Distributors must solve setup and licensing issues for Linux to be a success on the desktop. For Linux to become a real competitor to Windows on the desktop, Linux distributors must refine their software installation and management systems. There are some loose ends that need to be tied up and some tricky legal knots to unravel, says eWeek.
Desktop Linux To-Do List
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
autopackage and LSB, nuff said…
most of that is talked about is allready being worked on and will start to show up in mainstream distros in a year or two at most i belive…
Richard Stallman gets it, Mr. Brooks doesn’t. Linux and GNU are about freedom (in both senses), not about licensing.
People tend to think that the US business world and its corporate patent/licensing regime are a permanent paradigm of computing. Well, open source and open standards aim to change that. That’s the whole friggin’ POINT of Linux, Mr. Brooks. If paying for WindowsMedia and Quicktime licenses gives you a fuzzy feeling, stick with Windows.
People will always be reverse-engineering these things and providing them for Linux users, for free. Vive la liberté!
Brooks says and implies some interesting and appropriate things:
1) The plethora of Linux packaging schemes means jumping the Windows ship involves not just a commitment to Linux, but to a particular brand of Linux. Why? Because you can’t be certain that software from Distribution A will be available, or install and run, on Distribution B. This is equivalent to having to put up with different ways to update Windows depending on the OEM who installed it on your machine. Clearly, it’s just as intolerable for Linux as it would be for Windows. Rather than engage in pointless geek-only debate about the “best” packaging scheme, the Linux community should pick one — just about any of ’em — and stick to it. (However, don’t forget that one-off packaging schemes also tie their users to that distribution, a point I’m sure has occured to those distribution makers.)
2) Distributions ship with literally thousands of programs, yet Brooks highlights “application scarcity” as a current Linux drawback. Why? Because they’re almost all the wrong applications. Pull out OpenOffice and Mozilla and you have free copies of traditional Unix stuff. Have you noticed that corporate desktop people don’t use Unix? Every trumped up geek-only argument about why people who wear ties to work won’t use emacs has been a complete waste of time.
3) Users don’t really think about licensing issues in the way that Brooks discusses. What they notice is that some piece of software isn’t there. Need Flash or Windows Media players to do your job? If so, you’re going to take a pass on Linux vendors who don’t include them. The corporate world can understand not wanting to spend the money to buy the licenses, but they’ll have little patience with folks who ship “deficient” distributions only to claim they’re standing on open source principles.
No one is going to place their business in a vulnerable position by buying reverse-engineered software od dubious legal status.
People tend to think that the US business world and its corporate patent/licensing regime are a permanent paradigm of computing. Well, open source and open standards aim to change that.
The US business word and corporate patent/licensing regime is all about greed. So if your’re saying that open source and open standards are going to do something that will make people less greedy, well …. good luck with that
I always find it funny to hear people talk about ‘open source zealotry’ and how the average customer dosn’t care about licensing problems and just wants it to work. To quote Havoc Pennington from his blog (about java, but apllies to the other packages):
“I think a lot of people feel that the open source world is being unreasonable in insisting on open source for all dependencies. Aside from the practical issue that we can’t relicense due to the sheer number of copyright holders, to me this is like saying a company is unreasonable for insisting on making a profit. It’s simply the premise of the GNOME organization that we’re building an open source desktop. That’s the whole point of the undertaking; otherwise we’d use Windows or Mac or BeOS. If you don’t stick to the premise of the organization, you don’t have a reason to exist; in this case we’d simply become what we’re trying to replace.”
Let me just point out that RH’s new desktop offering does ship with these problomatic packages.
Also, he dosn’t really sugest a solution. How does he expect Debian, Fedora, the free version of Mandrake to legally ship these packages? He dosn’t really say…
Try Debian or Gentoo, they have everything that is open.
As for the single package system that works on all system, and it has since the beginning of time as far as I am concerned:
./configure
make
make install
The beauty of open is all in the fact that you can make it run on anything! You don’t have to beg the vendor for special rights, you can just do it. And thinks to autoconf and make it’s reall easy.
Many say “well compiling is too much to ask for an average user.” The whole system, yes, but additional packages: no. All the user has to do is follow the instructions. This is how you learn to run your DVD player, this is how you figure out where to plug it into your tv. And this is how you know to run:
./configure
make
make install
As for flash, well flash isn’t even a good product anyway and they provide a pretty easy installer that Mozilla (libnullplugin.so actually) directs you to anyway.
To date the only player I have that can play almost any media file, including windows media and .mov is mplayer. Why? Because proprietary file formats suck.
Darius: Don’t be childish and naive. All businesses everywhere — not just in the U.S. — must make a profit. So do you, if you have a job. You trade something for money, just like a business. If people really did feel like giving everything away, we wouldn’t have spent the last 5000 years learning to make money. If you waiting for human nature to change, dream on.
Anonymous: If Gnome’s goal is to amke an open source desktop, then that’s obviously something rather different than making a desktop that anyone wants to use. To me, the most compelling evidence of the irrelevance of the open source philosophy to the world of business is the fact that they’re all still happily buying commercial software. If using open source was important to corporations, they’d have spent the last decade paying developers to code open source alternatives to proprietary code.
