[opensuse] Question about Free Software policies within the openSUSE Project
What are the Free Software policies inside the openSUSE project? The only thing FSF notices that separates openSUSE Project from the Emacs Church is "openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software" [1]. Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites. Something like packman but with no help from the community. It would also be a chance for business for someone that wants also to help freedom but on the other hand to help a user in the extreme case that some hardware cannot work with Free Software and she wants it to work "the very moment". Not mention the high importance of having the analytical list of non-free software that may is needed in openSUSE to run efficiently. This would help a lot, programmers, to create new free software and have a roadmap to where they are going. Also, what's the state of the Linux kernel that openSUSE uses? Recently Debian, changed that and will put on its version 6.0 "Squeeze" a completely free Linux Kernel, blobs not included [2]. Could openSUSE do the same thing? It is of important value that among the major distributions on [1] the openSUSE and SUSE distributions are the least blamed. I don't think that at FSF didn't searched about openSUSE and searched to find about all others. I think that we are indeed more close to Free Software Guidelines than anyone else in the mainstream GNU/Linux distributions river. It would worth a lot to make this little step and touch (and maybe open) the door of the FSF. References: [1] - http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html [2] - http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20101215 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2010-12-23 13:09, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
That would be a BAD THING. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk0TPNMACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WshACdECy4do4rTv0S7v47X8uAQtus vpkAoJS73nbxvSQd5TUp2VwVT3XFffHC =S7bf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Am 23.12.2010 13:09, schrieb Kostas Boukouvalas:
What are the Free Software policies inside the openSUSE project?
The only thing FSF notices that separates openSUSE Project from the Emacs Church is "openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software" [1].
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
Something like packman but with no help from the community. It would also be a chance for business for someone that wants also to help freedom but on the other hand to help a user in the extreme case that some hardware cannot work with Free Software and she wants it to work "the very moment".
Haeh, that all sounds ridiculous. "Something like packman but with no help from the community" Who is the community? Who is openSUSE? openSUSE creates a distribution (oss). There is an additonal repository where nobody is forced to use it (non-oss). I'm a strong believer in open source but if that is something the FSF sees as an issue I don't want to have to do with them. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Am 23.12.2010 13:09, schrieb Kostas Boukouvalas:
What are the Free Software policies inside the openSUSE project?
The only thing FSF notices that separates openSUSE Project from the Emacs Church is "openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software" [1].
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
Something like packman but with no help from the community. It would also be a chance for business for someone that wants also to help freedom but on the other hand to help a user in the extreme case that some hardware cannot work with Free Software and she wants it to work "the very moment". Haeh, that all sounds ridiculous.
"Something like packman but with no help from the community" Who is the community? Who is openSUSE? openSUSE creates a distribution (oss). There is an additonal repository where nobody is forced to use it (non-oss). I'm a strong believer in open source but if that is something the FSF sees as an issue I don't want to have to do with them.
Wolfgang Rant on: It has finally come to a boil with me! I'm so damned sick of hearing Linux people disdain anything with a copyright, or anything one might actually have to pay for! In the first place, practically every older Linux distro was _sold_ to the computing public: SuSE and RedHat in particular. In the second place, all you folks who are so gaga about FOSS--how many of you are dissecting the software and rewriting it, or adding to it, or doing anything at all except _using_ it? Not even 1%, I'd bet. I'm especially up in arms with Debian, who won't even let you have a nice clean Firefox or Thunderbird. They've stolen those, changed maybe a word somewhere, and renamed it, and claim that _now_ it's FOSS! Thank God for distros
On 12/23/2010 08:18 AM, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote: like MINT, which make no bones about making all sorts of useful software available, no matter where it comes from. And for the ones who at least don't condemn it, like Debian does. :ffo tnaR --doug -- Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A. M. Greeley -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> [12-23-10 18:42]:
Rant on: It has finally come to a boil with me! I'm so damned sick of hearing Linux people disdain anything with a copyright, or anything one might actually have to pay for! In the first place, practically every older Linux distro was _sold_ to the computing public: SuSE and RedHat in particular. In the second place, all you folks who are so gaga about FOSS--how many of you are dissecting the software and rewriting it, or adding to it, or doing anything at all except _using_ it? Not even 1%, I'd bet. I'm especially up in arms with Debian, who won't even let you have a nice clean Firefox or Thunderbird. They've stolen those, changed maybe a word somewhere, and renamed it, and claim that _now_ it's FOSS! Thank God for distros like MINT, which make no bones about making all sorts of useful software available, no matter where it comes from. And for the ones who at least don't condemn it, like Debian does. :ffo tnaR
If you are so enamored with mint, why are you *ranting* here, just spreading fud? -- Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 6:41 PM, Doug wrote:
Am 23.12.2010 13:09, schrieb Kostas Boukouvalas:
What are the Free Software policies inside the openSUSE project?
