Hi All.

I've been a subscriber to LQ for quite some time but this is my first post, other than the obligatory introduction.

A few days ago one of the authors of the paper "World Domination 201" posted a link to it on Linux basics. I've thoroughly read it and thought a lot about it and found it interesting and compelling reading.

I would like to get input from others on the subject. I'm sure some of you have already read this hypothesis but others of you probably have not, so I'm posting the link here.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/wo...ation-201.html

Following are just a few of the questions I have on the subject.

1-Is this what you want Linux to be (the dominant OS on the PC)? or

2-Would you rather Linux stay a somewhat "geeky" OS with a limited but devoted following and user base?

3- Whichever you prefer, do you think it is a good idea to include proprietary codecs in the kernel for the sake of improved multimedia support and better hardware/peripheral driver support?

Based on the conclusions of the authors of the paper there doesn't appear to be any in between choice available.

And finally: what do you think overall of the paper and its conclusions?

Thanks for any feedback you may have.

First of all, I haven't read the link yet, but I'm going to. I glanced at it long enough to see that it comes from ESR who, IMO, has sold out FOSS for the classic 30 pieces of silver. I'm willing to consider his arguments, though. I also reported the thread for a possible transfer to a more suitable forum. This issue is the most critical facing Linux today. I am hopeful that my distro of choice, Debian, will not drink the kool-aid. OK. Just wanted that on record before I read the article.

Now that I've read it...

I don't really have a problem with ESR's position here, especially since he brings it down to the idea that the Linux community needs to support Linspire (which pays him to support the concept of adding binary-only drivers to Linux). I believe that the Linspire business model, charging for the distribution, and it's willingness to pay the owners of patented codecs which it wishes to include is fair. My concern is that there should be a clear-cut definition between such for-profit ventures, and Free Linux distributions. At the moment, Ubuntu and other, purportedly, free distros are falling over each other to incorporate such pieces into their default installations.

Linspire's suggestion that they should sell a cd which includes easily installable proprietary codecs for the various distributions is certainly within their rights. They would pay the patent-holders from the proceeds of the cd sales. Nobody would have to buy such a cd, and those of us who prefer FOSS applications, or the procurement of such codecs through means of questionable legality would be no worse off than we are now.

My proposal would be that any inclusion of non-free software or firmware "in the box" should require a royalty payment to someone. In the case of free, as in beer, binaries (say Nvidia's drivers), that royalty could be paid to the FSF, or some other FOSS entity. That payment would also mean that the distributors of such "helpfulness" would have to charge a minimal amount to it's users for that privilege. End users who choose to find and install their own drivers would, of course be exempt from that fee. Each distribution could have both a free and a paid version, and end users could take their choice.

Hardware vendors who wanted to sell preinstalled Linux systems would of course choose the paid version, and probably Linspire's codec cd, as well. To me, the problem is not companies that charge for a Linux based distribution, but rather distributions which claim to be FOSS, but push the limits of the GPL to extreme positions while doing so.

Not really a software related technical question, so moved to Linux General.

Here is just a list of points I thought while reading it through I may add more later, thanks for the Link

The underlying idea is that once 64 bits comes as standard people will start replacing 32 bits for no reason other than its an old 32 bit machine, past trends are used as evidence, this is rubbish, ask any ecconomist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns (note its not a universal law but it dose apply to computer hardware, the fixed imput is the user). I don't know anyone (not coutning dedicated servers) who has anything near 4 gig, I run the latest debian etch on just under 400 meg. QT4 should reduce reqirements a little. Especially since most computer users see it as just a tool to make documents and communicate, I doub't they'll be switching over anytime soon.

Still weather 2008 is really a massive 64 bit switchover is a great debate, post viewpoints please.

it says Gates is leaving in 2008, and suggests thats not a coincidence, I say that it must be or Gates will be smart enough to leave in 07.

ESR says Wine 1.0 must not support 64 bit windows, WHAT IS HE THINKING! putting politics above good technical sense is against the whole Linux philosophy. Note: I said politics, not ethics, and in many cases its good technical sense to not have closed source, for example binary only modules makes kernal debugging next to impossible.

Random thoguht: wouldn't vmware or KVM be more legacy application friendly than Wine?

To be honest I don't like ESR's attitude of Linux must take over. I much prefur the Torvalds philosophy of makeing the best OS there ever was.

As for weather I want to see Linux take over, it has advantages and risks, and only one minor disadvantage.