1. I have tried Debian and Gentoo. It’s nice that they’re “open”, but the corporate world buys capabilities, not “openness”.
2. configure/make/make install is no way to go when you need to push out new software to several hundred machines on three different corporate networks.
3. The ugliness of open source is that you have to make it work on your hardware, you just can’t buy it. What CEO would rationally hire a development team and pay their salaries, etc., for a few years while waiting for them to port something necessary to open source, if a proprietary alternative already exists?
4. Opinions about what is or isn’t a “good product” are irrelevant if you need that product to do your job. Are you proposing to tell someone who needs Flash to find a way to avoid using it because you think it “sucks”?
Ok, so configure/make/make install works to install the application. How about uninstalling it? Now its a different story. Or upgrading it, same thing. What if you deleted the source directory of the application to make room on the harddrive? So compiling isn’t the best option as an installer. Everyone needs to use autopackage or some other packge management system. Just pick on and use it. Tell LSB to pick one.
You may be right about the licensing scheme, but software patents is something even the open source community has to be cautious about. Just because a project is open-source does not grant it any legal immunities. That’s why alternative formats like Ogg Vorbis (vs MP3) and PNG (vs GIF) become popular for OSS platforms, to get around patent issues.
Your argument of “reverse engineering” software to make it available to other platforms [Linux] overlooks legal consequences. Look at the PlayFair project that reverse engineers Apple’s FairPlay DRM. Apple’s lawyers chase after the author, and will continue to do so no matter where he hosts his project. That was just a simple case, Apple simply asked that the website be taken down. What happens in the worst case scenario where lawsuits are filed? Where would these independent software developers come up with the money to pay for legal fees?
Adobe and Macromedia have had legal battles over patents but each has cash reserves for such things. Mr. Linux Programmer at home probably doesn’t, and companies would have to closely examine the open-source software they use before getting involved – what if SCO is right? Most likely not, but still… *what if*.
“Ok, so configure/make/make install works to install the application. How about uninstalling it?”
CheckInstall [http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/]
> tly
Well, reverse engineering is NOT illegal in every place on earth. Here, for example, it is specifically mentioned in the law that reverse engineering is allowed and legal.
> paul
You can ask anyone running a business if s/he cares about open source. The answer will be no. All they care about is a) does it work or not? and b) how much money will it save/make us?
> chris
You obviously have never had a real job. I get paid for typing ./configure && make && make install among other things, but I absolutely HATE to do it for installing software and your average person DOES NOT know not wo do it EVEN IF it’s written in simple 1-2-3, black and white, easy to follow instructions. That’s just the way it is and that’s the way it will be.
“not wo” –> “how to”
All these problems with Linux’s package mgmt problems have gone on for so long – i’ve followed it for at least 6 years. Before that i lived in Windows dll hell – equally as bad.
But today, I can create an exe for windows (made in delphi), send it to 400 users using XP, 2000, Win98, and it runs on them all. One file, saved to a folder, it runs. No one wants to worry about distributions, running make…
Maybe Mono will solve this, maybe this is what Miguel is really shooting for – write your app against a version of Mono, and it runs on any distribution. .NET has a nice versioning system built in, too (similar to Mac’s Bundles). No more hassle.
This all reminds of the Javascript mess, worrying about different code for different browsers, until you get fed up and say: i’m only targeting one version.
Linux must get this fixed up, or another OS system will take it place – maybe OpenBeOs is the real dark horse in this, if it gives app developers a static target.
You can ask anyone running a business if s/he cares about open source. The answer will be no. All they care about is a) does it work or not? and b) how much money will it save/make us?
I’m responsible for IT at a business that I own. We use windows. However, when it comes time for an upgrade, we will be considering linux for various applications. This is for two reasons. First, to save money. However, more importantly, we want a system that allows us to upgrade hardware and software according to our needs, and not according to Microsoft’s needs. In order to do that, we need to avoid vendor lock-in – ie, we need our systems to be open. That is a significant factor in terms of long term cost, and whether it “works” (in the sense that it works for our needs) or not. You would be surprised at how important “openness” is to businesses – not for religious reasons, but for bottom line reasons.
Matt
I think the primary concern is always whether it works for a company’s needs or not, with the ‘openess’ being secondary. Afterall, what goes does open source do you if it doesn’t do what you need it to do?
Project Utopia is key. Linux has to be able to strongly support hot-plugging of devices if the desktop is going to be viable. For example the iPod – supprt is there, but its so-so. Cameras, phones, music players, etc – anything that goes into a USB or firewire port needs strong support.
Yes there are many other issues but this is one that goes straight to the kernel developers and can be leveraged by any desktop.
“You may be right about the licensing scheme, but software patents is something even the open source community has to be cautious about.”
In the US, under the current regime, that is true. With software patents and 120-year copyright terms, there is very little freedom for the average programmer to do anything with total safety. If you’re worried about licenses, or you’re a business who “doesn’t care about open source”, then Linux probably isn’t for you. If you don’t mind corporations dictating what you can do with your computer, when you have to upgrade, and so on, then Windows is certainly good enough.