The only thing FSF notices that separates openSUSE Project from the Emacs Church is "openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software" [1].
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
Something like packman but with no help from the community. It would also be a chance for business for someone that wants also to help freedom but on the other hand to help a user in the extreme case that some hardware cannot work with Free Software and she wants it to work "the very moment". Haeh, that all sounds ridiculous.
"Something like packman but with no help from the community" Who is the community? Who is openSUSE? openSUSE creates a distribution (oss). There is an additonal repository where nobody is forced to use it (non-oss). I'm a strong believer in open source but if that is something the FSF sees as an issue I don't want to have to do with them.
Wolfgang Rant on: It has finally come to a boil with me! I'm so damned sick of hearing Linux people disdain anything with a copyright, or anything one might actually have to pay for! In the first place, practically every older Linux distro was _sold_ to the computing public: SuSE and RedHat in particular. In the second place, all you folks who are so gaga about FOSS--how many of you are dissecting the software and rewriting it, or adding to it, or doing anything at all except _using_ it? Not even 1%, I'd bet. I'm especially up in arms with Debian, who won't even let you have a nice clean Firefox or Thunderbird. They've stolen those, changed maybe a word somewhere, and renamed it, and claim that _now_ it's FOSS! Thank God for distros
On 12/23/2010 08:18 AM, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote: like MINT, which make no bones about making all sorts of useful software available, no matter where it comes from. And for the ones who at least don't condemn it, like Debian does. :ffo tnaR
--doug
Commerial software has it's place. But the traditional economic model for software development and distribution is out of touch and counter productive today. The proof is in the pudding and can't be disputed any more except by the ignorant. And you can't exactly call me allergic to paying for goods or services. I at least, would pay MORE, for the freedom to do what I want. I've paid thousands to have developers work on open source software to add features I needed, as well as spent my own time which isn't free, and made the results equally free. It's definitely about the money but only in the long view. In the short view I paid a lot for something that's free. (http://code.google.com/p/aljex-client) Yes if you look you'll see I work for a company that sells software. No contradiction. It's not open source but each customer gets the source if they buy the software, or they pay a subscription fee for the service instead of buying the software. In the subscription case they don't get the source since it's running on our servers, but even in that case no one is locked-in. Whether they buy or rent, we import and export their data using dirt simple csv or whatever generic format the customer wants. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Στις 24/12/2010 02:34 πμ, ο/η Brian K. White έγραψε:
Yes if you look you'll see I work for a company that sells software. No contradiction. It's not open source but each customer gets the source if they buy the software
This _could_ in fact be Free Software. Sometimes someone has to read a lot of times the Free Software Definition in order to understand exactly what it says. The company _is not obliged_ to share the source code *for no money* if they don't want to. But if they give their customers the power to do that (meaning to share the code they received along with the software binaries they bought) if they want to then it is ok with the Freedom #2. It is not Free Software if the company is the only holder-developer of the source code and does not give the source code even if someone pays for. But I can't really tell for sure because I don't know if the software is ok with the other 3 essential freedoms. Read more at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 14:09 +0200, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
What are the Free Software policies inside the openSUSE project? The only thing FSF notices that separates openSUSE Project from the Emacs Church is "openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software" [1]. Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
-1 NO! Bad idea. What is the point of making things *harder* to find? None.
Not mention the high importance of having the analytical list of non-free software that may is needed in openSUSE to run efficiently. This would help a lot, programmers, to create new free software and have a roadmap to where they are going.
There is no doubt that "Programmers" [I assume you mean "developers"] already know this information. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Kostas Boukouvalas <boukouvalas@linux.com> wrote: <snip>
Also, what's the state of the Linux kernel that openSUSE uses? Recently Debian, changed that and will put on its version 6.0 "Squeeze" a completely free Linux Kernel, blobs not included [2]. Could openSUSE do the same thing?
