OSNews

You know, I have to wonder who the real fanatics are?

People who argue their point, as the FSF does (though you of course might not agree with them) or people who want to dismiss these arguments without counter arguments but simply by namecalling.

"Obviously MS Windows is already proprietary and very restrictive, and well worth rejecting."

Why aren't they then campaigning against IBM too? Oracle? Thousands of other companies making money off of proprietary software?

Hmm, could that be because OS/2, WebSphere, Lotus Notes, Smartsuite, Oracle, WordPerfect, and thousands of other products aren't installed by default on 95% of computers (unless your time and reputation are worthless enough to throw a NotParker-style hissy fit?)

Of course the FSF *do* campaign against proprietary software. All of it. It's just that no-one is in danger of being suckered with an obligatory, DRM-crippled copy of PageStream.

EDIT: Fixed a glaring inaccuracy.

Edited 2006-12-15 21:42

But they'll take code developed by IBM programmers and integrate it into Linux won't they?

Like what? The only FSF-approved distribution is totally free.

But they'll take code developed by IBM programmers and integrate it into Linux won't they?

Whoops! Invalid argument! You switched positions between example and counter-example!

Is the code in Linux proprietary and restrictive? If not, why are you attempting to pass this off as a valid comparison? Are you honestly unable to tell the difference or was this a "clever" trick that just failed due to lack of care in execution?

"Whoops! Invalid argument! You switched positions between example and counter-example!

Is the code in Linux proprietary and restrictive? If not, why are you attempting to pass this off as a valid comparison? Are you honestly unable to tell the difference or was this a "clever" trick that just failed due to lack of care in execution?"

LMAO--of course, it was a trick. However, there is something very sobering and sad about how so many "perspectives" on Forbes, ZDNet, CNet, and their properties are infested with this kind of trickery. Some of those bloggers are undoubtedly "hired guns", weaving deception every day, and Microsoft has plenty of hiring power. It seems the tool of choice is equivocation (exploiting multiple meanings), although (mercifully) rarely at the level of the master, Bill Gates.

Edited 2006-12-16 00:20

But they'll take code developed by IBM programmers and integrate it into Linux won't they?

Fanatics and hypocrites.

If it wouldn't be this part, your comment would be well worth to mod up.

But as always you can't help your self but to end with non-sense. Actually, you're only making a fool out of you.

Why?

If source code will be in question (IBM provides quite a lot of OSS projects), then it means it is open source, so why not include it in linux? Which would invalidate your claim from one side. One company can freely provide FOSS projects and closed source projects. There is no black&white ban here.

But if this would be closed source project as you were saying in the first part of the comment then it has exactly 0% chance of integration into linux. It can't be even distributed with linux. And this invalidates your comment from the other side.

And why, oh why do you need to specify your hypocrites, fanatics, zealots, cult, etc. Have you looked in the mirror lately?

Even I don't agree with this article if I look at it from global perspective in many aspects (average user just doesn't care about things FSF is preaching in this article). Well, looking it from FSF side I have to agree with them (FSF is showing that Vista is providing more freedom lock down features, and FSF is fighting the world to set software free, so yes, they are true to them selves).

People who argue their point, as the FSF does

Unfortunately, the FSF's "arguments" amount solely to fear-mongering and name calling. They aren't able to name specifics, becuase they're just blatantly wrong. The FSF is spreading nothing but FUD--the very same FUD that gets so often is spread here--about additional restrictions in Vista.

The fact of the matter is that there are no additional restrictions on Vista as compared to XP (which hasn't been a problem for anyone).
The only changes in Vista with regards to DRM are support for HDCP Blu-Ray/HD-DVD media (which doesn't play on other OSes at all) and support for BitLocker drive-level encryption (which is available for enterprise customers to protect their own data).

Everything else is the FSF predicting doomsday scenarios ("Microsoft will use Windows update to hold your files hostage!"). They've done this before, as have the standard Stallmanites here on OSNews (those who get modded up to +5 for claiming that WMP doesn't support MP3s and those who mod them up). Every time they've been wrong.

It's time to put a stop to the FSF's crusade of lies. Linus stood up to their attempts to destroy the Linux kernel just days ago. We need to to take a stand against their warmongering and campaign of fear.

