[Warning, this one is probably not going to be trimmed (much, if at all).
It will be a longish read.]
Roy Schestowitz wrote in <15989404.gbpvIx4v1o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Wed, June
7 2006 12:12:
>
> __/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Wednesday 07 June 2006 16:46 \__
>
>> Justin wrote in <1149651674.505537.107270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> on Tue, June 6 2006 23:41:
>>>
>>> In order to achieve the goal that we all of us have in mind ,ie Linux
>>> becoming a mainstream O.S - used by a majority of users , i think it
>>> should have a very powerful edge over its competitor.
>>
>> That is an interesting way to state the "goal" that you assume all of us
>> have in mind. Linux _is_ mainstream, today: You can say the word Linux
>> and most people will know that you're referring to something that they
>> haven't used yet. :) Mainstream does not necessarily mean that it has
>> the
>> majority or plurality of the mindshare out there. The fact that Linux is
>> getting more coverage in magazines geared to the teenagers that provide
>> technical support for their families means that that there are more
>> people that are using it -- and liking it -- then you probably think
>> there are.
>>
>> Also, you seem to be missing that Linux already has a very powerful edge
>> over its "competitors" -- it is completely open. Since the source code
>> is available, anybody that has the desire to learn its programming
>> interfaces,
>> can. Not to mention that many of the applications that are used on a
>> Linux
>> system are also free, open-source software. This is a significant "edge"
>> over competition. However, users in general do not yet understand the
>> benefits of open source software.
>
> Part of this should be attributed to the flawed contention that popularity
> implies divinity. To those who have always dealt with exectable files, the
> 'other' option seems rather non-existent, let alone the possibility of
> tinkering (or 'hacking'). With complacency comes acceptance. With
> diversity comes better understanding, choice, and freedom (or Freedom if
> you like).
>
Yes, I would have to say that I agree with that. Freedom is something that
one must always work for, sometimes to the point of having to fight
violently for it. In my personal opinion, freedom is nearly always worth
the cost, depending on what it is that you are achieving freedom _over_.
We have the right to free speech, for example. The right to freedom of
religion. These are rights that people *died* to give us. We also have
the right to choose what software we are going to run on our systems. We
do not have anything compelling us to use Linux, FreeBSD, Microsoft, Be, or
any of the other alternatives that are available through any number of
different channels. Unfortunately, people do not often even realize that
they have a choice, due to lack of understanding, and lack of experience
with regard to diversity.
All of that having been said, when people are properly educated, they are
more likely to make different choices then before they were properly
educated. Clearly, to me, that indicates that at least part of the problem
can be attributed to lack of education, which is not bad in and of itself;
you cannot seek education on something that you do not know to seek it for.
However, that is a problem on a larger scale, IMO.
>
>> If Linux needs anything else in the way of an edge, it needs people who
>> are willing to be educators for the system, people who are willing to
>> distribute it, people who are willing to show people what it really is.
>> The problem that stands in the way of wide-spread adoption (at least, in
>> the US) is two-fold: People have crazy misconceptions about the system,
>> and interoperability is something very close to -- but not quite -- 100%.
>> Also, DRM technologies need to be developed for Linux that allow people
>> to buy online music, because that is the way the law is structured here
>> with
>> regard to music. It is very easy for users to buy CDs and back them up
>> by ripping them to music collections, however, it is not so easy for
>> users to, say, use iMesh and download tracks that they want to hear
>> without buying the whole CD.
>
> It is rather intersting to me that you too were drawn to the DRM
> conundrum. I seem to associate it with just about any joining of hardware
> and some mysterious binaries.
>
I do not believe that DRM is, itself, inherently evil. I can understand
that there are people that do not want their content ripped off, and I
think that it is their right to protect it, should they choose to do so. I
also think, though, that the same parties need to be educated on the
far-reaching effects of not using an open DRM strategy. What if a DRM
system existed that was open, effective, and cross-platform? Would people
be so against it, then? If so, why? Because they have to pay 99 cents for
a track so that they have the rights to work with it, use it on their media
player, and burn it to disc?