I'm pretty sure the openSUSE kernel is 100% GPL possibly even including blobs. ie. No closed source binary blobs are in the standard openSUSE kernel to my understanding. If you need to add a non-GPL module or a proprietary blob, then you have to look to non-official repos like Packman, etc. fyi: Greg KH is a major decision maker about what's in the official openSUSE kernel and he is pretty adamant about it staying pure GPL. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Kostas Boukouvalas <boukouvalas@linux.com> wrote:
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
That's not a good idea, as long as that software doesnt cause legal problems or is troublesome to maintain, Im fine with it.
It would worth a lot to make this little step and touch (and maybe open) the door of the FSF.
Kinda opening the door of the aslylum you mean ? oh, no thanks. Remove those packages gives no benefit to users, neither does following the FSF political agenda. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 19:53, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Kostas Boukouvalas <boukouvalas@linux.com> wrote:
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
That's not a good idea, as long as that software doesnt cause legal problems or is troublesome to maintain, Im fine with it.
It would worth a lot to make this little step and touch (and maybe open) the door of the FSF.
Kinda opening the door of the aslylum you mean ? oh, no thanks.
Remove those packages gives no benefit to users, neither does following the FSF political agenda.
Agreed. Doing this would take openSUSE into the Dark Ages. We're working hard on making openSUSE useable.. not making it useless. So.. another -1 vote. Do not do this. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 11:22 AM, C wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 19:53, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Kostas Boukouvalas <boukouvalas@linux.com> wrote:
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
That's not a good idea, as long as that software doesnt cause legal problems or is troublesome to maintain, Im fine with it.
It would worth a lot to make this little step and touch (and maybe open) the door of the FSF.
Kinda opening the door of the aslylum you mean ? oh, no thanks.
Remove those packages gives no benefit to users, neither does following the FSF political agenda.
Agreed. Doing this would take openSUSE into the Dark Ages. We're working hard on making openSUSE useable.. not making it useless.
So.. another -1 vote. Do not do this.
C.
Agreed. If one wanted this they could just chose Debian. -- Sent from my Linux box. Regards de KC6KGE. A very happy Flex-3000 user. Skype flamebait Gmail flamebait at gmail dot com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 7:09 AM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
What are the Free Software policies inside the openSUSE project?
The only thing FSF notices that separates openSUSE Project from the Emacs Church is "openSUSE offers its users access to a repository of nonfree software" [1].
Could this change? I mean, could this repository be ousted from openSUSE but still being accessible by openSUSE users if they want to? Instructions could be given in forums outside the wiki or the official openSUSE community sites.
Something like packman but with no help from the community. It would also be a chance for business for someone that wants also to help freedom but on the other hand to help a user in the extreme case that some hardware cannot work with Free Software and she wants it to work "the very moment".
Not mention the high importance of having the analytical list of non-free software that may is needed in openSUSE to run efficiently. This would help a lot, programmers, to create new free software and have a roadmap to where they are going.
Also, what's the state of the Linux kernel that openSUSE uses? Recently Debian, changed that and will put on its version 6.0 "Squeeze" a completely free Linux Kernel, blobs not included [2]. Could openSUSE do the same thing?
It is of important value that among the major distributions on [1] the openSUSE and SUSE distributions are the least blamed. I don't think that at FSF didn't searched about openSUSE and searched to find about all others. I think that we are indeed more close to Free Software Guidelines than anyone else in the mainstream GNU/Linux distributions river.
It would worth a lot to make this little step and touch (and maybe open) the door of the FSF.
References:
[1] - http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html [2] - http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20101215
Since when does the FSF drive the project's focus? openSUSE is not the only distribution that offers its users proprietary non-OSS software via 3rd party mirrors/repositories. Fedora/Ubuntu/CentOS are a few examples. -Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 02:30 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
Since when does the FSF drive the project's focus?
openSUSE is not the only distribution that offers its users proprietary non-OSS software via 3rd party mirrors/repositories. Fedora/Ubuntu/CentOS are a few examples.