"It's time to put a stop to the FSF's crusade of lies. Linus stood up to their attempts to destroy the Linux kernel just days ago. We need to to take a stand against their warmongering and campaign of fear."

Well, those "attempts to destroy the Linux kernel" came from within the kernel developers, not the FSF as you might have hoped. (I guess Linus needed to convince the kernel developers not to destroy what they develop.) In any case, name one lie from the FSF.

In the bigger picture, the FSF boils down to the advocacy of four freedoms:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

It is an ethical position that they defend, hence the opposition to things that conflict with this position such as DRM and Vista. Any credible and useful attack against the FSF is an attack against that ethical position.

The fact of the matter is that there are no additional restrictions on Vista as compared to XP (which hasn't been a problem for anyone).

Twice wrong. Vista has more restrictions license wise than XP, and the restrictions in XP has pissed of many users.

The FSF hasn't attempted to destroy the Linux kernel. Some developers decided they wanted to change the kernel, so their code didn't work with proprietary modules after a while. But that wasn't from FSF, but from the developers.

I agree with Linus that it would be unwise step to make proprietary modules not work with the kernel (I also think the GPL was the wrong choice for the kernel, considering the intention with the kernel). However, it doesn't make the situation better here at OSN to have MS-zealots as you walking around. You cannot consider anything from a pragmatic view. You always worship MS and one can always find you bashing *BSD, Linux and FLOSS in general.

It makes it difficult for some to appreciate your valid points, when you do have some.

And as usual, you refuse to provide any evidence to back up your (and the FSF's) accusations. There is not one iota of proof for the claim that Vista is any more encumbered by DRM than XP.

If you do have evidence (not debunked hearsay, but actual solid and factual information), please feel free to provide it. I'll take back my complaints.

You cannot consider anything from a pragmatic view. You always worship MS and one can always find you bashing *BSD, Linux and FLOSS in general.

I'd also like you to provide a single link to a comment where I have ever bashed *BSD in particular or OSS in general. Feel free to dig through OpenBSD mailing list archives to see that I've been a BSD user for the better part of a decade. Richard Stallman and his puppet organization are not the gods of open source, and I don't feel any need to pull my punches when it comes to them. Pragmatism is my middle name.

F/OSS is a religion, and you can't have a religion without a devil. Microsoft is the FSF's devil. And, every so often, they attempt to mobilize their zealots by waving red meat at them. Not surprisingly, most of their so-called "arguments" amount to nothing but FUD -- and you nailed it: Vista is no more restrictive than XP, people that have tried it genuinely like it (that's gotta scare the FSF), and it's reduced any potential value proposition from competing operating system, due to improved security and stability.

My advice to the FSF: Learn to co-exist with closed source software, rather than thinking of your offerings as a "all or nothing" proposition. Some of us use BOTH open and closed source software, and we don't appreciate being told that one side or the other is essentially evil. It only makes you look like a bunch of twelve-year olds. Grow up. Move out of your parents' basements.

F/OSS is a philosophy.

You see, you make one critical mistake - you claim that religion needs a devil.

Religion needs a God, a Deity as well. Perhaps the GPL is the Bible to SOME, and maybe RMS and the like are saints/prophets - but...Unless you'd claim Linux is somehow God to the FOSS community (which alienates more than a few users/developers/supporters)your point is somewhat moot.

Not to mention, not all of us feel proprietary=evil. Do I think drm and trusted computing can be compared pretty easily with evil? Yeah. identified as such? Usually.

That said, I love my apple and that's, well, mighty proprietary.

Maybe you should attakc the arguement, instead of the person. Your post amounts nothing but name calling.

Saying the FSF is wrong, because they are, in your opion, "fanatics" has you doing exactly what you are accusing the FSF of doing.

"people who want to dismiss these arguments without counter arguments but simply by namecalling."

Since you did not point out any specific arguements, that is exactly what *you* are doing.

Maybe you should attakc the arguement, instead of the person. Your post amounts nothing but name calling.

Maybe you've posted in reply to the wrong person. I don't get from the OP that he is attacking anyone.

Saying the FSF is wrong, because they are, in your opion, "fanatics" has you doing exactly what you are accusing the FSF of doing.

Again, sounds like your post is misdirected.