I think that this is one of those things that, had the world been a little
different when it was introduced, would be quite a bit different. On a
large scale, people do not seem to perceive cross-platform solutions to be
necessary, and this still confuses me.
Microsoft, for example, refused to allow Linspire to license Microsoft DRM
technology to be implemented on Linux. Why? What is the motive for their
doing that? Are they afraid that if they let Linux systems compete with
their own, that they will lose out in their stronghold of the end user
market? I have to wonder about the motives that they have for refusing to
license the ability to play DRM'd media on other systems. It would seem
that this is just another anti-competition tactic, that they are employing
to prevent Linux from gaining any sort of area on them because of music or
video purchases.
So far, all the services that are out there for end users _are_ Windows
only. I have not had a chance to test any of them under Wine, save for
iMesh, and I could not get iMesh to run at all, let alone get to a point of
playing music with it. DRM is not something that I necessarily _like_,
mind you -- but I can understand the perceived need for it, and am even
willing to put up with it, if that means that I can listen to my favorite
songs without buying a full CD of songs that I don't like -- and legally.
Unless the bands and singers that comprise the music industry decide to
band together and tell the rest of the world where to shove DRM, though, it
isn't going to happen. And only a very small handful of artists are
willing to do that; and that is not enough to get the big bad bullies to
shove it.
>
>>> But there seems to be major differences in the industry, which left me
>>> really disilussioned and which i thought i will share with you all.
>>> Linux and and a lot of other programmer from around the world would
>>> like to incorporate device drivers from the Nvidia and Ati Radeon
>>> graphic card companies(Only then linux will be able to give equal or
>>> better visual experience compared to the AERO user interface of VISTA)
>>> in the coming version of Kernel.
>>
>> There was just a rather large thread on the kernel mailing list about
>> putting graphics primitives and the like into the kernel. I, for one, do
>> not agree with such a proposal. The kernel should be an interface to the
>> hardware. The 3D performance on nVidia is quite nice -- I can speak to
>> that because I had a computer with such a card in it -- and the 3D
>> performance for the Intel video in my laptop is quite nice, as well.
>> There
>> is no need for graphics primitives and drivers in the kernel itself.
>> What there *is* a need for, though, is more well-written drivers that can
>> take advantage of other cards that have 3D hardware acceleration
>> capabilities.
>
> 3D in the kernel?!?! Never. Any sane person would have shunned this
> proposal before it was even uttered in its entirety. As Tanenbaum recently
> stressed, the kernel needs to be compartmentalised rather than monolithic.
> If you shove anything into the kernel level, you make it more susceptible
> to breakage than it already is. Testing is slowed, security is
> jeopardised, and bloat is foreseen. Why, for instance, should a Web server
> with the Linux kernel need to spend resources or volume on 3-D support?
>
Absolutely agreed. There are other advantages to not having the graphics
primitives and other graphics support systems within the kernel. If
graphics primitives and drivers were permitted to run directly in the
kernel, then every time the display driver crashed, it would take the rest
of the system with it. Windows is structured in such a fashion that if the
hardware drivers providing video misbehave, the entire system must pay the
price. That is an unacceptable risk to have in any system, in my opinion.
In addition, the solutions that are available for Linux work _quite_ well.
I have not had any problems whatsoever with 3D acceleration, for example,
on my laptop.
The thing that surprised me the most was that the thread on the LKML lasted
as long as it did. I noted at least fifty messages on the topic, shortly
before I unsubscribed from the list. The thread was still active when I
unsubscribed, however, so I have no clue *how* many more message that went
on for. Quite insane to even contemplate it, however.
>
>> X11 is quite a stable platform, and the interfaces that run on top of it
>> are
>> very usable today. The only lagging issue is 3D support for a lot of
>> chipsets -- and, funny that, it is also a problem with low-end hardware
>> in Windows systems.