Let's be realistic now. While it would be great to have all Linux to be non proprietary, it won't happen. With codecs and some drivers that are needed to make some hardware and media to play, there has to be a compromise. The FSF needs to come to it's senses and realize that there has to be some room for compromise. Sadly, without some of the non-oss software, Linux would not have come this far. Could you actually suggest it to a friend for family member without it being able to play mp3's and other media? Or if their computer has hardware that requires closed source drivers, could you really suggest Linux to them if it won't work? -- Michael S. Dunsavage -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 3:21 PM, Michael S. Dunsavage wrote:
On 12/23/2010 02:30 PM, Matt Hayes wrote:
Since when does the FSF drive the project's focus?
openSUSE is not the only distribution that offers its users proprietary non-OSS software via 3rd party mirrors/repositories. Fedora/Ubuntu/CentOS are a few examples.
Let's be realistic now. While it would be great to have all Linux to be non proprietary, it won't happen. With codecs and some drivers that are needed to make some hardware and media to play, there has to be a compromise. The FSF needs to come to it's senses and realize that there has to be some room for compromise. Sadly, without some of the non-oss software, Linux would not have come this far. Could you actually suggest it to a friend for family member without it being able to play mp3's and other media? Or if their computer has hardware that requires closed source drivers, could you really suggest Linux to them if it won't work?
Well put Sir. -Matt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Στις 23/12/2010 09:30 μμ, ο/η Matt Hayes έγραψε:
Since when does the FSF drive the project's focus?
It doesn't. I just make a suggestion and create - for anyone who has Christmas (or Gravmass) time to share - a talk.
openSUSE is not the only distribution that offers its users proprietary non-OSS software via 3rd party mirrors/repositories. Fedora/Ubuntu/CentOS are a few examples.
Yes, indeed this is true. openSUSE is not the only one that offers proprietary non-OSS software via 3rd party mirrors/repositories. Also is the one of two biggest players in GNU/Linux distribution market that have community projects with history back to the cataclysm and the very very strongest distributions in the FLOSS world, SUSE and Redhat. Although Novell is to blame for a lot of things through computer history, SUSE (SLED) still exists under the new holders and in my personal opinion is the best enterprise GNU/Linux distribution. It is a hybrid of Free and Proprietary Software and is efficient, stable and good to use. So anyone can download the evaluation edition or buy it for $120 and use it. A computer user that do not cares for freedom, ethics and politics and about updating all the time the system but wants efficiency and stability would find the evaluation edition OK as well. But, why having openSUSE as another hybrid of Free and Proprietary Software when we have already one and this is affordable even in these difficult financial times we live in? If a user wants a free as in free beer GNU/Linux distribution that's easy to use and runs all the hardware she can have SLED as well. So, I think that openSUSE project is struggling to create something that already exists. But as you already know the meaning of Free Software doesn't refer to price but to freedom.We can also sell (as we do) at http://shop.opensuse.org our Free Software product. Attachmate could also offer a package with both SLED & openSUSE for people who want to try both the hybrid and the free software version. The most hot topic now for everyday computer use are not screens, mouses, keyboards, touchpads, winmodems (obsolete) or sound devices. Are wi-fi, infrared 3d graphics and bluetooth drivers, cameras, usb sticks. I could be a developer my self and stop the blah blah and write some code, so blame also me, but what in the world if already existing developers prefer to inject proprietary source code inside GNU/Linux instead of writing new? Of course we can't beat the vendors and computer devices industry speed but this is hacking is all about. Creating new pathways in order everybody can use computers and share the human knowledge. P.S. I support both FSF and LF and I'm not dogmatic. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 4:50 PM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
If a user wants a free as in free beer GNU/Linux distribution that's easy to use and runs all the hardware she can have SLED as well. So, I think that openSUSE project is struggling to create something that already exists. I must be failing to see what you're point. SLED is tailored to desktop users. SLES is tailored to servers. openSUSE seems to be the best of both worlds and more on the bleed edge. What exactly is openSUSE struggling to create? To me it seems to be a stable, but somewhat experimental, release developed by a community of rather intelligent, and willing to help, people.