They made an argument? Perhaps you and the FSF need to purchase some materials such as "A Rulebook for Arguments" ISBN: 0872205525. It might come in handy next time you want to question why someone isn't developing counter arguments. I'll point out the obvious in that the FSF has not put a single premise into developing its conclusions. The only logical way to argue with them then is to not argue at all. They have made no attempt to put forth any evidence of their claims. They are spreading FUD.

Yes, yes they are.

Although, some people see FOSS and immediatly think of people who want to destroy Microsoft.

Thats not what they are about.

FOSS is not about them giving software away while evil proprietary companies sell you the goods...

It is the locked down, hidden, do not disassemble part of the proprietary world they are fighting against.

When I release my new media player, it will be FOSS, it will be free for Linux and BSD users, but Windows and OSX users will be charged $39.99.

Note, although Windows and OSX users will have to pay, the software is still FOSS.

One concept most Windows users cannot get their head around is the FREE part of Free Open Source Software. It is FREE in that you can take my media player and alter it, even rerelease it yourself after you modify it, I dont care. I got my code out there.

Proprietary code will not allow that. I will continue to own the code, and in fact you cannot see what I have in there. So if I decide to stick a trojan in there, so what ? You clicked OK when you installed it, and you cannot have a look at the source to check what I done.


See.... that is the difference, and if that makes me a fanatic, then so be it.

When I release my new media player, it will be FOSS, it will be free for Linux and BSD users, but Windows and OSX users will be charged $39.99.

'mkay... Of course, you will have to offer the source free of charge, so someone will build the source for Windows/OSX, and (again because of the freedom you've accorded them) can then distribute it for free.

Or will your homebrew FOSS license include a clause stating "You may not build this code on Windows or Mac OS unless you give me some cash, because proprietary OSes are teh bad..." -- doesn't sound very 'libre' to me :/

Edited 2006-12-16 14:16

Of course the source code gets released with the Windows and OSX versions too.

However, there will be no such clause, people can rebuild and release it for free if they want.

I will release the code over all platforms, it is just that I will charge Windows and OSX users. No reason for this, just that they are used to paying for stuff.....

Saying that, I wonder how long before I see it on p2p networks hahaha

"My only question is how is this information going to get inside Joe User's head? I'm afraid that most people won't notice this canpaign and, even if they find this information, most of them won't care at all."

One way to Joe User is from his buddy who knows something about computers. My wife, for example, does not care if hamsters are what run a computer, but after years of happily using GNU/Linux with few skills, she finally appreciated yesterday what freedom means to her.

The way I brought it up was discussing Gnash, the GNU Flash Player. I pointed out how Flash movies can involve all kinds of security compromises and how media companies can exploit this at the expense of the user. I explained to her how Gnash will allow the option of blacklists and whitelists and what those are.

Finally, she made a connection between free software and transparency in the media, and then she complained to me about why it took so many years for me to explain to her why free software is important -- as if I cheated her by not letting her in on a cool secret.

I should also add that she was in a way prepared to here about Gnash, since she recently saw a documentary ("The Corporation") on corporate corruption, including the Fox News scandal over tainted milk.

So one of the more promising routes to Joe User is pointing out how free software adds to the checks and balances on powerful corporate and governmental interests.

Well spotted.

Excellent point that most of the more computer saavy types, advocating opensource systems, should remember.

To most users a computer is a computer. They don't know the what an operating system is, much less which one they are using.

Unless OEMs start offering alternatives to customers, then the regular user will never use anything but Microsoft, and even then they will won't buy it because it is opensource versus microsoft, they will only buy it, if it is perceived to be better in a very subjective way, by a person who know's nothing about the technical or philosophical differences.

it will help a little bit. but you're right, we should also lobby OEMs

Most people don't have a choice to buy Windows, as it comes pre-installed on most computers. Trying to exercise "choice" and not get Windows can prove to be a difficult task.

That said, the FSF doesn't seek to deprive anyone from the freedom of choosing whatever OS they want. Claiming that they do is lying, pure and simple.

Where are you located?

In the US, EmperorLinux offer Linux laptops; in the UK, LinuxEmporium sell them. (Look under "Hardware").

Not an employee of either company.

Yes, there are companies offering Linux pre-installed, but their market penetration is negligible. Wal-Mart did offer Linux, but only on-line.