>>
>>>
>>> But since these device drivers are NOT open source , and its very
>>> unlike that they go open source in the near future , GNU foundation and
>>> a lot of other programmers have opposed this move. This is a very
>>> saddening fact , because as I understood this was a clear case of
>>> idealogical clash. The GNU group wants kernel to remain completely open
>>> source with not even a single bit of closed source code(If i may say
>>> so)
>>
>> You are right: The nVidia and ATI drivers that have the "good" support
>> for
>> 3D acceleration are not open source. However, the system that they run
>> on
>> top of, is. At least for me, that is quite fine. Would I use an open
>> source driver if it were available? In the case of nVidia graphics
>> cards, the answer is "no," since there is one available, but the graphics
>> performance on the proprietary driver is a lot better. So what if the
>> hardware driver is closed-source? That might make it a bit harder to
>> debug, sure. However, it works (mostly) and that is fine.
>
> If Linux was ever to be embraced as the platform of choice (the one and
> only) for gaming and environmental design, something's gotta give. The
> industry would have to lean over or new brands emerge, as I opined in the
> previous message in this thread. I hope it makes a little sense...
>
I think that as long as Linux provides a middle ground, it will be good. I
only really make use of open-source software applications, however, I have
had to use closed drivers every now and again. I do not have any running
on this particular computer, but I (did) have a computer with an nVidia
graphics card where I was using their proprietary driver, and another
machine that was using a driver using ndiswrapper for a WiFi card. I do
not have a hard time with closed-source hardware drivers, per sÃ. I _do_
have a hard time accepting closed source general purpose software, however.
There is a substantial difference.
That having been said, I think that it _would_ be nice if all manufacturer's
opened the specs to the hardware that they create. However, is it
realistic to expect all of them to do so? Not at this time, I am afraid.
I do not think that they will see the benefit to it until they realize that
they are losing business to people that have open specs. The question is,
are vendors going to make that realization before they die?
>
>> It is kind of like debating religion: You have people that are
>> fundamentalists on both sides of the debate, and then you have the people
>> that are somewhere in the middle, considering arguments on a case-by-case
>> basis, and coming to conclusions that way. Personally, I think that
>> people
>> should be looking at using open-source on a case-by-case basis. Now, if
>> there comes a time where, say, an open source nVidia driver comes into
>> play that has support for the hardware that rivals what the closed-source
>> driver
>> does, then it would be worthy of consideration. However, that is not the
>> case at this time.
>>
>> Of course people are going to oppose closed-source software solutions for
>> things. However, I think that if the driver is there, and you are
>> allowed to use it (which, in the case of nVidia, you are), then what is
>> the
>> problem? Sure, you cannot tinker with it, and sure, I would be in favor
>> of nVidia opening the source code for their driver, but if they do not
>> want to
>> do that, it *is* their prerogative. After all, *they* wrote that code.
>> Don't like it? Then write one of your own!
>>
>> Also, there is one additional flaw to your argument: The GNU people do
>> not
>> control the Linux kernel. The GNU people have their own kernel that is
>> part of the GNU system, called the Hurd. It is, last I checked, not
>> functional. Even if it were to become functional, I do not see it
>> becoming
>> a major player: Everybody that is running GNU userland software, for the
>> most part, is using the Linux kernel (with some exceptions). The GNU
>> group probably would not be tolerant of closed-source binary drivers for
>> their
>> system, and that is *their* prerogative. However, if it were not for
>> fanatics such as the FSF, we wouldn't have the happy medium that Linux
>> provides for, today. If you were to ask me, I would tell you that the
>> happy medium is what is required to make the world go 'round, but that is
>> just my own personal 2Â.
>
> The FSF are, in my opinion, no fanatics and they rarely exaggerate either.
> If you allow vendors to throw some binaries at your direction, you are
> asking for more of the same. If you decline, you give them a run for their
> money (or source code). It's bad enough that some companies (even Google)
> are already throwing proprietary binaries at your direction, often gaining
> popularity at the expense of openness. That, of course, is just my
> personal opinion.
>
I think that they are, from a perspective of looking at a wider spectrum of
things. Imagine that you have the Free Software Foundation at one end, and
Microsoft at the other end. You have a large number of people that are
somewhere in between. Microsoft is a business that is centered around
the "old" way of doing things; selling licenses for software, keeping
secrets, and so forth. The Free Software Foundation, on the other hand,
are a bunch of liberals who advocate a new way of life, software freedom,
the right to distribute, and more. They abhorrently refuse to see anything
binary, and are a driving force in free software. This is quite
respectable; do not misunderstand me on that. However, it _is_ fanatical,
in that it is on one "side" of the spectrum; it is extremely liberal.