But I’m not American and I don’t care about patents and licenses. Nor do the Chinese, nor the Russians, nor people in third-world countries where Windows XP costs a year’s wages. There will always be people making Linux work with patented technology, and people who believe in free software – or can’t afford otherwise – will use it.
The fact that there is no single monolithic corporation to sue when Linux programmers create DVD players, or WindowsMedia decoders, is possibly one of its greatest strengths. It’s a social movement, not an enterprise.
Ok you win!
Serious now. Microsoft knows that “everyone but the USA” is *quickly* adopting Linux. I think it was Thailand that most recently got a really generous discount on Windows OS licenses.
And what’s so bad about “corporate dictators”? They’re no different from government dictators (in fact some of those countries you listed 😉 ), who WILL tell you what you can/can’t do with your property. Show me when has Microsoft ever stopped us from using alternatives. IE web browser? I can go install Mozilla etc. Don’t like WMP? iTunes, WinAMP, RealOne, heck even GTK+ ones will work now a days on Windows.
I’m a programmer professionally. Do I care about .Net or web services? No, I’m old school C++ programmer and I like writing native apps. But MS is forcing .Net down our throats. Does that ever stop me from coding they way I want to? No sir!
I don’t understand why people get so fired up about the “big bad corporate machine.” By the same token, that’s all the reason I need to justify why people prefer Linux or what have you alternative. It’s your money, your choice. More power to you. Just don’t shy away from something just because you think it’s too limiting. Granted there are still limits and it’s up to you to decide whether you’re comfortable with them. I just want to get the point across that the “limits” are NOT as restrictive as most people think.
Sorry for a second post.
Those “third world countries” who can’t afford Windows have been pirating it for who knows how long. It’s fact. MS just annouced that SP2 will be installable even on those pirated copies.
I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just being realistic. Therefore I have no sympathy when I hear “poor countries” can’t afford software. It’s heart aching to read it in the news, but go a little deeper and get the real story. They already have all the software they need and aren’t paying for it.
The few times that I can remember when a country turned down Windows is when they requested the source code and code access was denied to them. China, among some other Asian countries, asked for the Windows source code. When MS wouldn’t fork it over, they went with Linux because the code is already available.
I’m only saying all this because I do agree with some of your views. Except you seem to portray the USA and/or Microsoft as something else.
I think the primary concern is always whether it works for a company’s needs or not, with the ‘openess’ being secondary. Afterall, what goes does open source do you if it doesn’t do what you need it to do?
I think the freedom to make changes -which may be made public, or kept in-house- is an underestimated power. It is obvious you haven’t experienced that freedom as of yet.
they never insist on stuff being open source (if you dodge the zealots that is. but then any social or religus group have those, just look at sports). but it would make the software world a more level playing field if all software worked according to open standards and open filetypes as then they compete by price and performance, not by how many they can lock in theyre closed files and “standards”.
as for mono, well thats more like getting c# to work as a language under linux rather then getting the .net framework to work (alltho thats a side effect). the md5 sum signing and versioning of librarys could be implemented on top of any language if one wants to. i just wonder, will the signatures for the mono librarys match the .net ones? if not then one can risk haveing .net compiles binarys that dont work against mono libs and be back at square one…
the only real solution to dll hell and similar problems it for some way to version interfaces at both ends so that when a bianry passes a call to a dll it allso tells the dll what kind of version it expects and the dll can then ajust to that (effectivly creating fat dlls). the problem is that this cant be done with the current way compilers and computers work as you create more like a api rather then splitting the binary into parts as the current way acts.
in fact in the current way if the code it wants for some reason changes posision inside the dll it breaks all software that uses that dll, and to me that is strangely fragile stuff. if you compare dlls to stereos then every time a company release a new amp they use a new kind of jack that the users old cdplayers and other elements dont have (simply solved in the stereo world by shiping wireing that have old jack in one and and new in the other tho). dll versioning is like slapping a sticker on the cd players saying that they only work with this revision of that amp and covering theyre ass by haveing the buyer sign a contract saying that the seller is not at fault for this.
point is that there have to be a way to create stable interfaces on binarys somehow but i fear that will require a total rework on how computers do what they do…
Regarding Microsoft Windows Media Video and Apple Quicktime the author does have a point. However, he doesn’t provide a solution and his premise is inaccurate.
For one, WMV does work in Linux, native via MPlayer. I cannot speak for Xine, however i’d bet my stakes Xine support it as well.
Now, what MPlayer or Xine don’t support native is WMV + DRM. MPlayer does support it via hexedited DLL’s which might notbe legal. Also, Apple Quicktime and Windows Media Player run in WINE.
Another inaccuracy is that he forgets Real. Real is another player in this market, and while they might be losing, they’re still used. When they’re provided as choice besides either Quicktime or WMV, then the Linux user is all set since s/he can use Real legally using RealPlayer or HelixPlayer. The codec is still proprietary then though. Also, MPlayer supports using the codec so it can play such streams or files.
And also, “Quicktime” is partly supported (older versions) by at least MPlayer. Newer versions, like Sorenson (its real name), indeed aren’t.