What I'd like to see is dedicated Linux machines, like Macs, sold at Best Buy and Future Shop...that'd be swell, even if it was just one model.

Yes, there are companies offering Linux pre-installed, but their market penetration is negligible. Wal-Mart did offer Linux, but only on-line.

All true. I wasn't attempting to disprove that the market is almost entirely saturated with Windows; my intention was simply to point you towards some companies that, thank God, do sell laptops with Linux.

What I'd like to see is dedicated Linux machines, like Macs, sold at Best Buy and Future Shop...that'd be swell, even if it was just one model.

It certainly would.

Dell sells PC's with Linux. As does HP.

Notice how I said that most people don't have a choice as Windows comes pre-installed on most computers? Your counter-argument would make sense if I had said "all", but I didn't.

The truth is that most people don't even know they have a choice, due to Microsoft's monopolistic practices. The only alternative people know about is Apple, and fortunately Mac sales are up.

The FSF is against Microsoft and against people choosing to run Windows.

Not as such. They have a philosophical opposition against proprietary software. I do not share their position but I respect it, and so should you. The lack of respect you display towards those who disagree with you is the reason why so many people consider you a troll.

Problem is, Macs are not materially better in terms of proprietary lockin. Different, yes, better, no. Yes, you can install your retail copy of OSX without activation, and on more than one machine. No, you can't get a retail copy of OSX for MacIntel. No, you can't install any MacOS version on non-Apple hardware without an awful lot of work. And then there's the whole iTunes/iPod lockins.

So, is it encouraging that Mac sales are up? Not really. The problem is cola drinks. If Pepsi sales rise at the expense of Coke, its not encouraging in the least.

Just like the Taliban.

This is a new variant of Godwin's law, isn't it?

NotParker: The FSF is against Microsoft and against people choosing to run Windows.

Words fail me. Either you are so not getting what the FSF is about or you are really a troll.

The FSF is against proprietary software and for privacy and fair use. The FSF educates or campaigns for a dozen or more pro-privacy, pro-fair use issues, Microsoft and their new Vista OS are just especially visible. Microsoft is a well known player in the market and is against privacy and fair use and for proprietary software. (This is a contraction for brevities sake.)
The FSF and MS naturally are adversaries, that's the way of marketplaces of ideas.

Saying that the FSF is against people or people's choices is vexing. They campaign to inform you about some points you might want to consider in your next buying decision, but clearly the choice is yours. They are as much against people and their choices as consumer protection is against people and their choices.

The FSF has already stolen that freedom.

I wasn't aware GnewSense was being installed on 95% of computers.

More's the pity.

FSF hasn't stolen that freedom.

I run Windows 2003 Server, gentoo linux 2006.1, DesktopBSD, SkyOS and Syllable.

This is written running Windows 2003 Server. FSF has stolen any freedom.

Like the freedom to choose which OS to run?

The FSF has already stolen that freedom.

Awwwwww, poor Notsy!

FSF stole your copy of 'Doze and made you run Nexenta? GNU/FreeBSD? GNU/HURD? Which choice was forced on you? We know it couldn't have been GNU/Torvaldix!

Did it hurt? A lot? Did you secretly like it and are now compelled to speak out against it? Maybe I'm beginning to understand why you are so angry. Well, OK, I'm not.

I'm not sure how you have come to the conclusion that the FSF has already stolen the freedom of choice on what operating system to use. Could you please enlighten me exactly how this has happened?

The facts of the matter are that Microsoft Windows is pretty much the only known 'computer software' to the average person, and that is due to an illegal monopoly with OEM manufacturers. I once tried to ask Acer Australia about buying a laptop without Windows pre-loaded, as I didn't need it as I used GNU/Linux (at the time), and do you know what I was told? I was told that their contract with Microsoft forbid them to sell PCs without an operating system. And they only supported Microsoft Windows on their laptops (at this point of time), because they felt that there was no need for a laptop being sold with alternative operating systems such as GNU/Linux.

Now this logic, doesn't fool me. Just as many people (if not more) use GNU/Linux as their desktop these days, as use Apple's OS X. I see that Microsoft makes Microsoft Office for OS X, but not GNU/Linux or FreeBSD. Why? They argue that there's no demand for it. But hang on, they're making a version for OS X, an operating system with at least as much, if not less users globablly.

