
by Sphinx on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong topic?"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Spot on dude.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wrong topic?
by backdoc on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:55 UTC in reply to "Wrong topic?"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

I thought the same thing.

@joelito_pr:
The author isn't obvious. So, even if you are correct, the icon still seems out of place with the title.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wrong topic?
by joelito_pr on Fri 4th Aug 2006 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong topic?"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

So, the picture in the article didn't suggested that it was Carmony?

Or the title saying "Linspire.com Comunity Forum..."?

Or the three mentions of Carmony's name in the same position of the page?

Or, are you suggesting that Thom should have written that the article was Written by Carmony in the OSNews summary?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wrong topic?
by backdoc on Fri 4th Aug 2006 02:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong topic?"
backdoc Member since:
2006-01-14

You are missing the point.

None of the things that you mention are visible on this site. The only things on this site are the icon, the big ass title reading "Novell" right beside it and a description of the article which makes no reference to Kevin or to Linspire.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I see the connection you are making. You are just wrong. Without a doubt, either the title should mention Linspire, or the icon should be a Novell icon (or maybe a McDonalds logo, but definitely not a Linspire logo with that title).

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Wrong topic?
by ma_d on Fri 4th Aug 2006 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong topic?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The page title is:
Linspire.com Community Forums :: View topic - Novell Goes on the Atkins Diet
That appears at the top of your web browser.

Kevin Carmony's picture is blatant. His name is printed next to his picture. His name is off to the left of his picture in his user profile. And his name is a part of the picture too.

Look closer... The news is more about Linspire as it's an editorial by the CEO of Linspire, not to mention that he mistakenly changed the fact from "Novell bans proprietary linux modules" to "Novell bans proprietary software." To call this Novell news would be to say what he's saying is somehow correct and not simple editorialization and a probable attack on a competitor.

Reply Score: 2

Um, no
by ma_d on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 22:15 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's actually more comparable to cutting the Big Mac because Kraft sues them for copying a salad dressing they'd had for years.

Of course, since the Big Mac doesn't use an existing salad dressing, alone, in an illegal manner this isn't a concern.

Besides that, what I'd read was that Novell banned proprietary drivers.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6100659.html
TITLEOF: Novell bans proprietary Linux modules


The author of this article makes this statement: By completely removing all proprietary software from their core offerings, Novell is asking all their customers to go on an Atkins-like, proprietary-free diet.


Unfortunately for him his sources contradict the facts he cites against them.

To the above comment, it's under Linspire because Kevin Carmony, the uneducated CEO of that company wrote the article.

Novell sticks up for the software it's making money off while Linspire jabs them for it accusing them of being a low-fat McDonalds.

Reply Score: 5

The cost of food these days ...
by moleskine on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 22:49 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Sounds like Kevin Carmony would like to be on the Atkins diet - think fillet steak three times daily - but can't afford it.

So I guess it will be ramen noodles again tonight, then, Kevin?

Reply Score: 1

No win situation.
by vimh on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 22:56 UTC
vimh
Member since:
2006-02-04

On one hand we have the OSS zealots. On the other we have linux users who just want things to work.

You can't make both groups happy. Bummer.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No win situation.
by TheBadger on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:36 UTC in reply to "No win situation."
TheBadger Member since:
2005-11-14

Well, despite Carmony's pitch for his own blend of open source software and proprietary binaries, along with the echoes of the yes-men on his company's forum, Novell's move may be the wisest in the long term, strategically. Consider binary kernel modules which are less and less tolerated amongst kernel developers: either you can keep walking the tightrope and let Nvidia and friends dictate the quality of your product, or you can refuse to play their "intellectual property" games. And, to take Nvidia as a specific example, if they don't want to properly participate in the Linux arena, I'm sure most of Novell's customers wouldn't miss them and their products (apart from those using AMD, and even then AMD may well be promoting other, hopefully more accessible technologies in future). So by playing hard, who loses? Probably not Novell nor the Linux community.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No win situation.
by gilboa on Fri 4th Aug 2006 05:24 UTC in reply to "No win situation."
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

... Might I ask, why are you calling the Linux kernel developers OSS zealots?
Linux is their -own- making and is released, source and distribution, as long as you abide to the GPL license.
Now, please explain why can't the Linux developers enforce their -own- license? Would you have asked the same from Microsoft/IBM/(insert proprietary software company name here)?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No win situation.
by Sphinx on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE: No win situation."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Not so bad being a zealot, MS shills just try and turn it into a dirty word, like the gop in the us adding a negative connotation to, "liberal", through meaningless repetition and inflection. Term doesn't bother me, I wear the hat and think it's a good thing for a developer to be a little over zealous and deeply believe in their product.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No win situation.
by kaiwai on Fri 4th Aug 2006 05:43 UTC in reply to "No win situation."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The bottom line is, however, who brings in the cash? the OSS developers or your products.

Hmm, interesting, and to think that I floated the idea of Novell creating a FreeBSD based distribution rather than using Linux - completely avoiding the whole GPL jihad thats happening right now.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: No win situation.
by Lambda on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE: No win situation."
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

Hmm, interesting, and to think that I floated the idea of Novell creating a FreeBSD based distribution rather than using Linux - completely avoiding the whole GPL jihad thats happening right now.

It's becoming more apparent that for a desktop system that would be the way to go. Go to the staff blog and read Eugenia's open letter to various parties involved to see that they conveniently skirted the issue regarding "legality" of binary drivers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: No win situation.
by kaiwai on Fri 4th Aug 2006 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No win situation."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's becoming more apparent that for a desktop system that would be the way to go. Go to the staff blog and read Eugenia's open letter to various parties involved to see that they conveniently skirted the issue regarding "legality" of binary drivers.

And for the server, FreeBSD would still be ideal; Novell BSD; work to improve the locking, threading etc. It isn't as though FreeBSD is behind Linux.

