“Finally. For years, the holy grail of the Linux desktop has been to get a major computer vendor to commit to preloading a Linux desktop. It finally happened. On August 4th, we found out that Lenovo Group, the company that has taken over IBM’s Personal Computing Division, had made a deal with Novell to preload SLED 10 on its ThinkPad T60p mobile workstation. For the first time, a major OEM has committed to preloading a Linux desktop.”
I’m just about to start looking for a new laptop, and this happens. SLED 10 is a fine operating system, and the ThinkPad T series is my favorite line of laptops. I think I know where my business is going…
Not to spoil the good news, but I can’t find a way to buy a T60p with SLED 10 installed, at least not yet:
http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/notebooks/thinkpad/t-series/tseries_byo_t6…
The T60p, starting at $1,899, is also $570 more expensive than the T60 when comparably equipped (the T60 even has a slightly faster processor). This is due to the FireGL graphics chipset.
Maybe I won’t be buying this laptop after all…
The news says they’re just made a deal, they haven’t started shipping them yet.
This will be good for hardware support under Linux as it will force companies to write supporting drivers (GPL’d or not – who cares?).
>(GPL’d or not – who cares?)
Novell just said they wont include propietary drivers on their distribution. So if companies are going to write drivers to support Lenovo-SLED laptops they better make them open source or they’ll be wasting time.
Novell just said they wont include propietary drivers on their distribution. So if companies are going to write drivers to support Lenovo-SLED laptops they better make them open source or they’ll be wasting time.
Uhhh…No. Please read the articles before you post inane comments like this. Proprietary drivers will still be available for Suse and you can install them with Yast. It doesn’t matter much anyway because the ATI drivers for Linux suck, so I don’t think you would be losing much if you used the open source driver instead.
As an aside I find it surprising that just a couple of months ago Lenovo announced that they wouldn’t be supporting Linux and now they are preloading it. I wouldn’t doubt that this has something to do with IBM, and their need for Linux on the desktop.
“Uhhh…No. Please read the articles before you post inane comments like this. Proprietary drivers will still be available for Suse and you can install them with Yast. “
True statement. Novell will not ship with proprietary drivers, and Lenovo will not be able to ship the laptop with those drivers pre-installed due to the same reasons Novell will not ship them, as that will classify as distributing proprietary drivers pre-linked to the Linux kernel. This will be interesting to see how they do it.
It seems like it would be easy enough to have a first time run program that asks if you want to install the drivers. If you click yes, it could run a script and install them silently in the background.
The other option would be to set up their own repository, which could hold all kinds of extras and addons that they recommend users install.
Edited 2006-08-04 23:47
“It seems like it would be easy enough to have a first time run program that asks if you want to install the drivers. If you click yes, it could run a script and install them silently in the background.
The other option would be to set up their own repository, which could hold all kinds of extras and addons that they recommend users install.”
Agreed. Is kind of what I was thinking of myself. What I am curious about is there has been some talk that even users can’t link proprietary modules to the kernel, but then my understanding is things just can not be distributed linked, but I can link them for my own use. That would fall under the same GPL clause that says I can do whatever I want with the kernel code for my own or a companies internal use. Just that if I were to distribute that code, I would have to contribute the changes back to the kernel. If I don’t distribute it, it is not a violation of the GPL.
Uhhh…No. Please read the articles before you post inane comments like this. Proprietary drivers will still be available for Suse and you can install them with Yast.
That’s not including them, is it? They’re going to have to work out some way of getting the end user to initiate a download of the drivers themself somewhere in the set up process, and hope that the user has a working and reasonable internet connection.
That’s not including them, is it? They’re going to have to work out some way of getting the end user to initiate a download of the drivers themself somewhere in the set up process, and hope that the user has a working and reasonable internet connection.
So what if they don’t include them. It’s not a waste of time to make proprietary drivers because they will still be usable. I’m sure Lenovo will have working drivers for their ethernet/wireless (after all the T series are Intel based) and they will probably include the driver on a CD when the ship the laptops anyway. What is so difficult about that?
if companies are going to write drivers to support Lenovo-SLED laptops they better make them open source or they’ll be wasting time.
How is this statement true? They won’t be wasting their time because, just like almost every other distribution, you can still install proprietary drivers. It’s not like it will be impossible to use proprietary drivers. In fact it will still be quite easy.
“It doesn’t matter much anyway because the ATI drivers for Linux suck, so I don’t think you would be losing much if you used the open source driver instead.”