As for Binary drivers left right and center, wouldn't that just mean that we never get open source drivers for everything?

Advantages:
Better for the ecconomy: lower startup costs for firms, no virus risks.
Safer for people: fewer credit card stealing viruses.
Open Standards become the standard.
Hardware support for everything.
Support for all games
Probobly no Trusted computing on end user desktops.
Probobly no software paitents, as a result of political clout for Kernal developers.

Disadvantage:
I lose the prestiege of being a "Linux User"

Risks:
A shift in culture to writing applications with lots of neet features and flexibility to writing really simple aplications so their easy to use.
The world will notice us. Right now I doub't the MPAA really knows or cares about Linux, if we were number one they may start to ask why dose ALSA have the option to send all incomeing sound to an ogg-vorbis? and Why dose the default way of playing DVDs on Linux involve cracking CSS?
Virus writers may start to notice us. (hey its a risk, not a guarenteed problem)

I'd like to see FreeBSD the dominant operating system.

Hmm.. The trouble is do you want to be a hypocrite just to become the dominant OS. 'The end doesn't justify the means' so the saying goes. I don't think it is good to sell ourselves short and compromise even for the very lucrative goal of desktop dominance. Also remember doing what ESR suggests won't gaurentee domination and even if it does, will people then switch to open formats? and will the system distributors commit to pushing out proprietary software? or will power go to our heads and cause us to compromise?

Think of what Richard Stallman and others have fought hard to create and provide for us, a free OS and lots of completely free software. With one blow that work could all be undone, by selling out to the restricted proprietary software world. Surely it's worth putting up with less functionality for now till we can really free ourselves and each other from oppression.

Pete

Hi all, and thanks for your feedback.

I've posted the "world domination" link on several fora and mailing lists but have gotten the most--and most insightful--responses here.

Obviously, there is much to consider in that lengthy paper but I do think it is not only food for thought but possibly reason for action? If there is indeed a need for action, what action do any of you think would be appropriate and doable by the average Linux user? It would appear that there is at least some effort being put into the "Streaming Penguin" and "Codex" projects. How successful they will be remains to be seen.

In the mean while I'm sure many of you know that Ubuntu is talking about including some proprietary drivers etc. in their next release.

Here is a link to an article titled Features vs. Freedom by Jono Bacon on the subject, which outlines his thinking on some of the issues.

http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=843

It would sure appear that there is much activity in the area of proprietary conveniences vs. a purely open source environment/OS.

I think many of the arguments being made are perfectly valid but that depends on what we want Linux to be in the future. I personally find the concept of world domination to be repugnant. OTOH I do believe that if we are ever going to get the hardware manufacturers to take us seriously enough to start providing drivers and the gaming industry to port the big time games to Linux we're going to have to represent a larger market share than we currently do.

I've finally been able to summerise my view on world domination. It comes down to three points:

1) ESR says we need to make something fundimentally better. Not as good, we all ready have that. No Viruses! Notice a lack of world domination? A change is not going to happen because there is a better alternative, its going to change because the current OS becomes unuseible. There are plenty of reasons why that could happen, maby Microsoft goes too far. A doomsday virus perhaps. But their outside of our control. We just have to keep on doing what we allways do, makeing the best OS possible and let nature take its course.


2) All the benifits we get from World Domination are happening anyway. Hardware support is riseing, and if you take a hardware compatiblity list you can get all the peripherals you need. WINE is getting better all the time. Sure being the number one OS would get us the benifits faster, but sticking to our principles will be worth the wait. For example ESR says that the fact that Kernal Devs typically take a year to let even Open source drivers into the tree is bad because hardware vendors don't like waiting. Speaking as someone who had bad drivers cause blue screen's I say Tough! I also point out that lots of hardware will share in tree drivers with its predecessors.


3) It was never ment to be a serous comment, just one of Linus' many jokes (and quite a good one)

I read the Jono Bacon article and comments to it (all 135 of them), and I don't really have anything to add to what was said over and over but I agree with Tortanick where he says,

The thing is we have come so far with a free OS and software, people have put so much into it and it would be so easy to throw all that away with a compromise like this.

We have to think not of convenience now but for the good of those in the future, the FSF have provided for us and we need to keep that going in the future. An example that may not be relevant to you is the soldiers in WW2 who went and fought and went through all the hardship so that we could live now free of Nazi German opression (no offence intended).

Lets just do whats right and I am sure the good consequences will follow.