And another benefit? the fact that its not GPL based, you might actually find, for some strange reason, that Microsoft won't actually care if Mono is running on FreeBSD - the fact that there is rotor on FreeBSD shows that they don't mind implementations on other platforms, its just the GPL issue they don't like.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: No win situation.
by elsewhere on Fri 4th Aug 2006 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No win situation."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

And for the server, FreeBSD would still be ideal; Novell BSD; work to improve the locking, threading etc. It isn't as though FreeBSD is behind Linux.

I'm sure Apple would appreciate that too. They could leverage Novell's work and close it off in OS X. Or Novell could simply close off the source to protect their investment, but then what do you have?

And another benefit? the fact that its not GPL based, you might actually find, for some strange reason, that Microsoft won't actually care if Mono is running on FreeBSD - the fact that there is rotor on FreeBSD shows that they don't mind implementations on other platforms, its just the GPL issue they don't like.

And why doesn't MS like the GPL? Because they can't leverage it themselves under their own licensing, and because it's the one license that has managed to create a multi-billion dollar collaborative effort between companies like IBM and HP, among others, not to mention a ton of developers all willing to work for free. It's not the free software issue that concerns them, it's the united approach of the GPL that does. Makes it harder to divide and conquor.

It's idealistic to think that going BSD at a commercial level would encourage the same degree of collaboration and co-operation we have in the linux community today. Certainly the GPL gets clouded in disparate philosophies and agendas, but in the big picture it is a neutral ground. Without it, we'd simply wind up with a bunch of vendors working on their own implementations of BSD, and Microsoft would be able to knock them off one by one, after they've purloined any useful code that those vendors may have been foolish enough to publish the source for. THAT's why MS fears the GPL, and portrays it as some sort of communistic ideal. It's the business model they're scared of, not the philosophy.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: No win situation.
by kaiwai on Sat 5th Aug 2006 14:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: No win situation."
RE[6]: No win situation.
by deanlinkous on Sat 5th Aug 2006 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No win situation."
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

huh ? ?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: No win situation.
by elsewhere on Sat 5th Aug 2006 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: No win situation."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Very childish, mark down a post then reply to it.

If you're referring to me, I didn't mod it down. I only mod down spam, trolls, OT posts or anything by that TDavis dude when he babbles about his homemade OS since they generally qualify as all of the above.

I don't agree with your post, but I don't think it deserves a mod down either.

Reply Score: 1

My name is...
by Sphinx on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:04 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

That first step is the hardest, you have to admit you have a problem with proprietary drivers, then comes withdrawl, then it will get better, all part of the process. With enough support we can all make it through together. Sadly many of us like our brothers at linspire seem to be still at the denial stage.

Reply Score: 4

RE: My name is...
by ddssff on Fri 4th Aug 2006 13:33 UTC in reply to "My name is..."
ddssff Member since:
2006-07-17

It wasn't so much us as our customers. They would go to the store and buy a graphics card or wireless device, and damned if they didn't want it to work in their computer when they brought it home!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My name is...
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 4th Aug 2006 13:56 UTC in reply to "RE: My name is..."
anonymousbrowser Member since:
2006-04-28

And enough of them are quite capable of making these devices not work on Windows, i'm sure they'll cope just as well with linux...

"Oh, it was working after you sorted it out but then it stopped, so i ran a system restore and i've just gone back to my old wired modem for now" *sound of my forced smile cracking*

Reply Score: 4

Its not a ban!
by aent on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:18 UTC
aent
Member since:
2006-01-25

Novell didn't ban anything from being installed on their system, ESPECIALLY NOT proprietary software. The equivalent would be if McDonalds stopped trying to push their unhealthy french fries and instead starting pushing healthier food like subs and salads in their commercials and the things with the big pictures on the menu. If you request french fries or look at the smaller list of items without pictures on the menu, they're still readily available. Its the same situation as Novell. They aren't shoving proprietary drivers in the default kernel, but you still can get them for the default kernel, with no compiling or anything else required.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Its not a ban!
by Michael on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:40 UTC in reply to "Its not a ban!"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

They aren't shoving proprietary drivers in the default kernel, but you still can get them for the default kernel, with no compiling or anything else required.

Which begs the question - is it legal? What exactly is or isn't legal with regards to ditributing proprietary drivers for Linux? Ndiswrapper is OK? But the open-source parts of the ATI and Nvidia drivers aren't? Distributing with the kernel is bad but seperately is OK? Does anyone know exactly what the rules are?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Its not a ban!
by thebluesgnr on Fri 4th Aug 2006 01:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Its not a ban!"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

If you distribute a derivative of Linux you must follow the rules of the GPL v2 license. When you distribute Linux + non-free extensions you're not providing the sources to the entire kernel, so you're in violation of the license.

Novell chose to respect the Linux developers by complying to the the GPL license; others, like Linspire, don't give a **** and talk about McDonalds.

Reply Score: 4

I sincerely hope
by grat on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:30 UTC
grat
Member since:
2006-02-02

... that OS News is getting paid for running this ad for Linspire.

I mean, c'mon... they even linked it with a Linspire logo.

It would be a bit like a newspost with a Microsoft logo that proclaims Open Source is doomed, and links to a Bill Hilf editorial.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I sincerely hope
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 02:25 UTC in reply to "I sincerely hope"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

In all fairness, it was I who submitted the article and asked for it to be included. When I read it I couldn't stop giigling and I couldn't help but ponder how this guy comes up with such bad analogies. I mean this one beats the hybrid car thingy IMO. If you accept the premise then the points usually follow - even though it was a bit odd this time about the yummy food being bad for you but the healthy food being good for you but you not wanting the good healthy yummy....what was it again. I done lost the premise somewhere. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I sincerely hope
by Sphinx on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: I sincerely hope"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

I certainly thought it news worthy. I adblocked *.linspire.com after they butchered the Doors music, total suckfest.

Reply Score: 1

misleading?
by mikesum32 on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:34 UTC
mikesum32
Member since:
2005-10-22

If it's the same situation as last time, I think it's only kernel modules.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply Score: 2

Bad comparison
by diegocg on Thu 3rd Aug 2006 23:43 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

They're no forcing you to go in "Atkins-only" menu. They're forcing themselves to release the recipes and banning all food for which they can't get the recipe.