Are you serious? While one can argue if ATI drivers for linux suck or not (and to what degree), saying that one would not be loosing much by using opensource driver is a -little- over the top.
It’s fine for 2d, of course, but forget using anything remotely related to 3d. That is, at least, my experience with opensource radeon driver.
Actually, i’ve been quite happy with ati drivers. Of course they could be better, and I realize that there’s a long way to go until they’re on par with Windows drivers but on my hardware (9800pro) all 3d software that i’m using works. Without any stability or display corruption issues.
Oh yeah, lets penalize a company by making it a slave to the GPL when they just want to help.
Yeah, and let’s just let companies willfully defy copyright law just because you say it’s ok. I don’t want to pay taxes, because I personally think I contribute positively to society. But, alas, it doesn’t work that way.
It boggles my mind, as the GPL is *one of* the most permissive software licenses, that people can compare abiding by its very reasonable requirements to slavery. How much of SLED/S 10 did Novell or any of its acquisitions produce? To say they contributed 1% of the code and 1% of the total investment would be a (very) generous estimate. Yet here they have this whole OS jam-packed with thousands of software applications. It doesn’t make much sense (to the layperson) that Novell could market this product as their own creation, but the GPL has given them the right to do this.
Slave to the GPL, which offers to give you trillions of lines of code to use however you please as long as you share your relatively meager modifications. I’m sorry, I don’t buy it.
I don’t call it permissive when my program is infected with GPL’ness the moment I link it to a GPL’ed library. I, and anyone else not on the hypothetical FSF payroll, will call that “viral”.
The GPL is starting to become a major hindrance to the commercial and consumer adoption of Linux.
Then don’t link to the library someone else wrote, and that they have allowed you to use for free. Pretty simple solution huh ? Write it yourself, then you can choose to NOT let others use it, free or not.
“The GPL is starting to become a major hindrance to the commercial and consumer adoption of Linux.”
I *completely* agree. I’ve been reading more and more and more of this “political arguement” going on around Linux/OS sites everyday. What happened to just developing good, open software?
Edited 2006-08-05 02:06
I *completely* agree. I’ve been reading more and more and more of this “political arguement” going on around Linux/OS sites everyday. What happened to just developing good, open software?
That’s easy to answer. The FSF, and like-minded folk (who, by the way, are taking SCO’s stance with regard to “derivative work”, something I find ironic) are, essentially, hypocrites.
When Linux needed every single bit of positive spin it could get, it was “technically illegal, but we’ll let it slide because it helps linux”. Now that Linux is taking off, they’re hoping to use the growing popularity of Linux as a club to force people to subscribe to their ideology.
Now, for those still reading, who aren’t already firing off some mind-numbingly witty comment, understand that I deliberately exaggerate. My opinion expressed above is cynical, inflammatory and only loosely based on reality.
But it’s very heavily grounded in “perceived reality”, and that apparent attitude will sour a lot of prospective buyers.
If any single piece of code that’s ever linked, or calls, the kernel is a derivative work of the kernel, then everything people have been saying for years about the GPL being viral… is true.
Reading articles and discussions like this, if I were a hardware vendor, I’d be calling the development lab, and telling them to suspend all development on any linux development until I knew exactly what the legal ramifications of linux are. And since it’s unresolved until someone takes it to court, the risk to myself and my company would not be worth it.
By the way, Butters… Your interpretation of what is legal and not legal is driven by ideology, and wishful thinking, rather than actual law. I have not seen *anyone* who would agree with your stance, with the possible exception of SCO, the RIAA, and the MPAA. Nice company you’re in there.
What happened to just developing good, open software?
It is still out there. There are licenses out there that are so “open”, that they allow people to take posession of the code and make it secret and proprietary again.
Now, is that more or less “open” now compared to a license that forces distributers to keep the code used and/or modified out in the open?
Kind of a philosophical point, and the answer may vary from individual to individual, based on how they view individual vs. collective freedoms.
Oh yeah, lets penalize a company by making it a slave to the GPL when they just want to help.
I really can’t see how Lenovo would have the role of a slave if the drivers were GPL.
If the drivers were GPL, they would most likely end up in the standard Linux kernel, and Lenovo would be able to get help from the community to maintain them, thus lowering the production costs of Lenovo. This would make it easier for them to stay competitive.
If you are a hardware company, GPL is almost always good. The only problem is if the opensource code somehow reveals some unique design in your hardware.
If the hardware solution is that unique, I would think it would be better to patent it than just hide it by not opening the source for the driver. That way you could close down or sell licenses to competitors that find out your anyway.