I see nothing useful of making openSUSE a true free OSS distro. In fact it would hinder it's adoption. I said before that the closed source binaries are a necessary evil. If we didn't compromise and have them, I guarantee Linux adoption would not be anywhere close to what it is. You would never get anyone to even try it if they can't play media files or get hardware to work properly. It would great if big name companies would develop for Linux and open their drivers, but it won't happen any time soon. And without this compromise of allowing closed source binaries into Linux, and I'm not meaning the kernel, then Linux would never have gotten it's 5% to 10% (depending what source you believe) adoption to the desktop. The FSF also needs to re-evaluate it's campaigns. They're starting to sounds more like zealots. If you're going to say don't use this and don't use that, then they need to suggest alternatives. It all boils down to the point of Open Source. It's choice. If you're opposed to using closed source binaries or software, so be it. Don't load those repos, don't install those pieces of software. But don't force that down my throat either. You can't say it's about choice and then take away one of the choices. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 23:19, Michael S. Dunsaavage wrote:
The FSF also needs to re-evaluate it's campaigns. They're starting to sounds more like zealots.
Starting to? That's a polite way of putting it.
then they need to suggest alternatives. It all boils down to the point of Open Source. It's choice. If you're opposed to using closed source binaries or software, so be it. Don't load those repos, don't install those pieces of software. But don't force that down my throat either. You can't say it's about choice and then take away one of the choices.
Exactly. Someone who installs openSUSE never "needs" to enable or install the non-free repos. Simple... problem solved. Next question please. C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Στις 24/12/2010 12:19 πμ, ο/η Michael S. Dunsaavage έγραψε:
On 12/23/2010 4:50 PM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
If a user wants a free as in free beer GNU/Linux distribution that's easy to use and runs all the hardware she can have SLED as well. So, I think that openSUSE project is struggling to create something that already exists. I must be failing to see what you're point. SLED is tailored to desktop users. SLES is tailored to servers.
Yes, I must admit that I didn't make proper distinction. I meant SLED/S both in my case each referring to its audience.
[openSUSE seems to be the best of both worlds and more] on the bleed edge.
Are you implying something about SLED/S developers? :P
What exactly is openSUSE struggling to create? To me it seems to be a stable, but somewhat experimental, release developed by a community of rather intelligent, and willing to help, people.
That's good and ethical target.
I see nothing useful of making openSUSE a true free OSS distro. In fact it would hinder it's adoption. I said before that the closed source binaries are a necessary evil. If we didn't compromise and have them, I guarantee Linux adoption would not be anywhere close to what it is. You would never get anyone to even try it if they can't play media files or get hardware to work properly. It would great if big name companies would develop for Linux and open their drivers, but it won't happen any time soon. And without this compromise of allowing closed source binaries into Linux, and I'm not meaning the kernel, then Linux would never have gotten it's 5% to 10% (depending what source you believe) adoption to the desktop.
That's true, indeed. Except the multimedia part because Dynebolic and Musix help a lot to fill the gap on this.
The FSF also needs to re-evaluate it's campaigns. They're starting to sounds more like zealots. If you're going to say don't use this and don't use that, then they need to suggest alternatives. It all boils down to the point of Open Source. It's choice. If you're opposed to using closed source binaries or software, so be it. Don't load those repos, don't install those pieces of software. But don't force that down my throat either. You can't say it's about choice and then take away one of the choices.
My opinion is only that if just one of the gigantic distributions like Redhat-Fedora SLED/S-openSUSE and Debian-Ubuntu would decide one day to create a 100% free software edition of itself, that would help a lot to promote Free Software and have a very strong player, that gnewSense, Ututo and others are not and would take many years to catch. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 5:47 PM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
My opinion is only that if just one of the gigantic distributions like Redhat-Fedora SLED/S-openSUSE and Debian-Ubuntu would decide one day to create a 100% free software edition of itself, that would help a lot to promote Free Software and have a very strong player, that gnewSense, Ututo and others are not and would take many years to catch.