This article makes the reader think that somehow open source is the "Atkins-only" diet that is good for your body but that nobody wants to eat, and that closed software is the kind of food that everyone wants to eat even if its unhealty. Sorry, but that comparison is completely wront. Open source is not only good for your health (like the Atkins menu), it's also the food that everyone wants to eat (like Big Mac).

Closed software however is the food that nobody wants to eat (in the linux land, not in windows/mac os x/beos). Eating the propietary nvidia/ati modules feels to me like food that nobody wants to eat (like the Atkins menu: hangs, no multi-architecture support, lack of support for older models) and that it's unhealty at the same time (like the Big mac)



Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules and that vendors like Red hat and Suse are getting sued by developers with copyright in the linux kernel, it's not that Novell is the most pro-OSS vendor in the history.

Edited 2006-08-03 23:45

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bad comparison
by Lambda on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:10 UTC in reply to "Bad comparison"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules and that vendors like Red hat and Suse are getting sued by developers with copyright in the linux kernel, it's not that Novell is the most pro-OSS vendor in the history.

How come your the only one privy to this news flash?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad comparison
by thebluesgnr on Fri 4th Aug 2006 01:04 UTC in reply to "Bad comparison"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules and that vendors like Red hat and Suse are getting sued by developers with copyright in the linux kernel, it's not that Novell is the most pro-OSS vendor in the history.

You're free to install proprietary modules. You're not breaking the GPL, unless you distribute Linux and don't make the full sources available. As you can tell distributing software and installing it are two different issues.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Bad comparison
by binarycrusader on Fri 4th Aug 2006 01:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Bad comparison"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06


You're free to install proprietary modules. You're not breaking the GPL, unless you distribute Linux and don't make the full sources available. As you can tell distributing software and installing it are two different issues.


RMS would have us believe otherwise.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bad comparison
by thebluesgnr on Fri 4th Aug 2006 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bad comparison"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

It doesn't matter what RMS says, what matters is what the GPL says. So, instead of making up statements and linking them to RMS, please either go read the GPL or hire a lawyer to do that for you.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Bad comparison
by Sphinx on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bad comparison"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

And he said that distribution and installation of proprietary software were the same thing when? Quote it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad comparison
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 4th Aug 2006 08:12 UTC in reply to "Bad comparison"
anonymousbrowser Member since:
2006-04-28

Sorry, did you just suggest that the Atkins diet is good for your health?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4814314.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4568944.stm

Besides, it's a low carb diet, they can continue to sell you the big mac but omit the bun and salad.

That aside, wouldn't it be fun to see someone take a lawsuit to Linspire for all of their questionable practices involving proprietary software both linked with the kernel and reverse engineered to provide windows media playback all in one easy package?

Kevin, please, head out into the real world away from the safety of your Ego strokers, Novell are just playing the game and sticking to the rules as any large organisation must when handling such legal issues.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bad comparison
by archiesteel on Fri 4th Aug 2006 21:07 UTC in reply to "Bad comparison"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Oh, and lets not forget in first place that it's just illegal to install propietary kernel modules

It's not. It's illegal to distribute a Linux kernel that contains proprietary modules, but it's certainly not illegal to combine them yourself on your own computer. It's even legal to distribute them on the same medium, as long as they're not pre-linked.

By definition, copyright violations require redistribution, and the GPL specifies that mere aggregation is not sufficient to be considered a derivative.

Reply Score: 1

v ITS FINISHED EVERYONE GO HOME
by yahso on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:04 UTC
Zealots and Microsoft win
by Lambda on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:14 UTC
Lambda
Member since:
2006-07-28

At least it wasn't a car analogy, but the point is valid and that coupled with no stable API equals users lose out in the end.

Once again we have zealots helping out Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Zealots and Microsoft win
by Terracotta on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:36 UTC in reply to "Zealots and Microsoft win"
Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

ROFL, I see no reason why microsoft would win since... their way of installing drivers still is a bit more tedious than...clicking on an icon...

I'm kinda getting sick of all these comments about: installing drivers is difficult. If you can install windows drivers, linux drivers are a breeze, it's the distro that has to compile them, you don't have to do it yourself you know, ah well perhaps you don't.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Zealots and Microsoft win
by ma_d on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:51 UTC in reply to "Zealots and Microsoft win"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

This is ridiculous. The GPL is available to be read online and it specifically says no to derivative works which do not allow the freedoms provided by the GPL. That means, no closed source Linux drivers because since they require the Linux kernel, and their structure is often at least partially based on its interfaces, they are derivative works.

It's not zealoutry, it's respect for the law and the wishes of the authors. If you want to call the people developing Linux zealouts, fine, but I don't think you'll make much of an impression on anyone that way ;) .

Obviously you, and some others, didn't even read the article. The author makes the unfortunate mistake of calling linux modules all proprietary software for Linux. The point of the article was based on a false premise.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Zealots and Microsoft win
by Lambda on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Zealots and Microsoft win"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

That means, no closed source Linux drivers because since they require the Linux kernel, and their structure is often at least partially based on its interfaces, they are derivative works.

There are closed source drivers.

If you want to call the people developing Linux zealouts, fine, but I don't think you'll make much of an impression on anyone that way ;) .

Who is anyone? The 0.0000001% that believe that you are more "free" because you get source code but can't have binary drivers?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Zealots and Microsoft win
by Cloudy on Sat 5th Aug 2006 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Zealots and Microsoft win"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

The license doesn't specifically say "no to derivative works which do not allow the freedoms provided by the GPL." But that doesn't make any difference to your assertion about closed source Linux drivers, since that assertion relies on the untested assumption that a binary driver is a derivative work.

There is very little case law on this subject, but what there is suggests, and Linus himself agrees, that a wrapper around a driver that was written independently of Linux does not make that driver a "derived" work.

The case law that does exist points out that compiling code against a set of headers that describe an interface does not make that code a derivative of the system that provides the interface.

Reply Score: 1

A difficult one
by flanque on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:26 UTC
flanque
Member since:
2005-12-15

I can see both sides to this. Though, aren't we talking about just what is shipped with the product and not necessarily what can be later integrated? From what I read Novell have even provided the mechanism to download and install them quite easily.