Other reasons for Lenovo to have GPL drivers would be that the Chinese government is quite Linux friendly and providing drivers the preferred Linux way would be an extra bonus if they want business from their govenrment.
Microsoft said they won’t preload Google Desktop with their operating system, and somehow Lenovo ships it anyway.
The ones distributing SLED here are Lenovo, not Novell. They can ship whatever they want, as long as they respect the license of the software they’ll be shipping.
Edited 2006-08-04 23:46
I care, the Linux kernel community cares, and our lawyers care. Non-GPL Linux kernel modules are illegal. Furthermore, natural market forces will dictate that Linux drivers shall be licensed under the GPL.
Some users may choose to break the law by loading non-GPL kernel modules. These users, especially corporate users, are vulnerable to legal action. Other’s might choose to load driver stubs that communicate with non-GPL userspace drivers, supporting an unethical end-run around the IP rights of the Linux kernel community, and experiencing broken drivers when they install kernel updates from their Linux distributors. Linux distributors can’t support binary drivers, and the driver distributor can’t even support you if you have any other binary drivers installed.
This deal will likely be copied by many of the other large OEMs over the next 6-12 months, and that will greatly increase the availability and feasibility of Linux on the desktop. Perhaps binary-only drivers were a workable stop-gap while the Linux userbase was small and largely self-supporting, but this distribution model will fail miserably under the weight of a growing Linux market.
It’s not really about protecting the hardware vendors’ IP rights, it’s about the realities of the market. Customers want Linux and OEMs are going to give it to them. Linux was never designed or licensed to work well with proprietary drivers. This has slowed the uptake of Desktop Linux, I fully admit, but it hasn’t stopped it. As Linux grows, it will force hardware vendors not only to write quality drivers, but it will force them to distribute them under the GPL. They simply won’t have a choice unless they are willing to cede the Linux market to their competitors.
“Some users may choose to break the law by loading non-GPL kernel modules. These users, especially corporate users, are vulnerable to legal action.”
Actually there is nothing that says they can not be loaded. According to the GPL I can take the kernel, modify it, use the kernel internally without distributing it, and in that case I do not have to give the code back. The problem and legal issues arise only upon distribution of the code, when it is no longer for internal use. Then I would have to contribute my code under the GPL. So in the case of proprietary drivers, if I load them on machines for internal use only, or on my home machine, with no intent to redistribute, I am perfectly within my legal rights to do so. I have done some studying up for the last few days as the latest discussions made me want to know.
You’re theoretically correct, but in practice any kernelspace binary driver is already a derivative work containing Linux code distributed under the GPL, even if it’s distributed separately from the kernel. Linux kernel modules include GPLed kernel headers when built. They would’t be able to access kernel data structures, functions, and macros if this this header code weren’t compiled and linked with the module. You couldn’t even write a “hello world” kernel module without including at least some of the header files.
Since these binary kernel modules contain GPL code, they must be licensed under the GPL. However, this isn’t the case, and the vendors obviously aren’t abiding by the requirements of the license. These vendors are breaking the law. I incorrectly stated that it would be the user that is in the wrong, and for that I apologize.
<snip>“…They would’t be able to access kernel data structures, functions, and macros if this this header code weren’t compiled and linked with the module. You couldn’t even write a “hello world” kernel module without including at least some of the header files.
Since these binary kernel modules contain GPL code, they must be licensed under the GPL.”</snip>
That makes a bit of sense. It would be off topic for me to keep going, but I am curious as I have seen it to where header files are not considered code, determined by a court of law and actually was used in the SCO and IBM case if I remember correctly. I could have easily misunderstood that however, and have confused it with something else. Either way thanks for your help in helping me understand this better.
I disagree. The way the NVIDIA driver is made, for example, is that an open-source part is distributed (the one that used kernel headers to be compiled) along with a closed-source part (used by the open-source part). That way the vendors can provide proprietary drivers loaded by an open-source kernel interface.
If the vendors were breaking the law, they’d be sued. They haven’t. If you believe that they are in fact breaking the law, then why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and sue NVIDIA and ATI?
Remember, if to you use of an API or ABI is equivalent to a derivative, that basically means that you agree with SCO on many aspects of its Linux suit against IBM, because that was one of their main arguments. I myself do not believe that use of an API/ABI is sufficient to constitute a derivative, and it seems that Linus, for one, agrees.
I do not believe that it is illegal to provide a proprietary binary driver for Linux, as long as it is not distributed as part of the kernel. So far I have seen no argument to convince me of the contrary, and no real-world cases of vendors being sued for this. Therefore I do believe you are wrong about this.