Where the real problem lies isn’t patents. Patents are merely a tool. The problem is that the codecs are proprietary and either do not legally or do not natively run in a KISS tool.
This can be solved by using a cross platform codec instead. There is a progress: BBC developed a FLOSS MPEG codec able to stream. Another progress is the development, and currently beta, OGG Theora project. This project is part of Xiph.org Foundation. They’ve quite succesfully marketed OGG Vorbis as an alternative for MPEG 1 Layer 3 (MP3).
However the project still needs: development, fund, and marketing. That’s where the actual problem of a viable solution lies, unfortunately… *sob*
I think the freedom to make changes -which may be made public, or kept in-house- is an underestimated power. It is obvious you haven’t experienced that freedom as of yet.
Nah, when it comes to hacking program code in order to make something work that doesn’t, I’d rather just use something that already works if possible. Either that, or let somebody like you do all the coding and then just use it when you give it away for free. Ok, maybe you woudln’t *give* it away, but as soon as you sell it to somebody, then they can give it away and I can get it from them
>>…freedom to make changes -which may be made public, or kept in-house- is an underestimated power…
When I got paid to worry about this stuff, I always figured hiring one developer/SA/techie — what have you — would cost about $250,000 per year. Most of that was not salary. So, suppose I need 4 developers working fulltime to exploit the freedom of open source. That’s a cool $1 million per annum. I could buy a lot of proprietary code for that, and it would make better sense. No way I’d try explaining to my boss that she should spend a million, hire 4 guys, wait a year or so, and hope they deliver.
Most businesses use cars, but they don’t build and staff their own auto repair and maintenance facilities. It makes more sense to lease the cars and maintenance services. Ditto software. Software and IT are businesses expenses — repeat — expenses. It’s almost always much more expensive to develop or modify your own code than it is to just buy it.
Personally, I’m in favor of copyrighting software, not patenting it, but I’d still like someone to explain to me how patents stifle innovation. If you make something that someone else has already patented, you’ve done nothing new and innovative. What’s the big deal?
If you need to look at someone else’s work to get ideas, use open source. That’s what it’s for.
Meanwhile, where’s all the innovation coming from the countries that don’t respect patents and copyright? Oh, that’s right…there too busy stealing someone else’s work to need to have an orginal thought.
As some who runs an IT dept, I would love to see Linux or FreeBSD on the corporate desktop, (lowering my operating costs, as well as the other technical merits). However after an extensive review, we came up with a solution that nearly worked, and may have replaced the current model, except for:
1. Printing. We run Kyocera FS-1000’s (port9100) and Xerox DC235’s (LPR). We lost all but the bearest printing capabilities, (plus a nightmare to get working, but granted that may have been our lack of knowledge?) What’s the use of having a $$$ photocopier/printer if one cannot take advantage of the features. ie duplexing, multi-size page printing, desktop faxing, automatic booklet creation, water-marking, etc. Plus some cost to replace some legacy printers, (Win/GDI based laser printers).
2. General business applications. Our current MRP-II software is Win32 only, (refuses to work under Wine). Having some of the general staff try OO and KOffice, none felt they were at the same level as MS Office, and had some difficultly doing some of the more advanced actvities.
3. Specialised Software exists on nearly 25% of the desktops, and none would work 100% under Wine. (PLC controllers and monitoring software, lab equipment software, etc).
4. Ease of network administration, particularly with File Security. We choose the NIS/LDAP approach with NFS shares. Using the “normal” *nix security model had our heads turning inside out, trying to make it all work. (We solved the deploy application issue by having /usr mounted from a NFS share).
5. And finally Groupware. At the moment we use Exchange/Outlook, and couldn’t find a cost-effective solution as a replacement, esp since we use shared contact lists, shared calendars/folders/task lists. Also a good IM client that matches the capabilities of using Messenger 5 on Exchange, (app sharing, shared whiteboards).
Vendor lock-in is a cost issue. Yes, the software has to do what you want. That is a given. However, once you get over that hurdle, cost is the next question. Vendor lock-in is a cost that needs to be taken into the equation. Also the openness of the code is a benefit, in that you can modify the application as your business needs change, rather than being beholden to a third party’s road map. Going out and buying a new programme “that just works” every time your business processes change is buying into vendor lockin. It is this very thinking that may cost your company money that it could have saved if it had gone to an open solution in the first place.
Matt
The same could be said for any platform. Mac OS X can’t play Windows Media right after install, and Windows can’t play Quicktime right after install either. Heck a fresh install of XP won’t (at least i think) play Windows Media 9 encoded files since it ships with WMP 8. Windows doesn’t ship with Java working right after install, although I believe OS X does. Neither OS X, or XP ship with xvid, divx, real, or other codecs but nobody seems to have a problem there.
Vendor lock-in is a cost issue. Yes, the software has to do what you want. That is a given. However, once you get over that hurdle, cost is the next question. Vendor lock-in is a cost that needs to be taken into the equation.
I agree with you for the most part – for me personally, if there are two apps that both do what I want, I’ll take the cheapest one every time, and especially one that is open source.