I can understand their point, if not from a philosophical GPL point of view, but from a practical point of view. Novell offer support for their product and hardly can be expected to support licensed third party products simply because it's included. To me, drivers are a product.

I'd suspect Microsoft certainly wouldn't support an nVidia card along with their drivers. That really belongs to nVidia to handle.

That being said, one of the biggest issues people seem to have with "Linux" is that things don't work out of the box. I haven't tried the tool to download and install so it could be extremely simple, but I'd think that people would geniunely expect something as fundamental as a video card to work out of the box.

I'm seeing this as a double edged sword of sorts.

Reply Score: 2

incorrect
by postmodern on Fri 4th Aug 2006 00:41 UTC
postmodern
Member since:
2006-01-27

"It was reported this week that Novell has banned all proprietary software from their Linux offerings."

Please let's stop propagating false-hoods.

FTFA this week:

Instead, Novell software automatically gives customers the "option to download drivers," a method that "also gives the responsibility for drivers to the vendors, which is where it belongs," Dyroff said.

How is that a ban when the users are given the option to circumvent it? This is more of a choice for the end-user, and compliance to the GPL on Novell's part. It is starting to look like anti-Novel FUD, now with Lindows jumping on the bandwagon.

Also we should consider the implications or blindly trusting binary closed source drivers, given recent security concerns over usb and wireless binary drivers. Without the source code the maintainers can only trust that the origional authors applied equal or better auditing/QA that is used within their OS/Distro.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11404
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11189

Edited 2006-08-04 00:49

Reply Score: 5

Rediculous
by Noremacam on Fri 4th Aug 2006 01:58 UTC
Noremacam
Member since:
2006-03-08

Perhaps I should speak by personal experience why I agree with Kevin.

It has taken me over 4 years to switch from windows to linux. It started with an intense hate of windows and (eventually)a love for the linux operating system. I loved how it managed permissions and the lack of spyware/adware/exploits. Every time I booted into windows I felt like I was unwillingly becoming a participant in a hacker's playground.

My first linux switch was horrible. Mandrake 8. I couldn't get mp3's to work, flash to work, nothing to work. I just wasn't familiar with the package management system or filesystem. Even audio cd's wouldn't play. I couldn't find software online to play with, and when I did, I couldn't install it. I could've played with it endlessly - really, I wanted to learn - but I'd like to have a functioning computer while I learn linux.

That was the key. I needed my computer to "just work" so that I didn't have to forfeit all my usually computer freedoms just to learn an operating system, and if I have to dual boot, what's the point of installing linux in the first place? I couldn't learn to use it, unless when I booted into it I gave up all my usual freedoms.

I finally was able to switch with Fedora Core 3, because it's yum online package manager made it easy to install software again. That wasn't completely easy, but I learned enough to have a functional computer... thanks to small bits of experience from years of endless tinkering.

My ability to switch was hindered only by my (in)ability to install proprietary packages. I wanted to learn linux - believe me, I wanted to learn linux. I wanted to learn the filesystem, the configuration, how X worked, how everything worked - but all of that took a backseat when I couldn't use my computer because of missing proprietary software. No music, no flash, and no 3D accel, with no idea of how to make it work. I had a great operating system with no apparent functionality. If I would have been given the option to have a linux distro with all that software preinstalled four years ago, I would have more experience with linux today than I do.

I'm a happy linux user, now that I finally got all that crap installed - I started learning to use linux for once, and I'm now using it to learn c++ and mono.

What it comes down to, is there's only one choice: the proprietary choice. If you want flash, you gotta have adobe's flash plugin. If you want 3D accel on your nvidia card, you must have nvidia's driver. You want to play videos? Unless the world decides to re-encode every video ever made in Theora, you might as well get the proprietary codecs for that too. If you don't like it, write your own software that's compatible with it - but stop removing my damn choice just because it "offends you".

I can't, for the life of me, understand while removing this choice is somehow going to help the OSS philosophy. It makes it look like OSS is more of a religion than a philosophy. In order to spread OSS, when you install your operating system, it must come pre-crippled! Even having the choice of having a functional operating system out-of-the-box is offensive. Grow up.

If you don't like it, make OSS software that's compatible with all the proprietary junk out there, or shutup. I'm sick of all these religious OSS fanatics thinking having the choice of proprietary software preinstalled is somehow going to doom the linux operating system. Grow up, it isn't going to happen. I'm using linux now specifically because of my ability to run proprietary codecs/drivers. Yes, I could install them after the operating system installs, but that's not going to convert many new users, who would like a functioning operating system straight from installation.

Edited 2006-08-04 02:11

Reply Score: 3

RE: Rediculous
by peejay on Fri 4th Aug 2006 12:37 UTC in reply to "Rediculous"
peejay Member since:
2005-06-29

If you don't like it, make OSS software that's compatible with all the proprietary junk out there, or shutup.

proprietary - used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right

(from m-w.com)

I can't, for the life of me, understand while removing this choice is somehow going to help the OSS philosophy.

I'm not sure which OSS philosophy you're talking about, but the one I'm familiar with stands for Open Source Software, and as you're talking about closed source modules etc, it seems quite easy to see why that would be against OSS philosophy. If you mean it's not going to help adoption of Linux, you may be correct; however, not everyone wants to give up their freedom over convenience. Just because the goals of the "zealots" are different than your own doesn't make them wrong.

It makes it look like OSS is more of a religion than a philosophy.

And why can't it be? Definition 4 (again from m-w) of religion says "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" and surely there are worse things that believe in than necessary freedom of software. Religious tolerance is a good thing.

I wanted to learn linux - believe me, I wanted to learn linux....I'm sick of all these religious OSS fanatics thinking...

I really wanted to learn atheism, but I'm sick of all those fanatics saying there is no God. I don't see the appeal of joining something you don't believe in.

Grow up, it isn't going to happen.

If there's something immature in fighting for what you believe in, there are sure a lot of immature people in the world (I can name at least two).