I care, the Linux kernel community cares, and our lawyers care. Non-GPL Linux kernel modules are illegal. Furthermore, natural market forces will dictate that Linux drivers shall be licensed under the GPL.
Where are “your” lawyers if non-gpl kernel modules are illegal? I’m sure you have a lawyer on the case.
Some users may choose to break the law by loading non-GPL kernel modules.
You are clueless to what copyright law is all about. It’s civil code, there’s no illegality involved here. And nobody is breaking any license until someone is challenged.
So why don’t you people with your imaginary lawyers put your money where your mouth. Until then anybody can do anything they want and laugh at your “illegality”.
http://eugenia.blogsome.com/2006/08/01/my-email-to-torvalds-rms/
That should be an interesting read for you.
It’s no secret that Linus personally doesn’t give a crap about the theory and politics behind the GPL. To him, the GPL represents a purely pragmatic distribution mechanism. Linus thinks that proprietary drivers are a horrible idea, that they compromise the security and stability of the kernel, and that they cause support issues. But he doesn’t really care if nobody agrees with him (which is rare if you’re familiar with his personality).
Action hasn’t been taken because distributors are usually quite good at not directly distributing tainted kernels. They distribute binary kernel modules that have been linked with the GPL kernel headers, and that is theoretically a violation of the GPL. However, it’s a reasonably shaky argument, and (in the US) judges are instructed to consider the “spirit” or “intentions” of the license where they might differ from the strict interpretation of the license text. A bad ruling could set a dangerous precedent that would proliferate binary kernel modules. I personally prefer the grey area.
I don’t perceive any particular proliferation of binary kernel modules at the moment. I would like users to stop using them, and I would like distributors to stop distributing them. They are illegal, in my estimation, but there is little to gain from taking legal action, and much to lose.
I care, the Linux kernel community cares, and our lawyers care. Non-GPL Linux kernel modules are illegal. Furthermore, natural market forces will dictate that Linux drivers shall be licensed under the GPL.
Forget about Linus. Above is what you said. You don’t have any copyright in the code, you don’t have any lawyers, and you don’t understand copyright law. You are not involved at all. Why do you people always think you have some say in any of this when you don’t have any copyright on the relevant code?
But you claimed that using headers are derived work – derived work would mean that the developer ‘borrowed’ some GPL code from a project, and incorporated into a closed source (or other licenced project).
The fact is, using a header file is simply linking to a resource; the fact that he has used that resource via linking doesn’t mean he has stolen any code/ip or ‘derived’; the two have remained seperate, no code has been mingled.
The whole GPL kerfuffle is a storm in a tea cup to be quite honest, now I see why there are so many who prefer BSDL, and why Sun chose to go with CDDL.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319…
There is quiet a lot of criminal law associated with copyright infringement. Based on your lack of real knowledge regarding copyright law, why should we listen to anything you have to saw about it?
[i]”I care, the Linux kernel community cares, and our lawyers care. Non-GPL Linux kernel modules are illegal.”[i]
I have a bit of food for thought. You care, that I beleive. The linux community cares? Well some do and apparently some don’t. If you’ve spent much time reading comments arround here, that should be obvios.
Now for Non-GPL kernal modules being illegal. I invite you to take the lawyers who care and go speak with Nvida/Ati (how about Tivo) and company along with every single person out there who has chosen to install proprietary drivers into our precious Linux.
You would start to look a whole lot like SCO/MPAA/RIAA at that point. You know, the “lets sue everybody we can” and “lets sue our users” tactic.
You are completely right that the market will decide the outcome. Where does that leave the GPL? Well, it kinda suggests that the GPL doesn’t matter much in this case. If the market wants to use Linux, and the market wants to use proprietary drivers, they will and without a second thought to the GPL.
I want the open drivers. I get what I want on my servers. On my desktop however, I’m not so lucky. If I want my video card to be well supported, at this point proprietary drivers are neccessary.
ATi and nVidia proprietary drivers don’t violate the GPL. I never claimed that. They bypass the requirements by running the proprietary portion in userspace. I would think of suing them, it would be a waste of my money.
Does anyone but me see the irony and the absolute arrogance in some GPL pusher’s arguments? You call using communication stubs to run a proprietary driver “unethical”, yet you freely admit to wanting to force hardware manufacturers to GPL their drivers. How ethical is it to take away someone else’s right to license their software any way they please?