However, one other question that I think is even more important than cost is, who exactly is writing the software? If the open source project has a team of dedicated developers, then I would go with that option. However, if it’s just one or two people coding the project, then if they ever get bored, will somebody else pick it up if they drop the project? On the other hand, if that were the case and the proprietary alternative was backed by a well-known company, then I would seriously have to consider my options there.
Also the openness of the code is a benefit, in that you can modify the application as your business needs change
Assuming you’ve got somebody in the company who knows how to program, and you’ve got the resources to dedicate to the project if it requires a team of programmers(which most companies probably don’t have both of the above)
rather than being beholden to a third party’s road map
On the other hand a vendor’s road map could be directly influenced by the feedback of it’s customers. Ya know, it isn’t highly unusual to get a feature added to an application for which you have paid for.
On the other hand a vendor’s road map could be directly influenced by the feedback of it’s customers. Ya know, it isn’t highly unusual to get a feature added to an application for which you have paid for.
It’s also not uncommon to pay maintenance fees to a developer for upgrades/improvements, and none of the upgrades/improvements you want are implemented, and the (to you) useless features of other customers are. Everything is horses for courses. All I’m saying is don’t undervalue the cost of vendor lock-in.
Matt
All I’m saying is don’t undervalue the cost of vendor lock-in.
What exactly is ‘vendor lock-in’ anyway? If I use Opera to browse the web or Eudora to Send/Receive email, am I ‘locked into’ these vendors?
Pretty much every proprietary app I use that deals with data has an export feature built in. Of course, having to re-do macros and such with some apps would be a royal pain in the ass, but would that really be any different if you wanted to switch from one open source app to another of the same kind?
I believe the only way that vendor lock-in could occur is if the following conditions are met:
a) There was no way to export your data
b) There was no open source alternative to do the same task
So as long as b is true, you’re pretty much screwed either way, aren’t you ?
But Chewy, I mean your department saved a ton of money by downloading all that stuff off the net for nothing! Free stuff rullz! And you have 7 or 8 choices of terminal manager interface and 6 different window managers to salve your wounds when you can’t f’in print or wine crashes, or OO is simply missing a feature you really really need right now.
I mean, the copy of OO that shipped with my copy of YDL had smart quotes but no f’in copy and paste! Who-hoo, glad to see that the Open Source World really knows what the user needs.
—
The fact that it cost $$$$ in IT staff time and lost IT Staff productivity for other on-going projects is something the Linuxlots fail to see.
Too many Linux apps are code by anybody with a keyboard and the time to dabble.
Business needs code by pros for pros.
—
And you have 7 or 8 choices of terminal manager interface and 6 different window managers to salve your wounds when you can’t f’in print or wine crashes, or OO is simply missing a feature you really really need right now.
Exactly! What matters if something works, and meet your needs. This is where most zealots lose the deal. I don’t care that it’s free, if it can’t do the job, then I can’t use nor support it. I don’t mind paying for software if it works, but in the ever-cost-cutting-world I have to look at alternatives to shave the $$$ off the total cost. But the whole 4 month exercise, for us proved that while it may be close, it’s still got a long way to go… (All the main points are there, but it’s the fine details that are missing).
PS. Our preferred solution was based on FreeBSD, using WindowMaker as the WM for X! WindowMaker was choosen, simply becuase it didn’t look or operate like Windows. Every user that saw it and played with it, understood immediately that it is NOT Windows, so it doesn’t play like Windows. We had very few problems from the User interface point of view. (For the most part, only 2-3 minutes on coaching on how it worked, and most users were fine with the change). If you make it look like Windows, then people are goin to expect the same as Windows which most *nix are not.
PPS. I know you were being sarcasitc, but very to the point
I appreciated the laugh.
Personally, I’m in favor of copyrighting software, not patenting it, but I’d still like someone to explain to me how patents stifle innovation.
Because:
a) In the current system they’re often (I’d go so far as to say mostly) granted for trivial, “obvious” things.
b) (In the current legal climate) They prevent inventors building on existing ideas, even their new inventions are significantly better.
If you make something that someone else has already patented, you’ve done nothing new and innovative. What’s the big deal?
The big deal is you may have done it without any knowledge of the other invention. It’s probably rather insulting being told that because someone else got to the patent office first, all your hard work is now worthless (or even worse, told that it must have been copied).
A significant flaw of the patent system is that it assumes only one person can invent a given thing.
If you need to look at someone else’s work to get ideas, use open source. That’s what it’s for.
Alas, some forms of Open Source then require that give away all the ideas such inspiration leads to.
Meanwhile, where’s all the innovation coming from the countries that don’t respect patents and copyright? Oh, that’s right…there too busy stealing someone else’s work to need to have an orginal thought.
Actually, most of them are too busy trying to feed themselves to have time to come up with anything now all those god-fearing copyright-driven countries have got them under the thumb. Inventing the next silicon chip is somewhat difficult when you’re having trouble finding something as simple as clean water.
I think the freedom to make changes -which may be made public, or kept in-house- is an underestimated power. It is obvious you haven’t experienced that freedom as of yet.
