Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Alan, On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:20:53 +, alan c wrote: Tony Arnold wrote: Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! No I am not, for myself anyway. I purchased a retail box of suse 9.1 for example a while ago. And there is the oracle move against Red Hat, not to mention novell apparently going a step too far with its MS patents deal. (I am winding down my use of suse already). If you can see a clear business model that would provide say, a small software business, success, if it only used open source (say GPL) I would be interested to know the thoughts. I'm no business person, but I've always assumed money could be made through offering services around open source products. But may the economics just don't work. Maybe it requires a company of a certain size for it to work. How does Canonical make its money? Regards, Tony. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
On 17/11/06, Caroline Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free (as in software) means freedom, not money. This is why some people (myself included) prefer the terms Open Source or Software Libre. I think in English when people hear the term free they always think of money first. Sorry to be pedantic, but Open Source is not the same as Free/Libre. This isn't meant as a put-down or a dig, just a clarification. The emphasis is slightly different. Open Source doesn't (always) have the freedom aspect, at least not all four freedoms from the GPL (paraphrased here): - freedom to run - freedom to study - freedom to redistribute - freedom to change and release Software Libre or FLOSS seem to be the best terms to use. You can still be asked to pay for Free (as in speech) software, it's just that the free market will set the maximum price that the vendor can charge. If they set it too high, you're free to set yourself up in competition and undercut them. I think the only restriction in the GPL on charging is that users can't be penalised financially when requesting the source code, which normally means that one price provides both binary and source... I'm not a lawyer, so take all I've said with a pinch of salt and don't rely on it without doing your own research. Hwyl, Neil. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
: On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 12:47 +, Norman Silverstone wrote: Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! I find this very confusing. If I buy an application to run in Ubuntu what sort of freedom is represented? Norman Free (as in software) means freedom, not money. snip If you don't have the source then the program isn't free - the Ubuntu operating system remains free of course and the source can be downloaded easily. When I first changed to Linux I thought that I would be able to do all that I wanted to do on my PC without having to pay money for software. However, I soon came to realise that this was not the case. It was a wonderful experience to have an operating system which was regularly updated and which allowed me to use my broadband connection without the worry of viruses etc. So, if some enterprising person or organisation was prepared to develop and sell an application which ran successfully on a Linux PC, it is not unreasonable to have to pay for it. I think that the more people are prepared to accept that Ubuntu as an operating system is well worth having, even if it is necessary to buy some software, the greater would be the uptake of this free operating system. Norman -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Tony Arnold wrote: Alan, On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:20:53 +, alan c wrote: Tony Arnold wrote: Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! No I am not, for myself anyway. I purchased a retail box of suse 9.1 for example a while ago. And there is the oracle move against Red Hat, not to mention novell apparently going a step too far with its MS patents deal. (I am winding down my use of suse already). If you can see a clear business model that would provide say, a small software business, success, if it only used open source (say GPL) I would be interested to know the thoughts. I'm no business person, but I've always assumed money could be made through offering services around open source products. But may the economics just don't work. Maybe it requires a company of a certain size for it to work. How does Canonical make its money? afaik canonical is not currently making a profit, it plans to at some date in future though. The Foundation (Ubuntu family) was set up by grace of MS (mark shuttleworth) (10M$?) The canonical plan I think is as you say, support, and I think that is quite realistic. However, if I imagine a world where not a single software programmer has a paid job, it is hard to see quite how some of the less interesting tasks will get sorted. I think I heard that open office benefited significantly from sun and ibm throwing money at it. It is now a worthy program. I guess one of the motives ibm and sun had was to deplete the revenue stream heading to m$ - a lot is made from office sales. In a world *without* m$ (unlikely I think) ibm and sun would have a different (business) motivational landscape. The software and related business ecosystem is dynamic. Without a greedy ripoff, and poor quality, environment, the free software movement may not have had as much energy. Microsoft could probably afford to give away windows free, and still survive in half of its market share. I