I'm using linux now specifically because of my ability to run proprietary codecs/drivers.

Not specifically. Windows also has the ability to run proprietary codecs/drivers, as does Mac, and probably others.

There are (at least) two reasons to use Linux: because it does what you want, or because you agree with the OSS philosophy over the proprietary one to the point where you can make do. I'm not sure you fall into either category, so why make yourself unhappy with Linux?

Use the right tool for the job.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Rediculous
by Noremacam on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:44 UTC in reply to "Rediculous"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

proprietary - used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right

I understand that, but I argued that if there aren't compatible alternatives, then stop denying the only working choice. An example I gave earlier was adobe Flash. There is a OSS product called Gnash that allows you to play some flash movies, but it's buggy and still incomplete. They don't have the exclusive right to playing flash movies, just the exclusive right to the software they created. The same can be said for virtually all the software I mentioned earlier.

I like linux because it runs the software I want, and perhaps more interestingly, it doesn't run the software I hate. I believe that Gnome has built a much more functional desktop than Microsoft ever has(and I've played with the Vista beta too, for that matter).

If there's something immature in fighting for what you believe in, there are sure a lot of immature people in the world (I can name at least two).

Immaturity isn't determined by whether you fight for your beliefs, but rather what specifically you fight for. Fighting to end poverty in Darfur wouldn't be immature, but going on strike at work because your lunch break is 55 minutes instead of 60 would be. My argument is that this would be a minor nuisance except for the zealots who want to deny others a choice. The only thing that including proprietary software in a particular distribution(of your choice, naturally) is going to do is bring in more users.

It took me 4 years of slowly playing with linux to switch because while I had to learn linux, I had a non-functional computer. I couldn't use it for my daily tasks, so as soon as I really wanted to do something, I had to reinstall windows.

There are (at least) two reasons to use Linux: because it does what you want, or because you agree with the OSS philosophy over the proprietary one to the point where you can make do. I'm not sure you fall into either category, so why make yourself unhappy with Linux?

Well it does what I want with the help of proprietary software. Example: Rhythmbox is my favorite music program(all the windows programs are either too bloated or too minimalistic). However no matter how great Rhythmbox is, it's totally worthless without the proprietary codecs that drive the player. It may be simple, efficient, easy to search, well organized, not bloated - all the right things. But without proprietary software, it's utterly useless. I don't keep my entirecollection in ogg, nore when I download music do I giveup if they don't provide an ogg based format.

Linux, combined with proprietary components, works better for me than MacOS or Windows. Linux makes me happy. I'd go nuts if I didn't have Deskbar in windows. Typing in $PATH programs is so much more efficient than browsing through a massive disorganized menu in windows. The system update is so far less annoying(for the record, I'm using ubuntu at the moment). You don't have to activate your copy(unless you use xandros 4, but again, that's a chocie). You don't have to fear that your computer, or rather the makers of the operating system are somehow working against you on their crusade to make sure you're using their operating system the way they want you to. I love the freedom and flexibility that the linux desktop provides.

But it's totally irrelevant without proprietary software/codecs.

Most people make it sound like it's a piece of cake just to install the software afterwards. Granted, anyone who's done it a bunch of times before, will find it pretty easy, it's sheerly impossible for the new user. Even if they figure out the package management system, most distro's don't even include the proprietary software they need to function in their repositories. Some distro's don't/didn't even have repositories! Depending on your distro, some packages must be installed manually with great stress to get their computer to function.

I couldn't learn linux efficiently because it required(by law apparently, according to other people in the comments) having a crippled computer environment to learn in. For a lot of software there's only one option the proprietary option. It's required for watching dvd's, playing music in anything but ogg, watching videos in anything but theora(which is 99.99% of what's out there), browsing the web(several websites are unfortunately crippled without flash), and playing 3D games(unless 1-2 fps adds to your experience somehow?).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Rediculous
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Rediculous"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Man it sounds like you are hooked on that windows crack. ;)
If I required ADwarePlugin to view my site would you criticise me for requiring it or criticise your operating system for not providing it?

If it is totally irrelevant without proprietary then why on earth use it. XP is your friend in that case.

As far as mp3 playback you should check out fluendo. It may not be GPL but it is free. Xine has plenty of format support also.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Rediculous
by Noremacam on Fri 4th Aug 2006 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Rediculous"
Noremacam Member since:
2006-03-08

If I required ADwarePlugin to view my site would you criticise me for requiring it or criticise your operating system for not providing it?

That's a very stupid analogy. Going by that idea, we should remove gif support from firefox because a lot of gifs are advertisements too. flash is used for far more things than advertisements.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Rediculous
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Rediculous"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

It wasn't an analogy dude. If I require something to view my website would you criticise me for requiring it or your operating system for not providing it?

GO ahead and criticise the operating system for something they cannot control. Criticise them for my (bad) actions and blame them for not being able to provide something I do not wish to give them. Sheesh! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Rediculous
by jongo on Sun 6th Aug 2006 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Rediculous"
jongo Member since:
2006-01-27

Actually they could "control it" by providing something like DirectX (a proper HAL, not like the crumby ones linux has now) which would separate the drivers from the OS - but they choose not to. If a distro company like Redhat/Novell wanted to make and push something like this they could, but I could see how it would put them in a bad light with the "GPL or nothing" supporters.

Reply Score: 1

uh
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 02:27 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

I also just had to mention it since linspire folks always claim they are the ones being bashed and told they do not do things right and why can't people leave us alone and then claim that they never do that to others and why can't we all just get along. ;)

Reply Score: 1

ok how about
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 02:34 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

"Linspire president says Novell is going on the Atkins Diet" for a title? I do see the current title as a bit strange, but once you actually click the link you know where it came from.

Reply Score: 2

EclipseAgent
Member since:
2006-08-04

very very uneducated, and this is proof.

A president of another distro says something stupid, that is not even within the correct lines of what was said from Novell themselves.

Plus as it was stated above, it is to RESPECT GPL and it was not banned, just not packaged.

