"Linspire announced plans to standardize software installation across Linux distributions by expanding its popular CNR digital download and software management service to support several of the most popular desktop Linux distributions in 2007. Previously available only for Linspire and Freespire desktop Linux users, the CNR Service will begin providing users of other desktop Linux distributions a free and easy way to access over 20000 desktop Linux products, packages and libraries."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-11-24
Honest question: exactly how can they be handcuffed?
I mean, they can become dependent upon it, sure. But that doesn't mean that the other distros will be debilitated from forming their own free alternatives, does it?
Of course, that latter part depends upon if those other distros can make their alternatives just as viable as the currently-popular proprietary solutions. Or if those other distros (Debian) are more likely to do without such solutions (free or non-free), as they've done for the majority of their histories.
If CNR's server is or proves to be a handcuff - legal or pragmatic - to those other distros, then the distros (SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu) and their maintainers should be blamed - slammed, in fact - for willfully putting those fetters on their own wrists, not Linspire.
Edited 2007-01-23 21:11
Member since:2005-07-08
In theory, distributors could revert to a free system if the proprietary arrangement becomes untenable. But in practice, package repositories quickly rust over once they become unmaintained, and getting them back up to date (i.e. no packaging regressions relative to the proprietary system) is a huge challenge.
For example, when BitKeeper became unusable for the Linux kernel project, a considerable amount of work had to be done to get everyone's bk trees converted to git trees. With a package repository migration it would be significantly worse, not only because of the sheer size of a package repository (which dwarfs the number of upstream kernel branches), but because of the package compatibility and dependency issues that aren't applicable to the kernel.
You're absolutely right that it would be the victim distributor's own fault for adopting CNR, not Linspire's. But that doesn't make this strategic initiative any more tolerable. Free software projects are not a viable market for proprietary development or project management tools. The spirit of free software mandates that the tools needed to participate are likewise free. There would be no free software if GCC was proprietary.
Nothing so central to the operation of the free software community as the very means of software distribution can be left vulnerable to the realities of the business world. Proprietary software can be bought and sold right out from under us. Introducing Microsoft Click-n-Run, for example. Not convinced? Just how far from bankruptcy and asset liquidation could Linspire be? I doubt they've had a single profitable quarter (note they are a private corporation so no one outside the company knows for sure).
Member since:2007-01-22
if there was a standard unified linux platform, there would be no need and no room for these closed source gimmicks.
The Linux foundation will just be a collection of competing groups that will never really change the situation and do what needs to be done to make linux competitive against Windows.
they have to think: what will it take to get more developers to come to the platform?
Member since:
2005-07-08
This is not the Linux Foundation's purpose. There currently isn't any "governing" body with a mandate to centralize package management across Linux distribution. At best there's the OSDL, which is a technical body with no service mission.
But if one were to exist, they would object to the use of a proprietary packaging technology for such a purpose. By definition, proprietary solutions are suitable for some--but not all--of the OSS community. Further, we cannot accept a situation where a commercial entity controls the central software distribution service using proprietary software (not forkable by the community). What works in our best interests today may not tomorrow, so it is necessary for us to control our own destiny.
Note that the CNR client plugin is OSS, but the server is not.
It bothers me that the new-school Linux corporations do such nice things using free software within their own distribution projects, yet they insist on reaching out of the community at-large with proprietary software. The otherwise OSS-friendly Canonical attempts to unite issue tracking using the proprietary Launchpad, and Linspire wants us to use their proprietary CNR to unite package management. If you want to lock-in your corporate clients or your paid subscribers, go ahead. But don't handcuff the community with your proprietary development and distribution tools.
Edited 2007-01-23 20:13