think a recent academic research suggested something similar. -- alan cocks Linux registered user #360648 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Norman Silverstone wrote: : On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 12:47 +, Norman Silverstone wrote: Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! I find this very confusing. If I buy an application to run in Ubuntu what sort of freedom is represented? Norman Free (as in software) means freedom, not money. snip If you don't have the source then the program isn't free - the Ubuntu operating system remains free of course and the source can be downloaded easily. When I first changed to Linux I thought that I would be able to do all that I wanted to do on my PC without having to pay money for software. I find I can do this - so far anyway, even though I would not have great objection to payment (although my income happens to be small now). I moved to linux because of poor quality commercial software which to add insult to injury, had me in a stranglehold! However, I soon came to realise that this was not the case. could you explain more please? It was a wonderful experience to have an operating system which was regularly updated and which allowed me to use my broadband connection without the worry of viruses etc. So, if some enterprising person or organisation was prepared to develop and sell an application which ran successfully on a Linux PC, it is not unreasonable to have to pay for it. I am with you there, but it is the lock-in which I would see as a warning sign. Businesses do not often intend to become a monopoly, but if it happens, how can they refuse? I think that the more people are prepared to accept that Ubuntu as an operating system is well worth having, even if it is necessary to buy some software, the greater would be the uptake of this free operating system. Ubuntu with its energy and ethics - and Mark S's money - is a rare opportunity to focus the thinking of all semi-satisfied windrones onto - a real non techie alternative, with a developing, newbie friendly, community support network. The normal 'Retail' and advertising environment we have causes people to reject any alien non retail item - plenty of reasons for distrust. Ubuntu is being 'marketed' in pseudo retail fashion. The Shipit CD packs are attractive, and Ubuntu shows signs of becoming a de facto 'Brand'. And I am doing my best to help it along too. -- alan cocks Linux registered user #360648 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
snip When I first changed to Linux I thought that I would be able to do all that I wanted to do on my PC without having to pay money for software. I find I can do this - so far anyway, even though I would not have great objection to payment (although my income happens to be small now). I moved to linux because of poor quality commercial software which to add insult to injury, had me in a stranglehold! However, I soon came to realise that this was not the case. could you explain more please? I have no knowledge of Linux and the command line and, therefore, I am not able readily to modify existing Linux software. For example, I was not able to print successfully using a colour printer. So I bought Turboprint, problem solved. I want to get involved with stacking frames from video files taken using a telescope. There is an excellent piece of software available free, which will only work on windows but there is a piece of software called Astrostack which will work on both windows and Linux and has to be bought. There was Bridge Baron, a piece of windows software, which I was not able to run using Wine. However, it runs well under Crossover which I bought. I hope that helps. snip The normal 'Retail' and advertising environment we have causes people to reject any alien non retail item - plenty of reasons for distrust. Ubuntu is being 'marketed' in pseudo retail fashion. The Shipit CD packs are attractive, and Ubuntu shows signs of becoming a de facto 'Brand'. And I am doing my best to help it along too. Also, anything free is viewed with suspicion. Norman -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
The emphasis is slightly different. Open Source doesn't (always) have the freedom aspect, at least not all four freedoms from the GPL (paraphrased here): - freedom to run - freedom to study - freedom to redistribute - freedom to change and release For anyone wondering about this kind of thing it is really worth checking out the Free Software Foundation's website where they have a philosophy section explaining all about Free Software/Open Source software. It's quite an interesting read. http://www.fsf.org Jon -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Norman Silverstone wrote: snip When I first changed to Linux I thought that I would be able to do all that I wanted to do on my PC without having to pay money for software. I find I can do this - so far anyway, even though I would not have great objection to payment (although my income happens to be small now). I moved to linux because of poor quality commercial software which to add insult to injury, had me in a stranglehold! However, I soon came to realise that this was not the case. could you explain more please? I have no knowledge of Linux and the command line and, therefore, I am not able readily to modify existing Linux software. For example, I was not able to print successfully using a colour printer. So I bought Turboprint, problem solved. I want to get involved with stacking frames from video files taken using a telescope. There