How ethical is it to expect a company to do the ethical thing if they want to supply drivers for our ethical OS. I think it is pretty ethical but no force is involved. If you don’t want to supply drivers then don’t, if you do then do it in the ethical way that we ask.
Does anyone but me see the irony and the absolute arrogance in some GPL pusher’s arguments? You call using communication stubs to run a proprietary driver “unethical”, yet you freely admit to wanting to force hardware manufacturers to GPL their drivers. How ethical is it to take away someone else’s right to license their software any way they please?
No one is forcing the hardware manufacturer to release their driver under GPL. They are free to release their driver under any licence.
What the Free Software Foundation is asking is (this is my personal understanding on the matter, please correct me if I’m wrong) that IF the hardware manufacture wishes to better/legal integration with the the Linux kernel (which is licensed under GPL) and the GNU Userland tools (also licensed under GPL) that they should licensed their drivers under GPL or any other GPL-compatible license.
The way I see it:
– if people want to release their driver to work with a proprietary OS, release under proprietory license.
– if people want to release their driver to work with a GPL licensed OS, release under GPL or GPL-compatible license.
On the matter about GPL being permissive. Yes I agree it’s a very permissive license… but it’s only being permissive about one particular thing which is in essence “what is free/libre will always be free/libre”. Which I personally think is not an evil thing.
*Deleted*
Redundant post, I replied before reading the rest of the thread, so I’ll refrain from merely repeating what has already been said.
My bad.
Edited 2006-08-05 02:40
Some users may choose to break the law by loading non-GPL kernel modules.
The GPL says absolutely nothing about usage of the code. Loading completely proprietary content and linking it directly is perfectly legal under the GPL. Nothing is legal until you are distributing non-GPL-compatible binaries linked into a GPL’d product.
Releasing a source file that links into the kernel is perfectly valid under any license, including one that says “your eyes are not allowed to view this file for any reason, the only permitted usage of this file is to be converted into a binary by a compiler to be loaded into the Linux kernel”. You’re allowed to compile that and use it no problem. The resulting binary may be used by you in any way ou want, including loading it into the kernel. The binary distribution is bound by the terms of the GPL, and distributing it to anyone would be highly illegal unless you provide the source code under the GPL with it, which obviously is impossible.
Looks like we got some new FUD about non GPL drivers being illegal
First they wouldnt be “illegal” they would be against the license, however they arent even against the license sooo thats just stupid.
Did you talk to a lawyer. like a real lawyer…
I hope you’re right but I think what’s more likely is companies like Lenova will simply choose hardware with existing support.
I have machines that work out the box with pretty much any linux distro because the hardware in them is (for the most part) completely supported. I was careful when choosing that hardware for that reason.
So if computer Vendors just choose hardware that currently has good support, there won’t be much of a push for the actual hardware manufactures to produce additional supporting drivers.
There will only be demand for more drivers and such if there is demand for hardware that does not already have good linux support.
Lets say somebody like Lenova puts out their SUSE machines and they are wildly successful but then there is demand for hardware from venders who aren’t particularily open (Nvidia, Ati, Creative, whoever). If things look it would be worth it to provide open drivers (have to be open otherwise Suse won’t support em at this point) then those companies will start thinking about providing that support.
Edited 2006-08-04 23:38
Or… if there’s suddenly lots of demand for hardware with good Linux driver support, companies will start taking notice and making more of those pieces… and they might try being friendlier with the next version they’re pushing out.
That will take a lot more momentum to get going, but I can see things happening that way.
They made the laptop; why shouldn’t they care to make drivers too?
I think, now it’s very interesting to wait and then see the sales report for quarter or half year.
Anyway I think such move will do a good promotional job for the company and Linux.
I recently bought a Dell and it had Red Hat installed.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/precn_380n?c=us&…
it’s been available for at least a month.
We are talking about Laptop with Linux (SUSE).
+1 funny?
I’m not a huge RH fan, but it still uses the Linux kernel!
Ugh, please re-read his comment. Guy1 says Dell ships DESKTOPS with Red Hat, Guy2 says we are talking about LAPTOPS with Linux (SUSE). His point was that we were talking about laptops, not SUSE.
yeah, but:
“Finally. For years, the holy grail of the Linux desktop has been to get a major computer vendor to commit to preloading a Linux desktop…..”
I think that would be desktop as in something you’d find on Joe Public’s desk… as opposed to a web server, a corporate storage server, a scientific supercomputing cluster, a workstation (such as the Dell systems linked to above), a mainframe, or an embedded system/cell phone/pda
Linux can already be found in all those other places, in relative abundance.