I think you're looking for a solution to a non problem. I don't think promoting Free Software is an issue. I think promoting *Open Source* software is more of an issue. I've made my points already for why having a 100% free distribution would be an issue. In utopia, maybe a totally free big distribution would be possible. But in reality, it's impossible. Again, it's all about choice. I'm all for advocating open source alternatives. I'm all for advocating free software. But in reality it's impossible to have a functioning Linux distribution and not have closed source software. And in the end I'm really for advocating Linux as an alternative to Windows. And as long as the kernel can adhere to the GPL 2 license, I see no problems with having user land closed source software to make the transition to an open source OS easier. And until the FSF can offer alternatives instead of just being "don't use this, proprietary is bad" they're just a bunch of zealots really hindering the adoption of open source and are still taking a choice away, which is what open source is all about. If you want to promote Free Software distributions, nothing stops you from grabbing one of the officially FSF endorsed zealot ones and posting it on every blog you can and giving it to every friend you can. But when they come and say Free Software sucks, since that's the title you're hinging on, because their wifi card doesn't work and they can't play their collection of mp3s, don't forget to mention to them that there *are* alternative distributions that *do* allow these things to work and don't violate any open source licenses are not evil. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 00:07, Michael S. Dunsaavage wrote:
On 12/23/2010 5:47 PM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
My opinion is only that if just one of the gigantic distributions like Redhat-Fedora SLED/S-openSUSE and Debian-Ubuntu would decide one day to create a 100% free software edition of itself, that would help a lot to promote Free Software and have a very strong player, that gnewSense, Ututo and others are not and would take many years to catch.
I think you're looking for a solution to a non problem. I don't think promoting Free Software is an issue. I think promoting *Open Source* software is more of an issue. I've made my points already for why having a 100% free distribution would be an issue. In utopia, maybe a totally free big distribution would be possible. But in reality, it's impossible. Again, it's all about choice.
Since this is ultimately about choice.... why not open an openFATE on this (directed at the OP)... let the votes speak for themselves. https://features.opensuse.org/ This is the tool openSUSE suggestions, ideas and proposals should be tracked in.... C. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 3:14 PM, C wrote:
Since this is ultimately about choice.... why not open an openFATE on this (directed at the OP)... let the votes speak for themselves. https://features.opensuse.org/ This is the tool openSUSE suggestions, ideas and proposals should be tracked in....
Maybe because no one pays attention to openFATE? -- _____________________________________ ---This space for rent--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:14 PM, C <smaug42@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 00:07, Michael S. Dunsaavage wrote:
On 12/23/2010 5:47 PM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
My opinion is only that if just one of the gigantic distributions like Redhat-Fedora SLED/S-openSUSE and Debian-Ubuntu would decide one day to create a 100% free software edition of itself, that would help a lot to promote Free Software and have a very strong player, that gnewSense, Ututo and others are not and would take many years to catch.
I think you're looking for a solution to a non problem. I don't think promoting Free Software is an issue. I think promoting *Open Source* software is more of an issue. I've made my points already for why having a 100% free distribution would be an issue. In utopia, maybe a totally free big distribution would be possible. But in reality, it's impossible. Again, it's all about choice.
Since this is ultimately about choice.... why not open an openFATE on this (directed at the OP)... let the votes speak for themselves. https://features.opensuse.org/ This is the tool openSUSE suggestions, ideas and proposals should be tracked in....
C.
If someone does this, specifically address flash. As far as I know, its pretty critical to the user experience and there is not a OSS equivalent. fyi: For security reasons I run a couple of machines without flash installed. It works okay for production machines, but not for typical web-browsing. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 00:47 +0200, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
My opinion is only that if just one of the gigantic distributions like Redhat-Fedora SLED/S-openSUSE and Debian-Ubuntu would decide one day to create a 100% free software edition of itself, that would help a lot to promote Free Software and have a very strong player,
I believe they would have created a package almost nobody who actually has a reason to use a computer would ever choose to use. <aside>Isn't Debian already that anyway? Ok, Debian destop user's raise their hands... <crickets/></aside> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 5:19 PM, Michael S. Dunsaavage wrote:
On 12/23/2010 4:50 PM, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
If a user wants a free as in free beer GNU/Linux distribution that's easy to use and runs all the hardware she can have SLED as well. So, I think that openSUSE project is struggling to create something that already exists. I must be failing to see what you're point. SLED is tailored to desktop users. SLES is tailored to servers. openSUSE seems to be the best of both worlds and more on the bleed edge. What exactly is openSUSE struggling to create? To me it seems to be a stable, but somewhat experimental, release developed by a community of rather intelligent, and willing to help, people.