It’s well understood. What is also well understood – and appears to be extremely poorly understood outside of the OSS camp – is that the cost of doing so is rarely worth the benefits.
Linux will be getting very close to replacing Windows when all distributions can recognise Win Modems as easily as Xandros does. If they can do it, why cant Mandrake and Fedora?
While I’m mentioning Mandrake — why do they always leave PPP off the Internet menu. They provide a browser, e-mail clients, etc. etc. but don’t make it easy to connect to the bl**dy Internet. They have lost me as a futur user.
Xandros has set quite a high benchmark and others should follow their lead.
Regards,
Peter
>>……a) In the current system they’re often (I’d go so far as to say mostly) granted for trivial, “obvious” things.
Besides the fact that you’ve presented no evidence to support this assertion, why is something you consider “trivial” or “obvious” any less patentable than anything else?
>>…b) (In the current legal climate) They prevent inventors building on existing ideas, even their new inventions are significantly better.
Again, evidence? If someone has an idea to “improve” a patented product, try to sell the idea to the patent holder.
>>…The big deal is you may have done it without any knowledge of the other invention. It’s probably rather insulting being told that because someone else got to the patent office first, all your hard work is now worthless (or even worse, told that it must have been copied).
Sorry, you snooze, you lose. You can’t protect your rights to your invention unless you patent it.
>>…A significant flaw of the patent system is that it assumes only one person can invent a given thing.
Irrelevant. It assumes that the first person to apply for a patent will be considered before the second person to apply. The patent system is not intended to determine the historical truth about who invented what first.
>>…Actually, most of them are too busy trying to feed themselves to have time to come up with anything now all those god-fearing copyright-driven countries have got them under the thumb. Inventing the next silicon chip is somewhat difficult when you’re having trouble finding something as simple as clean water.
Excuse me while I weep for, say, all the starving people of Singapore and Malaysia and Hong Kong. the other countries might try exercsing better judgment about their leadershio choices, for starters.
enloop:
whats stopping you from finding the evidence yourself? you are talking about/defending patents and never even tried to analyse all the pros and cons? ill make it easy for you:
http://swpat.ffii.org/ (it will help you understand what drsmithy is talking about, too)
anyway, i think you made some valid points. i also agree that patents can be extremely useful. the question is, are they always useful? for every business? every industry?
its pretty obvious youre a “non-techie”
I agree that consistent, reliable hotplugging of modern USB2.0 and Firewire devices are KEY to making Linux an acceptable desktop solution for the masses. This has been one of my biggest headaches since switching and is one of the key reasons my Dad won’t move from Windows.
Peter sez: “While I’m mentioning Mandrake — why do they always leave PPP off the Internet menu. They provide a browser, e-mail clients, etc. etc. but don’t make it easy to connect to the bl**dy Internet. They have lost me as a futur user.
Xandros has set quite a high benchmark and others should follow their lead.”
<sarcasm>
But Peter you’re just too stupid and lazy to understand that all you need to do to get to the internet is go to the command line and type in apt-get ./make cthutlu-rm-xrw and if you don’t want to go to the command line (which is where *real* computing happens) well, you shouldn’t even be allowed to have a computer. And you shouldn’t want to use the win modem that came built into the computer. You should shell out and get a real modem.
Distros like Xandros, Lycoris, Linspire take all the fun out of computing, because they (mostly) work straight out of the box, and what’s the point of that?
</sarcasm>
Yesterday when the Systems guy came down to my workstation to scrub off the Sasser worm (somethign was wrong with my Microsoft Update), I grumbled something about wanting a Linux desktop.
“Oh please no — I don’t need the hassle” he replyed. And this is the guy who is ROOT on all the unix based servers in the server room. This is a guy who uses Linux at home and he wouldn’t dream of attempting to deploy it on our personal workstations.
“Oh please no — I don’t need the hassle” he replyed. And this is the guy who is ROOT on all the unix based servers in the server room. This is a guy who uses Linux at home and he wouldn’t dream of attempting to deploy it on our personal workstations.
thats exactly what i would say, if i was sure 15 minutes after i installed your linux workstation you would be calling me asking “why cant i run this .exe”.
I don’t feel an obligation to spend my time researchng ways to support an unsubstantiated assertion that I believe is wrong. That’s a task for the person who makes the assertion.
I’m not arguing that the implementation of patent law is always perfect. However, the principle that inventors have a right to legally protect their work seems quite sound to me. Does that mean that, on occasion, the person who, literally, was the first to create a device may not obtain the patent because he neglects to take the appropriate actions? Of course it does, but the blame should be placed on the negligence of the would-be patent seeker, not on the concept of patents itself.
The discussion of patents in the open source community seems to be strongly colored by the romantic notion of the solitary geek struggling through the night to devise something wholely new and wonderful, only to learn that some Behemoth Corporation patented the thing years ago. Combine that with the ever-present willingness of many open source advocates to confuse their opinions about “What Ought To Be” with “What Really Is” and you get grandiose arguments constructed on unexamined premises.