The sad thing is, that most modern governments, especially the current US government buy this codwallops hook, line and sinker. They care more about making money for their economy, than they do about making sure that the laws apply equally to everyone, individuals and very rich corporations.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, if the DOJ had actually punished Microsoft, the right way to have done it would have been to force Microsoft to port Microsoft Office, Microsoft MSN Messenger and Microsoft Windows Media Player to the GNU/Linux platforms. If the government was serious, it would ban software patents, since they are plainly mathemtical in nature, and mathematics cannot be patented. The problems are so obvious, and so easy to solve, but the thing is, big business doesn't want to fix the problem. They don't want to empower the individual.

I'll further add my suspicions to this - Microsoft got out of a lot of trouble by adding an illegal backdoor to their operating system, for government services. NotParker, can you tell me if this is freedom? I know you will argue that what I've said (at least in the last paragaph) is heresay, and yes, you might be right. But then, I could be right as well (and I believe that I'm more than likely right, it's just that Microsoft and the US government would not want the public to know about it).

Anyways, your anti FSF and GNU/Linux rants are amusing. I can always do with a good laugh, so I hope the osnews.com staff don't ban you :-) And, furthermore, not everything that you say is bad, you do make some very good comments from time to time.

Dave

PS Thom - your comment about osnews.com not banning members is bollocks. And I'd argue that those that have been banned have not been 'impolite' as you so put it. Furthermore, osnews doesn't appear to even have the courtesy of answering emails on said banned accounts it seems, highly rude. If you want to discuss this further, email me off list.

edit: typos

Edited 2006-12-16 05:13

About 10% actually. Apple is between 3% and 4% and Linux is around .36%.

No, actually it's about the same, between 3 and 6% for Linux, according to the latest market share data.

The .36% number you suggest is not a market share figure. It is derived from web stats, which cannot identify the number of unique visitors and therefore are useless to determine market share. Furthermore, there are many factors affecting web statistics (clientele bias, caching issues, user agent masquerading, AOL user oversampling, broadband bias, etc.) and therefore their accuracy is approximative at best - if they could be used to determine market share in the first place, which they can't.

IDC's research gave 3% in january 2005. There's no reason to believe it has decreased since then.

So why can I buy a D*** with Linux on it?

NotParker, stop being such a D***.

Why does D*** sell so few of their computers with Linux on them?

Virtually no marketing push behind it. Compare it to the marketing push behind Windows...it's really not all that complicated.

OK, firstly, Linux isn't ".36%" of the global desktop market. We both know that, so please don't tell fibs.

Dell? Sure, you can buy a Dell with Linux on it *now*. But a few years ago? Nope. And, I seem to remember that Dell took action against Microsoft in the DOJ case. Why? Cos of certain clauses in Microsoft's OEM Windows contracts - if you sell any other operating system, you don't get discounts on Microsoft Windows for your OEM products. Do a bit of research, and you'll indeed see that I'm right.

Linux's problem (and bonus as well I might add) is that it's basically splintered. For Linux to get mainstream support several things will need to happen:

1. Become much easier to use. I know the above average, willing computer user can use Linux successfully these days. Your average Joe Blow would be lost though. Yes, I've heard the stories "I installed it for grandman and she loves it". Until something goes wrong. Leave her to her own devices and she'll have no idea how to fix it, so she calls her loving son/nephew who installed it and gets him to help her fix the problem. When Granma can fix it, it'll be user friendly for the masses. That's what counts.

2. Much better OEM hardware driver support. I know the Linux kernel is pretty damn good, much better than the Windows kernel at supporting hardware devices, but there's still a long way to go.

3. Popular software such as Office and Photoshop and a certain CAD program MUST be ported to the Linux platform. Maybe not so much Office, but the other two definitely. In fact, throw in accounting software - either Quicken or MYOB to the list now that I think of it.

4. The number of distributions must dwindle down dramatically. It is a strong point, because if encourages competition, but it does splinter the Linux development I feel.

5. The number of Desktops must be dwindled down to one. Same reason as point 4.

6. Package management system must be graphical and fool proof, with a limited number of quality packages, not the 15,000 plus, where most of them are far below release quality. Oh, and again, the package management system must be dwindled down to 1, same reasons as point 4.