is an excellent piece of software available free, which will only work on windows but there is a piece of software called Astrostack which will work on both windows and Linux and has to be bought. There was Bridge Baron, a piece of windows software, which I was not able to run using Wine. However, it runs well under Crossover which I bought. I hope that helps. Yes, thanks Norman, understood. That is exactly what I would be doing if the need arises. -- alan cocks Linux registered user #360648 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 06:39:35PM +, David Morley wrote: On 15/11/06, Rob Beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, I was wondering if I could get peoples general opinion on free vs non-free drivers etc. I have a pragmatic view. In a utopian world all software would be free and we could all be safe in the knowledge that we could do what we like with the software. This isn't the case though, and not just for computers. There's proprietary software all around you - in the Cisco IP phone on my desk at work, in the printer, the photocopier, my mobile phone, the PDA I use, the ECM in my car and so on. If I was beating the big everything must be free drum then surely I would object to using ALL of those devices on the grounds that they contain non-free code? I therefore see it as somewhat unpractical in the real world right now to expect people to use totally free software everywhere, all the time, in all situations. Don't get me wrong though, I'd *like* that to be the case, but as I say, I am pragmatic, that's not the state right now, so we live with it and try to change as best we can. An example that springs to mind is the whole screencasing thing. I have been using QEMU (and I know some people use VMWARE - non-free) with the non-free kqemu kernel accelerator module, to provide a platform to record my videos. However I recently heard about a product called kvm which enables qemu to use the hardware virtualisation techniques in modern CPUs to accelerate the emulation.. [plug]http://popey.com/Compiling_kvm_Under_Ubuntu_Edgy_i386[/plug] Does it make me a bad person to use kqemu (the non-free accelerator)? Possibly in the eyes of some die-hard GNU/Linux everything must be free zealots. In my mind, no, but I'll tell you I feel a hell of a lot better now I'm using kvm (the free thing) instead of kqemu! I have two views on this number one I play games on my machine so I want 3d, which is only available via non-free drivers. Further to which you probably also run non-free games! So the whole non-free drivers are evil *because* they're non-free point is somewhat moot when you have a 3GB game which is entirely non-free. Flash is software not hardware and so yes it is bad. They own all the rights to it and could therefore open source it and make the world a better place plus 64 bit versions would suddenly appear. This is why projects such as gnash http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ and the like are important. I am in the same boat as you I believe that Ubuntu has the right idea include as little proprietary stuff as possible but enough that hardware words properly. This is one of the reasons why I am happy that Feisty may well include binary nvidia/ati graphics drivers. Why I hear you shout? No one complains about the fact that wireless works out of the box but most of those drivers are binary (non-free) so what difference does it make if they include binary graphics too. Are the wireless drivers really included or is it just the firmware? If so I'm not sure that you can directly compare the firmware for a wireless card with the big unknown binary blob inserted into the kernel by the nvidia driver. Is the binary wireless firmware a vector for taking over a machine in the same way the Nvidia binary blob has shown to be vulnerable? I am aware there have been vulnerabilities in windows wireless *drivers* that may have been used under madwifi and/or ndiswrapper, but I don't know if the firmware is vulnerable or not. There are very few Distros out there that are completely devoid of non-free packages but if flame wars continue the way they are you will lose users from a lack of understanding. Lets keep the users and educate them to understand the correct view point so when free (as in speech) hardware becomes available it is purchased over the non-free versions. correct view point. That's a contradiction in terms. Your view point is correct from where you are standing, it might be wrong from Devon :) We can but give them the information. It's up to them to do what they will with it. Software that isn't open is bad the same can not be said for hardware. That is purely your opinion. Nothing wrong with it, I may or may not hold the same opinion, I don't plan to argue with you on that point. I'll just say voting machines and leave it at that. We may all wish it was open but until that day comes you will need to use something in order to get an image on the screen or wireless to work. Let's no flail the new comers for not knowing any better and instead educate them so the end result is right. Hear hear. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 06:17:45PM +, Rob Beard wrote: I just wondered what others thought. How I see it, we're in a perfect position to be talking up and demonstrating Linux as an alternative to users moving over to Vista and potentially dumping a perfectly good computer. I am getting to the point where I am possibly going to set up my own mailing list for Devon to promote Open Source software as I just don't think that the local LUG I am a member of is interested in anything other than /. style flame wars. I wonder if the whole thing has anything to do with the fact that Devon and Cornwall LUG actually call themselves a GLUG - GNU/Linux User Group as opposed to a plain LUG like most of the rest of the UKs LUGs. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it's an indicator of the attitude/character of the list. Cheers, Al. -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Rob Beard wrote: Hi folks, I was wondering if I could get peoples general opinion on free vs non-free drivers etc. I have just attended a BCS talk/discussion on Open vs Closed: http://berkshire.bcs.org.uk/ == Title: The ‘Open versus Closed’ Debate 14th November 2006 Synopsis: The talk will cover the open versus closed source software debate, plus disclosure of vulnerabilities in security, copyright versus creative commons-style licensing and patents in standards. Is Open Source software more secure than closed source? Is it better to have digital content controlled by DRM mechanisms or in an open digital format? Are proprietary data standards or open standards better for the computer industry? Are open communications channels a benefit to the free flow of ideas or simply a channel for spam? Does anonymous access to send and receive information promote freedom of speech or encourage the dissemination of illicit material? Many of the controversial issues about how to design and use computers and communications systems today can be characterised as an open vs. closed debate. Dr Andrew Adams of the School of Systems Engineering at The University of Reading. == IIRC the speaker was generally in favour of openness, however, the issues are by no means one sided. Business models can fail if an item goes open under minority conditions, and can also fail if remaining closed when incredibly widely used. It seemed that a streetwise mix of open and closed approaches was likely to endure in the market, and the evening helped me to respect some closed source situations. I concluded personally that my love of openness is healthy and I will keep it, along with an awareness of practicality - some closed items offer real benefit for some maybe worthy businesses. -- alan cocks Linux registered user #360648 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Alan, alan c wrote: a further thought - I have a deep and penetrating appreciation of open source software, but I sometimes reflect on the future of the software industry. I often get the impression that foss authors frequently have a programming day job, not always in foss areas. In the extreeme case, *all* foss, then what (wider) business model is going to provide foss authors with income - from any source (of income...)? I do not know, I really hope it will support a substantial foss sector. Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! Regards, Tony. -- Tony Arnold, IT Security Coordinator, University of Manchester, IT Services Division, Kilburn Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL. T: +44 (0)161 275 6093, F: +44 (0)870 136 1004, M: +44 (0)773 330 0039 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED], H: http://www.man.ac.uk/Tony.Arnold -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! I find this very confusing. If I buy an application to run in Ubuntu what sort of freedom is represented? Norman -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Tony Arnold wrote: Alan, alan c wrote: a further thought - I have a deep and penetrating appreciation of open source software, but I sometimes reflect on the future of the software industry. I often get the impression that foss authors frequently have a programming day job, not always in foss areas. In the extreeme case, *all* foss, then what (wider) business model is going to provide foss authors with income - from any source (of income...)? I do not know, I really hope it will support a substantial foss sector. Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! No I am not, for myself anyway. I purchased a retail box of suse 9.1 for example a while ago. And there is the oracle move against Red Hat, not to mention novell apparently going a step too far with its MS patents deal. (I am winding down my use of suse already). If you can see a clear business model that would provide say, a small software business, success, if it only used open source (say GPL) I would be interested to know the thoughts. -- alan cocks Linux registered user #360648 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 12:47 +, Norman Silverstone wrote: Are you confusing free as in beer with free as in freedom? FOSS does not have to be free as in beer! I find this very confusing. If I buy an application to run in Ubuntu what sort of freedom is represented? Norman Free (as in software) means freedom, not money. This is why some people (myself included) prefer the terms Open Source or Software Libre. I think in English when people hear the term free they always think of money first. If you buy an application for Ubuntu it would depend upon the licensing of the software. Generally commercial software is closed source (ie non free) unless you are paying for a support contract like Red Hat. If you don't have the source then the program isn't free - the Ubuntu operating system remains free of course and the source can be downloaded easily. Caroline -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
[ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