Edited 2006-08-05 02:35
Dell did preload redhat on laptops a few years back. It was not advetised very well, but they did do it.
Let’s hope that DELL doesn’t explode in your lap;
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/31/dell-laptop-number-3-explodes/
considering that in the minds of many laptop == thinkpad, I can’t think of a bigger deal for this to happen with.
All I can say is that I hope this pays off for Lenovo and they really put the polish and markiting effort to make this a success. It may be a long shot for them but if they can pull it off it could be very much to their benefit, not to mention that of the Linux community.
Contrast,and yesterday I read an article of some guy who wouln’t recommend SLED 10.
Anyway, good news.
Well, all in all I bet people would be happy with SLED 10… I mean, from reviews it sounds like it’s one of the best distros out there.
Then again, from reviews ALL distros sound like the best out there… But SLED is probably not a bad choice.
well everyone can come up with a review of an OS that tells you not to use it. that doesn’t necessarily reflect your situation..
I wonder what’s the price difference between the one that ships Windows and this one.
Well, people debating about minor issues here, but we might remember today as the turning point. Can you imagine if it becomes a trend and HP, Dell, Sony… follow suit? Can you envisage the day when people go to their local shop and it isn’t only PCs with Windows any longer? Possibly the Linux ones recommended by the shop assistant?
It might be the beginning of a revolution. It could even force Apple to reconsider their policy of not licensing their OS to other computer manifacturers.
Dell’s already edging their way there (see an above poster), HP had/has some aquired UNIX-like OSes they’re willfully ignoring, Sony made Linux available for the PS2 so they could claim it was a computer in Europe…
I won’t say much about how that translates to the home consumer desktop (except perhaps with Dell, who I think tried to load Mandrake in France a while back, but quickly relented), but the companies you mentioned do have some experience with Linux.
… Great job Lenovo and Novell. I’m installing SLED 10 right now, but from what I’ve heard its a pretty solid distribution. It’s great to see Linux on a major OEMs products.
There are only two things in LoseThos taken from other people. A font from freedos and a list of ATA command #defines from a Linux header. They don’t have rights to it because it comes from an ATA document I later found. Therefore, I can offer LoseThos without any GPL strings. No strings whatsoever is better then GPL. Your interest in headers seems like you found that in my code. You should find something better to do in your time. Anyway, Mentioning “FreeDOS” seemed like a jab at me. LoseThos has parallel processing support(limited corently) for the Pentium D. Does linux? I’m working on EMT64. You can also consult God with LoseThos, does Linux have that? Watch:
ENVY CAPTAIN SAYS MINERVA ANUBIS
FORESEEABILITY WANDERING RECLAIMING
RECOMMENDED BEGINS FIGURES PRAISE
This is definitely a big move that will help both linux and lenovo, and they might be the pioneers of laptops with linux, but….. the great disadvantage will be that this deal will not be directed for normal users (average joe) but to experienced ones.
Why?
1. users will have to install applications soon or later that are not available as binaries but as source code, and they will be shocked how difficult it is, when dependancies faces them
2. any malfuctioning device driver that will require uninstallation and then reinstallation will be impossible to do without pain.
3. Forget about installing a new hardware on your system (through PCMCIA card reader) as you have to compile and compile and compile if you are lucky to find the source that you can compile.
If software companies do not like to support linux and I mean a specific linux distro not all then that linux will not be possible to spread to the public as linux still so technical, and difficult to operate if not administer; and people might start to hate linux more than before, because it came out of a cave and starts to spread.
Three things must happen to allow linux adaption in general:
1. Make linux more stable (RHEL is not included in this advise)
2. Let a OEM support, program for and sell desktops and laptops with linux.
3. Let big software developers write a linux copies of their great software (3dsmax, ms office 2003, adobe Graphics Suite,….and others as soley an example).
But after all I am relieved for this move because it is the second step towards success of my beloved forever to be linux.
SLES 10 is a great OS and runs well on my Thinkpad hardware even now. Can’t wait until it’s available on the X series!
-m
This is good.Could get even more interesting if another top vendor responds with Ubuntu pre-installed.
“I don’t call it permissive when my program is infected with GPL’ness the moment I link it to a GPL’ed library.”
So don’t link to GPL libraries. Noone’s forcing you to use GPL’ed libraries, you know. Just like with ANY other license, you want their features you play by their rules.
“The GPL is starting to become a major hindrance to the commercial and consumer adoption of Linux.”