Reply Score: 1

hey
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 03:30 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

look
http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?t=424873
now we all work for microsoft

Of course, I have also seen where they claimed that ubuntu paid people to spread fud about other distros and to preach ubuntu so I guess it is all to be expected. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm
by kaiwai on Fri 4th Aug 2006 06:06 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to agree with Novell; after much navel glazing, as one does, it is the only sure way that Novell can assure that the default installation of Novell is stable out of the box; they have the full source for the kernel, the full source for all the components, they can adequately test all the parts and fix things up rather than being held to ransom by developers at a said company unwilling to address faults in their drivers. Ati being the prime example of this; unwillingness to work with Sun, Novell, Red Hat - basically anyone who is outside the 'Windows sphere of influence'.

With the rapid improvement of Novells desktop offering, I just hope that soon we'll have Adobe pull its lips off Microsofts pucker, and actually port their products to it; there is a huge demand! I mean, if they said to me, "CS3 Premium to be released on Linux/GTK" - I would be the first one to line up and place my order.

Reply Score: 1

Atkins? Healthy?
by stew on Fri 4th Aug 2006 06:42 UTC
stew
Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because you lose weight doesn't mean it's healthy. Otherwise I declare cigarettes and heroin als health-food.

Reply Score: 3

Just not true.
by MaBU2342 on Fri 4th Aug 2006 08:01 UTC
MaBU2342
Member since:
2006-08-04

Sorry, but this is just not true:
Novell is NOT removing "all proprietary software from their Linux offerings".
In fact, they only removed proprietary kernel-modules.
They did this because a lot of kernel developers feel that proprietary kernel-modules taint their copyright.

Novell is still delivering proprietary software with some of their SUSE Linux products, such as Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 (Flash player, RealPlayer, Adobe Reader, Citrix Client etc) and Suse Linux Enterprise Server.

Reply Score: 2

why novell is doing this?
by vasper on Fri 4th Aug 2006 08:17 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

First of all, it is not illegal to bind closed source software to the Linux kernel, it is illegal (due to the GPL license) to distribute it with open source. Noone can force you not to download and install it later.

So what Novell is doing is just that. Not allowing in their distribution any closed source software that is a kernel module and additionaly they are not hosting those modules any more on their servers. That is all. You can however go to the NVidia site lets say, download the module and install it yourself.

Reply Score: 1

REMF
Member since:
2006-02-05

i agree with kevin carmony.

i EXPECT my linux box to work, if i have to fight to get my nVidia graphics and system drivers installed then i will ditch linux.

"gives customers the option to download drivers,"

^ not good enough, half the reason i hate WinXP is that i have to spend the first 2 hours AFTER install making the damn thing usable, why would i want to go through this with SUSE too?

i am a big SUSE fan, having used 9.1 - 10.1, but between the KDE thing and this anti-proprietry stance i begin to feel they are making too many choices for me that i don't necessarily like.

Reply Score: 2

jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

"gives customers the option to download drivers,"

^ not good enough,


Then go talk to nVidia to come up with a Linux-friendlier license for their drivers. Or buy a graphics card, which has such drivers. Life is full of compromises. Most of my machines have integrated Intel graphics cards, which run just fine in X.Org. The one which has not an Intel, has a Radeon 7500. Runs fine as well.

I'm sure Novell, RedHat, Ubuntu and all the other distros, as well as X.Org would _love_ to distribute 3D capable nVidia drivers. However, nVidia made their decisions on how to distribute their drivers and only they can change it.

Reply Score: 3

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

i EXPECT my linux box to work, if i have to fight to get my nVidia graphics and system drivers installed then i will ditch linux.

If you consider clicking a link "fighting to get your nvidia drivers installed" then I can't imagine how you could deal with any other OS. Novell basically decided not to ship the drivers or have them on their servers, instead the package manager downloads them from Nvidia. So what exactly is your problem?

Reply Score: 1

Misleading article
by Darkelve on Fri 4th Aug 2006 10:56 UTC
Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

The icon already helps, but is it really THAT hard to add a line saying something like "article written by Kevin Carmony, CEO of Linspire" somewhere in the Summary?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Misleading article
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 4th Aug 2006 11:41 UTC in reply to "Misleading article"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The icon already helps, but is it really THAT hard to add a line saying something like "article written by Kevin Carmony, CEO of Linspire" somewhere in the Summary?

Is it really THAT hard to click the link?

Seriously; along with Icongate[1], this must be the biggesty non-issue ever on OSNews.

[1] http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/2005/12/19/i-am-going-to-indulge-m...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Misleading article
by anonymousbrowser on Fri 4th Aug 2006 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Misleading article"
anonymousbrowser Member since:
2006-04-28

Actually, if i knew it were written by Kevin i probably would have avoided doing so, he's about as much fun to read as Dvorak.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Misleading article
by deanlinkous on Fri 4th Aug 2006 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Misleading article"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

May be a bit of a tangent but great to argue about and isn't that what the comments are for anyway? ;)

Reply Score: 1

Linspire FUD
by searly on Fri 4th Aug 2006 11:45 UTC
searly
Member since:
2006-02-27

Let's face it, it is nothing more than FUD from Kevin Carmony and Linspire about a competing Product. There are many very good and valid reasons, that all have been discussed to great length, why the drivers (i.e Kernel Modules) are not included on the install medium or the Novell servers (GPL compliance, support issues etc. etc.). It is only the proprietary drivers not proprietary software !!! I "love" these half truths with which people try to spread misinformation and uncertainty. Maybe Linspire should come up with a better product and play nicer with the opensource community than spreading FUD and marketing tosh.

"^ not good enough, half the reason i hate WinXP is that i have to spend the first 2 hours AFTER install making the damn thing usable, why would i want to go through this with SUSE too? "

WINDOWS does not ship proprietary drivers either (nor does any other OS as far as i know). With Windows you get the drivers on a CD from NVDIA when buying the Computer or graphics card, and if it is a good shop they will have them installed for you, however that is different to providing it with the OS.