Hi folks, I was wondering if I could get peoples general opinion on free vs non-free drivers etc. We have been having a discussion on our LUG about Flash on PPC. It eventually turned into a proprietary is bad argument with the usual suspects preaching that everyone should use just free software with not a sniff of non-free software. For some of us we need or want a bit of non-free code on our computers as unfortunately it is the only way we can use our computers or get the experience we want. One of the guys on my local LUG said that if we're running non-free on Linux then we're better off running Windows. Now I have argued that yes, its not ideal that we're running non-free stuff on Linux (I would love to go completely non-free) but from a new user perspective seeing flame wars like that would most likely put new users off. It seems to be the same couple of users who will sit there and moan but not even offer to help out when we're doing things to promote Linux. I argued that surely if a bit of non-free gets new users to move over to Linux from Windows, then once they are using Linux they can explore the free alternatives, and maybe even contribute to the community (say writing a bit of code, documentation or providing support to other new Linux users). I just wondered what others thought. How I see it, we're in a perfect position to be talking up and demonstrating Linux as an alternative to users moving over to Vista and potentially dumping a perfectly good computer. I am getting to the point where I am possibly going to set up my own mailing list for Devon to promote Open Source software as I just don't think that the local LUG I am a member of is interested in anything other than /. style flame wars. Rob -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
Re: [ubuntu-uk] Free vs non-free drivers etc
On 15/11/06, Rob Beard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, I was wondering if I could get peoples general opinion on free vs non-free drivers etc. I have two views on this number one I play games on my machine so I want 3d, which is only available via non-free drivers. Number 2 I believe that the card producers are doing what they can, (before I get flailed) I know they can do more but reading several reports including one from X.org they (the manufactures) don't own the rights to many of the chips used so you would only ever get partial open graphics in the manner of the latest intel chips. Cutting a long story short their trying and should be commend for at least suppling Linux with drivers all be binary. We have been having a discussion on our LUG about Flash on PPC. It eventually turned into a proprietary is bad argument with the usual suspects preaching that everyone should use just free software with not a sniff of non-free software. Flash is software not hardware and so yes it is bad. They own all the rights to it and could therefore open source it and make the world a better place plus 64 bit versions would suddenly appear. For some of us we need or want a bit of non-free code on our computers as unfortunately it is the only way we can use our computers or get the experience we want. One of the guys on my local LUG said that if we're running non-free on Linux then we're better off running Windows. Now I have argued that yes, its not ideal that we're running non-free stuff on Linux (I would love to go completely non-free) but from a new user perspective seeing flame wars like that would most likely put new users off. It seems to be the same couple of users who will sit there and moan but not even offer to help out when we're doing things to promote Linux. I argued that surely if a bit of non-free gets new users to move over to Linux from Windows, then once they are using Linux they can explore the free alternatives, and maybe even contribute to the community (say writing a bit of code, documentation or providing support to other new Linux users). I just wondered what others thought. How I see it, we're in a perfect position to be talking up and demonstrating Linux as an alternative to users moving over to Vista and potentially dumping a perfectly good computer. I am getting to the point where I am possibly going to set up my own mailing list for Devon to promote Open Source software as I just don't think that the local LUG I am a member of is interested in anything other than /. style flame wars. I am in the same boat as you I believe that Ubuntu has the right idea include as little proprietary stuff as possible but enough that hardware words properly. This is one of the reasons why I am happy that Feisty may well include binary nvidia/ati graphics drivers. Why I hear you shout? No one complains about the fact that wireless works out of the box but most of those drivers are binary (non-free) so what difference does it make if they include binary graphics too. There are very few Distros out there that are completely devoid of non-free packages but if flame wars continue the way they are you will lose users from a lack of understanding. Lets keep the users and educate them to understand the correct view point so when free (as in speech) hardware becomes available it is purchased over the non-free versions. Software that isn't open is bad the same can not be said for hardware. We may all wish it was open but until that day comes you will need to use something in order to get an image on the screen or wireless to work. Let's no flail the new comers for not knowing any better and instead educate them so the end result is right. -- Seek That Thy Might Know -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.kubuntu.org/UKTeam/