Good thing commercial licenses are so permissive…
“There are licenses out there that are so “open”, that they allow people to take posession of the code and make it secret and proprietary again.”
Awesome! I was wondering when we’d get to see some BSD-license FUD in this thread. Needless to say, you’re wrong.
Alls I see is XP pasted all over the Lenovo specs for that model. SLED nowhere in sight.
a really good progress! And the market share of windows is shrinking again yeah!
It seems like a step forward, but it’s not. There’s still large obstacles to get over an incumbant installed base, and they’re simply not going to get it out there in large numbers via OEMs which Microsoft still control.
[quote] The GPL is starting to become a major hindrance to the commercial and consumer adoption of Linux. [/quote]
i always though we were doing this because we love to do it.
[quote] I *completely* agree. I’ve been reading more and more and more of this “political arguement” going on around Linux/OS sites everyday. What happened to just developing good, open software? [/quote]
well , we develop good open software , its the hardware companies that dont !
[quote] yet you freely admit to wanting to force hardware manufacturers to GPL their drivers. [/quote]
i just want the hardware manufactur of the hardware I BOUGHT to make it gpl. if i buy an open driver graphics card , i couldnt care less what others cards license is. everyone can choose what they want. by the way, how do we force some company to gpl their drivers ?
[quote] Does anyone but me see the irony and the absolute arrogance in some GPL pusher’s arguments? [/quote]
maybe because those who are using linux from the beginning , not just joining the partly later and leeching everything , are seeing the principles and ideology that made gnu/linux the first place being lost.
gnu started because they wanted something free. linux started being a hobby project. now we are neither free , and we have to cater to companies.
when did linux become a company ? linux isnt a company ! we dont have to sell ! distributions have to sell … support , services. how are they going to support a program that they never knew / know / will know what is in it ?
most users love nvidia drivers, it gives them some games to play in linux. others want a stable ABI. as i read in the blog of the eugenia mail to linus ( in the comments , nor in the mail ) somehow , win32 driver development model is now great ! its the best now , and we should follow it.
linux is getting more and more unstable every year … modem drivers / network drivers / sound drivers / graphics driver all can crash linux , and nobody can change it. if you all love binary drivers , just stick with windows , its more to your filosophy , you will be happier! in linux , using nvidia drivers and watching tv in framebuffer still freezes linux , companies still make you use 2.6.10 kernels for their drivers ( icedata modems ) and etc.
i really dont understand why ppl want to use linux and want binary drivers ! windows works , is stable ( winxp is more or less stable ) , you can do everything you want ( there is programs to do more or less everything you want ) , etc !
i wonder why ppl want to use linux , and then turn it to windows.
Edited 2006-08-05 11:17
“i just want the hardware manufactur of the hardware I BOUGHT to make it gpl. if i buy an open driver graphics card , i couldnt care less what others cards license is. everyone can choose what they want. by the way, how do we force some company to gpl their drivers ? ”
Like everyone else who replied to my initial comment, you failed to read and comprehend the post I was replying to.
The bottom line is that if a company creates a piece of hardware and writes a driver for it, they have all the right in the world to license it in any way they choose, regardless of how you, I, or anyone else may feel about that.
What strikes me as odd is that proponents of the GPL love to talk about freedom and they enjoy the freedom of GPL’ing all their software, yet when it comes to someone else’s software they want to restrict their freedom and force them into the GPL.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about free software licenses, but if some of these short sighted folks don’t learn to co-exist with other people’s choices in regard to licenses, how long will it be before someone is forcing you to use a license you don’t agree with?
… wanting to turn linux into windows.
i really dont understand why ppl want to use linux and want binary drivers ! windows works , is stable ( winxp is more or less stable ) , you can do everything you want ( there is programs to do more or less everything you want ) , etc !
i wonder why ppl want to use linux , and then turn it to windows.
Because even intermidiate users doesn’t want to run mandatory anti-virus, anti-spyware apps? Because users will find Linux better/easier to use if hardware drivers are readily available, be it free/open or closed? Because I’m financially-challenged but doesn’t want to resort to piracy? (Cost of Windows License can be used to buy other hardware)
Edited 2006-08-05 13:05
but … please , do you understand that :
Because even intermidiate users doesn’t want to run mandatory anti-virus, anti-spyware apps?
if you are getting binary drivers , binary software , you CAN GET VIRUS AND SPYWARE !!! if you want binary drivers , there is nothing stopping introducing virus , trojan’s , etc into your computer.