You hardly need to spend two hours, in fact it is only a view clicks away installing the drivers and activating all the bling of XGL ... i really don't know what the fuss is about. Novell has done a great job ... they made the right decision and comply with the GPL, and made it very easy for users to install the proprietary drivers if they want to (as i said a few clicks is all it needs).

Reply Score: 1

Darkelve
Member since:
2006-02-06

No, but a summary is supposed to inform you and help you decide whether you want to read the full article.

Knowing that the author of the article is the CEO of a competing firm, might help me do that.

So your point is... ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Rediculous
by Soulbender on Fri 4th Aug 2006 15:30 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

"Even if they figure out the package management system, most distro's don't even include the proprietary software they need to function in their repositories. Some distro's don't/didn't even have repositories! Depending on your distro, some packages must be installed manually with great stress to get their computer to function."

Then OBVIOUSLY they are using the wrong distro for their needs. Just like with ANY other product in existence, one size does NOT fit all.

"I couldn't learn linux efficiently because it required(by law apparently, according to other people in the comments) having a crippled computer environment to learn in."

Because reading documentation and following instructions is SOOOOOOOOOO hard, especially when you are trying to learn something.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Rediculous
by Soulbender on Fri 4th Aug 2006 15:31 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

(Double posting)

Edited 2006-08-04 15:31

Reply Score: 1

Are we still talking about this?
by abraxas on Fri 4th Aug 2006 16:01 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

Didn't we discuss this already? Novell isn't limiting anyone's choices. People are blowing this way out of proportion. The drivers are still available and can still be installed. Novell is protecting themselves by supporting only OSS drivers which makes complete sense to anyone who has ever had to support any software before. The only way to determine and properly fix problems is if you have the code. Propietary drivers don't allow you this luxury and therefore it would be a waste of time and resources to ship Suse with them.

Reply Score: 3

Non issue
by DeadFishMan on Fri 4th Aug 2006 19:03 UTC
DeadFishMan
Member since:
2006-01-09

I never understand why some people get so worked up when a Linux distro does not ship proprietary add-on (plug-ins, codecs, multimedia players, PDF readers, whatever) and complain endlessly when this is exactly what happens in the other two established platforms, too.

Windows does not comes with Acrobat Reader, RealPlayer, DVD Player, plenty of multimedia codecs other than Windows Media (Gee... I wonder why!) out of the box either but for some reason, it is never measured by the same standards as Linux is for this people.

If you finish a clean install of Windows, you also have to get the drivers CD for all of your hardware even when weīre talking about fairly old, well known and ubiquitous devices. And when you have to use another machine to browse through DriverGuide.com for a driver for that obscure NIC, itīs just a minor annoyance. Something that you have to deal with. But not for Linux, no! Linux is this fabled thing that should offer this fabulous experience out of the box for some reason.

And the worst is that it is often criticized for its hardware support when it supports much more hardware devices than Mac OS X out of the box and more than often leaves your machine completely set up for use (when the hardware is supported, of course) right after the install unlike Windows.

And somehow, its okay to go online and download add-ons to Windows but do it on Linux systems should be a sin.

And it is not that difficult to setup this stuff, either. I donīt use Ubuntu but heard nothing but praises for Automatix and EasyUbuntu. Sounds like a good deal for Windows refugees to me.

Why all these endless complaints is beyond me...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Non issue
by searly on Fri 4th Aug 2006 19:41 UTC in reply to "Non issue"
searly Member since:
2006-02-27

You said it ... it baffles me too, especially when the fact is that SLED comes with Acrobat, real player and mp3 out of the box. As i said before it is nothing but FUD. I guess the headlines on OSnews don't really help here (reminds me a bit of boulevard press headlines sometimes).

Reply Score: 1

A few replies
by Kevin_Carmony on Fri 4th Aug 2006 22:11 UTC
Kevin_Carmony
Member since:
2006-07-17

I didn't post my Linspire Letter remarks anywhere but in the Linspire Letter. My LL wasn't trying to make Novell look bad, but simply to highlight Linspire's and Freespire's different viewpoint on this matter.

Novell, Ubuntu and others do things one way, and Linspire and Freespire do things another way. Many will actually prefer Novell's way, but many will prefer our turn-key approach so they can just turn their computer on and have it work, without any extra steps. That doesn't mean Novell is wrong in choosing to do it their way, it's just not how I, as CEO of Linspire will do things here.

My goal with Linspire Letters is to educate subscribers of the LL as to what we're doing, and how we're different from other options (Windows, Mac, other Linux distros, etc.), and then let users decide. I think choice is a very good thing.

Kevin Carmony
CEO, Linspire, Inc.

Edited 2006-08-04 22:14

Reply Score: 2

Novell Responds!
by deanlinkous on Sat 5th Aug 2006 01:28 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

http://forum.linspire.com/viewtopic.php?p=542884#542855

And here we go with another car analogy. ;) Novell points out that they are not in control of those parts and it makes no sense to support them. Carmony starts on the car analogy and says ford stands behind the total product. I would have to point out that once again it is a bad analogy. Car parts are nothing similar to software. Car parts can pass thru quality control and the bad ones be weeded out not so with closed drivers. Ford is in control of every process of building a car, not so with free software. Ford doesn't have a million different configurations for the vehicle and it doesn't run on a million different brand of roads... Should I continue.

Of course he goes on to say novell isn't wrong just taking a different approach, one he would not take. Strange, I thought he did basically imply it is the wrong approach not a different approach.

He loves to get that "limiting choice" keyphrase in there doesn't he. Yet a distro that says you will run proprietary software, only KDE, etc... is somehow providing choice?

How old are those nvidia drivers in the warehouse anyway? And that is a BETTER solution than easily installing the drivers from the vendors website?

Basically Mr. Carmony just wants you to come away from the LL thinking that a mix of free and proprietary is healthy. If that is true then I guess XP with OSS running on it is healthy as well.

