"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:2005-11-10
But click and run doesn't change the package manager or repositories that come by default with your system, so CNR goes away you go back to what you had, no harm no foul.
On top of that its supposed to go Open Source when this new version comes out.
From the CNR site FAQ:
"Is the code for the CNR Plugin open source?
Yes. We encourage you to use this code, and the published CNR web services, to enhance the application, or even write your own from the ground up. We hope to see dozens of variations on the CNR Plugin as users get creative with the CNR Service."
People just want to have something to gripe about. It's good and it's not proprietary! Only thing that will keep people using the standard CNR service is the backend which is 100's of servers and lots of bandwidth.
Member since:2005-07-08
I made sure to mention that the CNR client plugin is OSS, but the server is not. I knew someone would bring that up if I didn't. So I tried to spell it out. I guess you just didn't read the one sentence I purposefully set off from the rest as its own paragraph.
Let me say it again... the server part of CNR is NOT OSS. It doesn't really matter if the client is OSS. There are many situations where we have to connect to proprietary services to get on with our lives, and it doesn't matter one lick if the client we use to connect to it is free software. It still sucks. If anything, I'd rather use a fancy proprietary client to connect to a free service than the other way around.
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).