Most inventions and most patents have, for decades and decades, have come from large organizations, including those operated by folks like Edison and Charles Kettering. Linux itself owes its existence to Unix, which was created by now-famous employees of that rather large and patent-seeking Bell corporation. Without the ability to protects its work via patents, and copyrights, its unlikely Linus would have had anything to model his OS on…
Agreed I can’t wait for Autopackage, that will be a very good thing for Linux.
That sarcasm tag is quite funny, but it is true. That is the mentality of many, and it is a long standing attitude of many within the *nix community. It infuriates me to see that kind of speak when I am checking the forums. Kudos to the true disciples though, spreading the word in a helpful and positive light.
In my time in the army, (a shoutout to my fellow troops in Iraq, stay alive and come home!) I asked a few sysadmins about the possibility of linux on the desktop. They all said no way, not ready. This is coming from experienced unix administrators who use linux at home (I think I remember one of them actually mentioning something about one of the BSD’s too). That pushed me to want to learn more about it and try I tried it out. Quickly I figured out generally how much more difficult linux is to administer than windows. That is not much of a problem for me now, but I think about the noob who doesn’t have the time to edit this or that or hit the terminal, also “you should shell out and get a real modem,” is funny, but disconcerting, cause I see that kind of comment all the time.
As for my linux use, I have settled on Slackware and Xandros for my server needs, and Windows for my gaming, video encoding and my just about everything else needs, and I also enjoy my two hardware raid arrays under windows.
The object of every business is to make money and DIMINISH
the expenses to produce whatever they sell or services they
provide.
Why are they sniffing around Linux?
Because they are tired of the prosthatic examinations MS is giving them, for a product that is mediocre at best, and insecure. The huge amount of money they spend on this software is only part of the total expense, you got the viruses and plain malfeasance on the part of these “american all for profit” companies that knowing the problems these programs offer, refuse to fix them in a prompt matter.
*******************************************************
“Those “third world countries” who can’t afford Windows have been pirating it for who knows how long. It’s fact. MS just annouced that SP2 will be installable even on those pirated copies.
TLy: today, MS went back on their word.
I speculate that MS loves piracy, it trains the ‘unwashed masses’ on ms software, what else are they gonna use when they grow up? You got it! MS.
Listen tight: MS software is extremely expensive for a third world country, it is money better spent on health, education and infrastructure. Let’s not forget the spying done with Word, rembember the fiasco with the british government and the paper suposedly written by the MI5 or was it 6?, Anyways, it was written as term paper by a post-graduate student; no wonder, Germany got the hell outta Word. Do you know how much vaccine can be bought with that money. And finally, it is not a matter of choice, MS spends millions of dollar to “influence” the governments of these third world countries. Do yourself a favor and google for this situation in Perú, Brazil, and Africa.
Of course businesses are interested in reducing costs. You might reduce IT costs to zero by throwing it all out of the window and relying on mechanical calculators and typewriters. The linkage between open source and reduced costs is not always readily apparent. The “freedom” and “openness” of Linux and its friends does little, if anything, to reduce IT costs. The GPL notwithstanding, someone has to pay for IT staff and support. As I mentioned in another post, in a previous existence I was paid to worry about this stuff. Every techie we took on board cost us approximately $250,000 per year. Some of those techies supported out MS machines, and some supported our Linux machines. The Linux guys weren’t any cheaper than their MS brethern.
And what’s all this simple bigotry about “American all for profit” companies? I don’t see European/Asian/African/Latin American corporations turning themselves into charities. Open source zealots reveal their naivete when they attempt to use a software development model as a blueprint for world conquest.
And, come to think of it, the only reason Microsoft has to improve its product — including security fixes — is to sell more product. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.
“Of course businesses are interested in reducing costs. You might reduce IT costs to zero by throwing it all out of the window and relying on mechanical calculators and typewriters.”
Really? no email, back to white-out? No conferences? No spreadsheets? You fail to see the connection between thousands of dollars in software and zero from open-source distros.
“The linkage between open source and reduced costs is not always readily apparent. The “freedom” and “openness” of Linux and its friends does little, if anything, to reduce IT costs.”
No kidding? ~400-500 for xpoffice?
“The GPL notwithstanding, someone has to pay for IT staff and support.”
They are gonna get paid the same anyways if they have to support Windows. Maybe more, with the new viruses, not accounting for the time lost.
“As I mentioned in another post, in a previous existence I was paid to worry about this stuff. Every techie we took on board cost us approximately $250,000 per year. Some of those techies supported out MS machines, and some supported our Linux machines. The Linux guys weren’t any cheaper than their MS brethern.”
So by using Linux you are ahead:
1. Software is free
2. No viruses
3. No time down due to unscrupoulus software giants
“And what’s all this simple bigotry about “American all for profit” companies? I don’t see European/Asian/African/Latin American corporations turning themselves into charities.”
These corporations are branches of the American/European ones, are you that naive?
“Open source zealots reveal their naivete when they attempt to use a software development model as a blueprint for world conquest.”
The U.S. foreign policy has always been based on what is good for the U.S. multinationals (read MS), i.e. google for Arbenz in Guatemala, Sandino in Nicaragua, Allende in Chile. Does the name Anaconda Copper Mine, the CIA, the Church Senate Committee ring a bell? Of course not, you are an American. next, you are going to tell me we are in Irak to fight terrorism and not to grab the oil, right?