Here is a interesting statement from Mr. Carmony:
"If what it takes to make Linux easy to use, and interoperate with the rest of the computer world (codecs, hardware drivers, etc.) will forever be viewed as somehow wrong and evil, then I will go today and buy a Mac, find a new job, and tell my friends that Linux doesn't stand a chance, because I believe it wouldn't. "
If all we were going to do was recreate a proprietary mess that was just like XP then why would we bother?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Novell Responds!
by Kevin_Carmony on Sat 5th Aug 2006 06:16 UTC in reply to "Novell Responds!"
Kevin_Carmony Member since:
2006-07-17

Sorry you don't care for the analogy =).

I'm not saying Novell's approach is bad for Novell, I'm saying it's not what *I* (and some others) would prefer. I like to turn things on and they work. I'm lazy I suppose. =)

As you can see, I said that many will prefer Novell's approach, and they will, but not all, so I'd like to offer users a different approach (that choice thing again ;-), and if I can't do that with OSS and Linux, then I'll give Mac a try, which seems to share my way of doing things: 1) Plug in. 2) Turn on. 3) Use. 4) Turn off. 5) Go out and enjoy life. The fewer steps there are between 2 and 3 the better for *ME* and some others (not everyone).

As I further said, I think Novell's approach is fine for them as they deal with enterprise servers, but it will be less ideal with consumers and most OEM's for desktops and laptops (not servers).

Kevin

Edited 2006-08-05 06:26

Reply Score: 1

well
by deanlinkous on Sat 5th Aug 2006 07:59 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

Strange since you used the word bad right here - "Limiting choice, especially the most popular ones, is usually a bad idea. "

Oh and as far as the other car analogy, about the parts you have to install. So imagine buying a new car and the dealer tells you, just before you drive off, "Oh, by the way, we install all kinds of stuff that you may not want, that may be a security risk, and that likely will mean that you cannot replace some parts without breaking others, and you cannot fix some of the parts yourself - but hey it works right now. Would you be interested? ;)

You also state that
"Again, noble, but I think asking people to completely give up on all the drivers, codecs and software that make their computers operate in the way they've come to expect over the last 20 years is simply too radical of an approach for most" I would rewrite it as "give up on some of the drivers, a few (codecs) formats and some software because the company that makes that software will not create a linux version" But then you state later that 99% of the proprietary stuff is gone already. Is asking to give up that 1% more really that bad? If it is then why ask to give up any, just use XP.

I mean if a mix is good then doesn't that make XP with open source software a healthy diet?

Where is all the choice in Linspire anyway? Preinstalled java and flash is not a choice. Ever try to uninstall jack? Where is my choice in that?

Oh and we already know you own a mac! But this thread is more than dead so we will let it rest...until the next Linspire Letter! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: well
by Kevin_Carmony on Sat 5th Aug 2006 22:49 UTC in reply to "well"
Kevin_Carmony Member since:
2006-07-17

Where is all the choice in Linspire anyway? Preinstalled java and flash is not a choice. Ever try to uninstall jack? Where is my choice in that?

We offer many choices...Linspire, Linspire Developers Edition, Freespire, Freespire OSS Edition (no Java), etc.

Oh and we already know you own a mac!

I have never owned a Mac, but I would, if I couldn't use Linux. I did, however, own an Apple IIe about 20 years ago, but switched to the PC when Apple refused to interoperate the way the PC was doing. I like interoperability, because it means more choice.

Kevin

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: well
by deanlinkous on Sun 6th Aug 2006 02:50 UTC in reply to "RE: well"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Really, what is on the laptop in the den? Or is it XP media edition...DOH not a mac sorry my bad. ;) My old age is kicking in.

CHOICE - as you stated "The user should be free to decide what software they want to install on their systems, be that proprietary or open source." So what choice do I have on freespire/linspire isn't this already decided for me right now? Isn;t a lot of proprietary stuff already installed and therefore doesn't that mean I did not have the choice to not have them on my system. Wouldn;t true choice be exactly as you stated - choosing exactly what to install?

I still do not see a OSS edition you keep talking about. I am waiting for it though. ;)

I do applaud the idea behind freespire and hope you'll follow through on it. I would love to see you guys do everything you are talking about. It will also stop some of my criticisms about your product and I am sure reviews would be more positive about the product if some of the negative issues were resolved. I am glad for what you'll are doing and wish you guys success at pulling it off. I am very impressed with the ideas so far - not running as root by default, apt access for the free software, even the open source CNR client will be SUPER as long as it is able to access a standard repository which I think is the plan. Now if we can work on some updated packages, better security risk practices, and that boot time I may even be using freespire. ;)

Now that being said I certainly will not contribute to something that is a proprietary product and I think others are crazy to do so as well right now. As soon as I see a truly open version then I will feel relieved to know that should I contribute anything it will be open and free for distribution for anyone to use.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: well
by Kevin_Carmony on Sun 6th Aug 2006 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: well"
Kevin_Carmony Member since:
2006-07-17

So what choice do I have on freespire/linspire isn't this already decided for me right now? Isn;t a lot of proprietary stuff already installed and therefore doesn't that mean I did not have the choice to not have them on my system. Wouldn;t true choice be exactly as you stated - choosing exactly what to install?

That is what the OSS Edition is for. It doesn't contain any proprietary software.

I still do not see a OSS edition you keep talking about. I am waiting for it though. ;)

It will be released simultaneously with Freespire 1.0, this week. (Currently Freespire is at the Beta / RC stage.) We didn't want to have to deal with two products during beta, so we tested the one that has more components. The OSS Edition is simply the regular version with packages removed.

Kevin

Edited 2006-08-06 16:22

Reply Score: 1

ok
by deanlinkous on Sun 6th Aug 2006 16:41 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19

Using a different product is not the same as having choice on the same product, is it? With that premise then burger king could say "have it your way" when what they really mean is "eat this the way we give it to you or go and eat somewhere else" since that would still be a choice. You could chooose to eat it or not. ;) I have the choice to use cnr on linspire or not use linspire at all. But that isn't quite the same as having the choice to use linspire AND have the choice to use cnr or apt or whatever either.

Well you said the same thing last week but I guess we will wait and see. ;) If it is a OSS edition it would be more than just packages removed wouldn't it? Wouldn't the Linspire parts including the cnr client also have to be open source.

Now about those boot times and older packages. ;)

Reply Score: 1