I see nothing useful of making openSUSE a true free OSS distro. In fact it would hinder it's adoption. I said before that the closed source binaries are a necessary evil. If we didn't compromise and have them, I guarantee Linux adoption would not be anywhere close to what it is. You would never get anyone to even try it if they can't play media files or get hardware to work properly. It would great if big name companies would develop for Linux and open their drivers, but it won't happen any time soon. And without this compromise of allowing closed source binaries into Linux, and I'm not meaning the kernel, then Linux would never have gotten it's 5% to 10% (depending what source you believe) adoption to the desktop.
The FSF also needs to re-evaluate it's campaigns. They're starting to sounds more like zealots.
Just because you value convenience over conviction doesn't give you the right to accuse those with vision and an understanding of certain ideals of being zealots. Not that zeal over a worthy goal is much of an insult. It's pretty easy to disregard the fact that so much of what you enjoy today was only brought about by a lot of people with zeal over worthy goals. I, like you, am no such zealot. f I want a certain laptop and it meets most of my wishes but the video or the wifi requires a binary driver, well I'll get the laptop and use the proprietary drivers. I'll even use proprietary software if it's the only way to do certain things. But I at least consider it a failing. The goal of always working towards expelling and rejecting proprietary _anything_ is a good one. Those of us who lack the integrity to commit to that goal fully also lack the right to criticize those "zealots" who are sacrificing and working to make the world better for the rest of us. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 12/23/2010 06:52 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
Just because you value convenience over conviction doesn't give you the right to accuse those with vision and an understanding of certain ideals of being zealots.
Having a conviction is fine. And standing by your decision is great. Having zeal is fine. But once you've come as far as the FSF have, it's too far and they're just hurting their image rather than promoting their cause. Their ultimate goal is commendable. But what are they really doing to promote it? If they want alternatives to closed source software, they should sponsor and help develop alternatives. Otherwise it's simply hot air that just eventually becomes annoying static. -- Michael S. Dunsavage -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, 2010-12-23 at 23:50 +0200, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
If a user wants a free as in free beer GNU/Linux distribution that's easy to use and runs all the hardware she can have SLED as well. So, I think that openSUSE project is struggling to create something that already exists.
No, the "free as in free beer" is not SLED, is openSUSE. If you want a free version of openSUSE, just simply do not enable repos containing software you do not like. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. (from 11.2 x86_64 "Emerald" at Telcontar) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk0T288ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VwCQCfcu84L8eN/1e61ouYzEf2EQr5 cQkAnjRlLVcpXBqJ+NRBaTDQknPVPu00 =UW+g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 23:50 +0200, Kostas Boukouvalas wrote:
A computer user that do not cares for freedom, ethics and politics and about updating all the time the system but wants efficiency and stability would find the evaluation edition OK as well.
Fallacy of the disambiguated middle. There are users "who care" and those that "do not care" - this is a false premise.
So, I think that openSUSE project is struggling to create something that already exists.
s/struggling/succeeding/
P.S. I support both FSF and LF and I'm not dogmatic.
Dividing users into two camps sounds dogmatic to me. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
<snip>
It would worth a lot
Worth a lot to whom? Certainly not the users. We work hard to make things easy to use, lets not destroy all the work that goes into this part of the distribution.
to make this little step
It would be a very big step backwards.
and touch (and maybe open) the door of the FSF.
The FSF has a political agenda that not all open source supporters and enthusiasts share. I think marching to the beat of the FSF and therefore pushing the FSF political agenda would be a good step for openSUSE. Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU Software Engineer Consultant LINUX rschweikert@novell.com 781-464-8147 Novell Making IT Work As One -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Thursday, December 23, 2010 02:59:17 pm Robert Schweikert wrote:
<snip> ... The FSF has a political agenda that not all open source supporters and enthusiasts share. I think marching to the beat of the FSF and therefore pushing the FSF political agenda would be a good step for openSUSE.
I guess "would be not (a good step)" :)
Robert
-- Regards, Rajko -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (17)
-
Adam Tauno Williams -
Brian K. White -
C -
Carlos E. R. -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Doug -
Greg Freemyer -
John Andersen -
Kostas Boukouvalas -
Matt Hayes -
Michael S. Dunsaavage -
Michael S. Dunsavage
-
Patrick Shanahan -
Rajko M. -
Robert Schweikert -
Steven L Hess -
Wolfgang Rosenauer