Without the FSF, however, we would not have freely available software
today. Should we continue to write free software to replace proprietary
software? Hell, yes! Absolutely! However, refusing to use proprietary
software when it is the only (or best) solution for a problem, _is_ a bit
fanatical.
(Of course, you can always continue to use the best software until you write
a new best software, or hire programmers to do that, and gain freedom, but
again; freedom is something you have to work for, it is not instant, and it
is never easy, no matter its context.)
>
>>> So what is your opinion , When VISTA finally arrives dont you think in
>>> order to give a tought fight for its stuff dont we need to do the best
>>> we can ensure that Linux becomes the global leader in O.S . Share your
>>> thought here
>>>
>>
>> Vista will come, and it will do whatever it is going to do for those
>> people
>> who make the choice to adopt it. It would _never_ be a good thing for
>> only
>> one system to be the system that everybody is running: That would stifle
>> any type of innovation. However, I do see a time coming where Microsoft
>> is going to be running a plurality or so, but not necessarily the
>> majority of
>> machines. It may even be in the next five years, but I would say that it
>> would be more likely to be in the next fifteen. Microsoft cannot stay on
>> top forever, and lately, they have been making massive blunders that have
>> made even their most faithful people start looking at alternatives.
>
>
> This seems evident. I don't want to turn this into a Microsoft-bashing
> paragraph (admittedly, I have this tendency).
>
Microsoft is... well, Microsoft. I cannot really give a short thing that
describes them well. I think that they will still be around in fifty
years, though not in the same state as they are now. I think that in fifty
years, a great deal will change with regards to software and how things are
working with computers and people. Only time will tell how much that will
be... but I do believe that the openness and freedom will make things move
faster over time, and that things will begin to progress beyond what
anybody would imagine.
>
>> We do not need to ensure that Linux becomes a "global leader." The
>> software
>> is well on its way to going there. What is missing? The people who have
>> the drive to help those see that the software is a realistic choice for
>> them already -- and will be for years to come.
>
>
> Some of the best advocacy campains are demonstration of practical success,
> using live personal case studies. Just as they say "the best revenge is
> living well", the best way to persuade people to upgrade to Linux is to
> show them the positive impact on Linux on people's lives.
>
Agreed. That is one of the supplemental uses of my laptop. Hopefully, as I
have more time, I can do my school work and other things out and about,
like in coffee shops and the like. It looks marginally different then
Windows, save for the software that I am using. I carry Kubuntu CDs with
me, as well, and if somebody asks me about what I am using, I'll show it to
them and hand them a disc. Of course, I offer to work with people to show
them how to install the system, and start to use it, and migrate things
over. I have only had one person revert back to Windows after trying
Linux. I think that is a pretty good track record so far. :-)
In any case, I think that real-world applications of Linux, and education,
are going to be what is going to help Linux progress, and help people to
realize that biggest and most expensive is certainly _not_ indicative of
best. Contrary to many things that people in general think, cost is
_never_ a factor when deciding on the quality of something. Demonstrable
value, is; and at least in the case of systems like my Kubuntu system, the
amount of value that I get out of this system far exceeds any value I could
milk out of the Windows system, even before factoring in things like
monetary costs.
Something else that happened that made me very happy: I had a problem with
KMail, was able to figure out that it was a bug, and went off to report it
to the KDE developers. Wouldn't you know, it was fixed within 24 hours,
and I was able to test the fix right away? I don't expect that many users
are going to be able to take advantage of something like that... however,
it is good to have systems like that. I have reported problems to
Microsoft, and I have not received _any_ response from them. Especially
with regard to issues of security, this is an excellent thing to be able to
have done. Distributions can then distribute fixes to users and the like
as bugs are fixed, and that is quite easy to do. Just an aside to show the
benefits of open source software -- bug lifetimes are much shorter upon
discovery, depending on the project. KDE has a very active development
team.
- Mike
--
Registered Linux User #417338, machine #325045.
A coin. Good. I will replicate one immediately. -- Data
|
|