Because users will find Linux better/easier to use if hardware drivers are readily available
but that doesnt make hardware readily available !there are lot of companies that just release one driver and then stop ! and when users ask for a driver they just say : ” it works with kernel 2.6.8 and with redhat 9″. then there is the drivers that are slow to release ( ati ) and have bugs all the time.
Because I’m financially-challenged but doesn’t want to resort to piracy?
dont need linux here , that are several open free operating systems
i dont mean to be mis interpreted , i like ppl using linux and everything , and i help alot of ppl using linux. but making it so comercial will get it into trouble.
( how weird that in the early years , every linux fan said that linux was better because if didnt have to be backward compatible and support alot of old bugs , and not , ppl want a stable api ?!? )
like a hollywood comercial movie … even based on the finest book story , it will always be crap. ( ok , weird analogy )
Edited 2006-08-05 16:52
if you are getting binary drivers , binary software , you CAN GET VIRUS AND SPYWARE !!! if you want binary drivers , there is nothing stopping introducing virus , trojan’s , etc into your computer.
And by that logic, if I use a binary distribution or install binaries from repositories, I CAN GET VIRUS AND SPYWARE! So do I have install everything (as in LFS) from source?
dont need linux here , that are several open free operating systems
OK, I can’t counter that. Yeah, freedom of choice
i dont mean to be mis interpreted , i like ppl using linux and everything , and i help alot of ppl using linux. but making it so comercial will get it into trouble.
So for you, the investments and contributions of companies like IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Canonical and others are pointless because they are making Linux so commercial?
like a hollywood comercial movie … even based on the finest book story , it will always be crap. ( ok , weird analogy )
Harsh generalization
And by that logic, if I use a binary distribution or install binaries from repositories, I CAN GET VIRUS AND SPYWARE! So do I have install everything (as in LFS) from source?
well , yes and no.
no , because the binaries are signed and you can check the source of those binaries. so you have a binary , but you also have the source
yes , if the server has been compromised , and the binary you are getting does not represent the source of the program you are suposed to get.
please , tellme something …. can you read binary ? no one can … if noone knows what the piece of code does , how can you be sure that its not a virus ?
So for you, the investments and contributions of companies like IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Canonical and others are pointless because they are making Linux so commercial?
again , please , things arent always black and white.
depends on the contributions. if can be contributions with the intention of helping , or can be contributions with an agenda. see how in the current gnome area , the various companies are all pushing for their own agenda (mono ,java , c ) ( i can be wrong about this , please , if i am wrong , i just mentioned this to make a point )
of course , the contribution with the intent of helping is great and most welcomed
There are, however, still some things hindering linux’ adoption as a desktop OS.
Mainly that’s apps that don’t run under WINE – found it sort of funny that the open graphics project uses software which is mostly Windows only…
Don’t know if Lenovo is going to do it but I personally would like to see a custom compiled kernel.
Also keep in mind that hardware on laptops is seldomly upgraded so you would only have to support a very limited number of devices and could perhaps do without some of the tedious hardware probing that slows down the boot process…
Whilst I share the frustration of users who have a need for non-free drivers (I cannot get the RT61 module to play nice with WPA_ASSISTANT and I’m not alone) I also have the following thoughts:
The GPL has brought a number of projects pretty far. The Linux kernel is a prime example as are the many GPL programs it uses as part of a distro. IMHO, the Linux space is exciting at the moment partly (but not mostly) because of the GPL.
Disallowing binary modules prevents contamination and possible hijacking of kernel/userspace by companies fond of *cough* ‘Embrace and Extend’. I shudder to think what would happen if a AAA product just happened to make a binary kernel module a ‘de-facto’ standard. DRM anyone? At both the hardware and software levels?
FlexLM anyone?
Perhaps a stance on binary modules can be taken by vendors. I don’t know much about the LSB (and am happy to be corrected), but wonder if distribution of binary modules could be made to violate the LSB standard.
Vendors that have make driver code available under an acceptable license may wish to use the LSB logo, complete with Tux the Penguin and the phrase ‘It just works’ on the sticker. As well as distro’s, it goes on hardware like laptops, servers PDA’s wireless etc…
Microsoft and Intel like stickers, maybe Tux does to.
Can certain drivers be moved to userspace via an open, (but kernel agnostic) and Free API? Essentially sandboxed?
Similar topics need to be resolved with regards to current and next-generation DRM and/or Codec formats at some point. I can imagine Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and technologies like HDMI forcing the issue…
I love this. If I hadn’t just bought a laptop, I would buy one of these. Hell, if I had the money I would probably buy it anyway, just to help demand.