When that happens, you'll suddenly see many OEM hardware manufacturers dropping Microsoft Windows like hot cakes and looking seriously at Linux.

Oh, and by the way, Dell is ONLY one PC OEM hardware manufacturer. Dell doesn't sell many Linux pre-loaded PCs, simply because the average person doesn't know alternatives exist. Even the press doesn't get it right. You see an article in the paper, saying "a new virus was released today and will affect millions of computers worldwide". What they don't say is that it's ONLY Microsoft Windows based PCs. Macs don't have problems. BSD and Linux based systems don't have problems. Only Windows. Does that tell you something? Money makes money my friend, and Microsoft has a lot of money, and with that money it buys not only politicians, but the media.

These are what I consider the reasons why Linux isn't selling more on OEM PC hardware manufacturer's PCs. There are other reaons, but they are minor.

Dave

For Linux to get mainstream support several things will need to happen:

1. Become much easier to use.

Easier than Linspire, Suse, Mepis or Xandros? Like, letting inadvertent users be su - all the time? Computers are complex machines, and a tiny little learning is crucial for Windows users too, to be productive. I got confused myself trying to install a simple .dmg in OS X (being used to Yum, YaST, Synaptic). "So, where do I drag this icon? Or do I have to click it?" Nobody tells you, since it's supposed to be "intuitive".
And Finder bugged me too (that's fine now).

2. Much better OEM hardware driver support.

"Much" is an exaggeration. Call Theo.

3. Popular software such as Office and Photoshop and a certain CAD program MUST be ported to the Linux platform. Maybe not so much Office, but the other two definitely. In fact, throw in accounting software - either Quicken or MYOB to the list now that I think of it.

Photoshop would be nice. Does Adobe have any special deals with Microsoft? All these e-mails sent to them by Linux users must bug them by now.

4. The number of distributions must dwindle down dramatically.

And the number of car, toaster, mobile phone, PC, chili sauce, etc. brands too? That's "confusing" too.

5. The number of Desktops must be dwindled down to one. Same reason as point 4.

Unrealistic. The *Buntus, Freespire, Mepis, etc. are already doing their best to have only one desktop per 'distro'. No way Gnome and KDE will merge by force. And who could live without Gnome vs. KDE flames?

6. Package management system must be graphical and fool proof, with a limited number of quality packages, not the 15,000 plus, where most of them are far below release quality. Oh, and again, the package management system must be dwindled down to 1, same reasons as point 4.

Package management depends on the distribution. Who can get confused? Normal distributions have only one package manager. Usually graphical. The number of packages is irrelevant; package description could be better, though.
Package quality is always vital. However, it's a trade off. Latest and greatest vs. stability. Unless someone pays developers to do the dull work of intensive testing, sloppy packaging will not be eradicated. For well-tested packages, take something like CentOS or Debian Stable. New installer, easy for anyone.

Bug reports made easy for the lazy, that's a very important thing, I'd say. I saw Edgy Eft worked on that.

When that happens, you'll suddenly see many OEM hardware manufacturers dropping Microsoft Windows like hot cakes and looking seriously at Linux.

It's all about the margins, in the end. And don't underestimate how conservative and risk-avoiding major corporations can be.

How? Free Software even runs on Proprietary OSes

Yessir! I agree 200%

No dissent allowed.
Trolling != dissent

See, the fanaticism is spreading.
No, it's not spreading, I'm simply an undercover FSF agent secretly financed by IBM to bring down MS and hunt down its supporters...

Edited 2006-12-15 21:57

No, it's not spreading, I'm simply an undercover FSF agent secretly financed by IBM to bring down MS and hunt down its supporters...

Hahaha!

Damn!

I just lost a wager there :p

Can I work for you, guys?

The problem is, you're not dissenting, you're just insulting people and spreading as many bullshit you can to as many FOSS projects you can. That, in my country, is called "a troll". And that, again in my country, isn't called "dissenting".

Man, I don't like saying this, but I'd like to beat the crap out of you. I hope the world can forgive me for my lack of manners.

Now, please Thom, or whoever is in charge of the website backend: Please , please add the option to ignore certain users. This guy completely destroys the reading pleasure.

but I'd like to beat the crap out of you.

Join the back of the queue, please ;-)