Who’s the naive one?
“And, come to think of it, the only reason Microsoft has to improve its product — including security fixes — is to sell more product.”
Which they should, from a business, and moral point of view, but they don’t! Which btw, goes to show you that commercial
software and its maintainance is lackadaisical at best, because it cost money, and God forbid, reducing the profits, and damn the consumer. capisci?
“If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.”
That’s the thing, you have to buy it. Did your laptop come with a clean disk? No? why not?
MS comes with the computer as a tax, and you HAVE to buy it, even if you’re never going to use it.
Who’s showing his naiveté?
It’s well understood. What is also well understood – and appears to be extremely poorly understood outside of the OSS camp – is that the cost of doing so is rarely worth the benefits.
Ack. Should be “inside”, of course.
Besides the fact that you’ve presented no evidence to support this assertion, […]
Nor should I need to. If you’ve even the slightest interest whatsoever in patents and patent issues (outside of trolling web forums), you’d already know of them.
Corporations, in particular, file thousands of patents for trivial and obvious inventions just so they have the option of suing anyone else who might challenge them.
However, if you insist on examples, pretty much any patent granted for software is going to be a bad patent.
[…] why is something you consider “trivial” or “obvious” any less patentable than anything else?
“Trivial” and “obvious” patents simply shouldn’t be awarded because they don’t *do* anything except restrict further innovation.
The patenting “system” already understands this – it says patents should not be awarded for inventions obvious to any practicer of the trade (whatever “the trade” may be for that particular invention) – it’s just that no-one bothers to *check* anymore.
I realise the underlying purpose of the patent system (much like copyright) – to benefit *society* by stimulating innovation – has been steamrolled by corporate profiteering in recent times, but that doesn’t change it.
Again, evidence? If someone has an idea to “improve” a patented product, try to sell the idea to the patent holder.
They shouldn’t need to. A new idea that is significantly different from an existing one should stand on its own, as it has in the past.
Sorry, you snooze, you lose. You can’t protect your rights to your invention unless you patent it.
Your thinking is unfair and flawed, however, my real question is this: why should someone who – independently – invents something lose their rights to leverage invention because someone else patented it first ?
>>…A significant flaw of the patent system is that it assumes only one person can invent a given thing.
Irrelevant.
It’s not irrelevant at all, it’s a significant flaw in the basic thinking behind deciding whether or not something is patentable.
It assumes that the first person to apply for a patent will be considered before the second person to apply.
No, it doesn’t. It assumes no one else could possibly independently develop something that is already patented.
The patent system is not intended to determine the historical truth about who invented what first.
Nor should it. It should, however, recognise that the same thing might be invented by different people with no knowledge of each other.
The patent system is supposed to protect inventions. Why should I be denied the possibility of profiting from my work because someone on the other side of the country came up with the same idea ?
However, the principle that inventors have a right to legally protect their work seems quite sound to me.
Who is arguing against that principle ?
Does that mean that, on occasion, the person who, literally, was the first to create a device may not obtain the patent because he neglects to take the appropriate actions? Of course it does, but the blame should be placed on the negligence of the would-be patent seeker, not on the concept of patents itself.
But it is the patent system that is at fault for not allowing *both* (or more) inventors to benefit from their work.
The discussion of patents in the open source community seems to be strongly colored by the romantic notion of the solitary geek struggling through the night to devise something wholely new and wonderful, only to learn that some Behemoth Corporation patented the thing years ago.
The discussion of patents in the open source community – and most of the software development community as well – is about software patents, which are pretty much inherently A Bad Thing.
I to enjoyed the <sarcasm> … </sarcasm>! and I don’t address the following comments at the author; in fact I am in agreement with him.
By the way have you seen the tee shirt with <BODY> on the front and </BODY> on the back – very funny.
I often wonder why people can’t accept that there are lots of folks with different needs. I am retired after many years working in IT and now look after several web sites ( http://www.u3abbay.org.au and http://www.u3answ.org.au ) and try to keep my mind active with some different programminf with languages such as Python and Scheme. I have never been ‘an operating system guy’ more ‘a business systems guy’ but I recognise that the world needs both. I don’t mind if you like to play with bits and bytes and use the command line; but just because I don’t does not make my use of the computer any less legitimate.
The Linux ‘geek’ was fun in the early days but perhaps needs to grow a little if this thing we all like is to progress.
Back to my original post — WinModems are a fact of life for many of us who are converting from Windows to Linux. My PC has two hard drives one with Windows XP the other with Xandros (or what ever flavour of Linux I am currently experimenting with). The intention is to eventually migrate to a Linux only PC. Use of a WinModem is handy for both environments and to save valuable desk space that an external modem takes up.
For me, other blocks to moving to Linux full time are the lack of an editor as good as TextPad ( http:/www.textpad.com ) or an outliner as good as Milenix MyInfo ( http://www.milenix.com ). One day the equivalents will be there and I will swap completely.
Regards,
Peter