On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:03:39PM +1000, Matthew Palmer scribbled: [snip] > > > > How does removing firmware "help" free software? > > > > > > Firstly, we're not "removing firmware" we're removing non-free firmware. > > is it like buttering the bread vs breading the butter? > > No, it's adding a qualification that was potentially misleading. more like nit-picking, sorry > > > As to how removing non-free firmware helps free software, it helps for many > > > of the same reasons removing non-free <anything> helps free software. > > > > > > 1) It encourages free alternatives to be written. > > Everytime I see some smartass writing that, I wish they would actually > > damned code that alternative. Then and ONLY then they have the right to > > remove anything. > > The right? Where does it say Debian doesn't have the right to not > distribute *anything* at all? If Debian, as a project, decided we weren't I'm not talking about a distribution. I'm talking about coding a worthy replacement to the removed software. Since by removing the (crucial for a particular group of users) software and not providing a working replacement for it you break #4 of the Debian Social Contract: We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environments. [...] Note the "first in our priorities" part. And removing the software in question here, was putting the DFSG before the users. > going to distribute GCC, who would be reasonably able to say "you do not > have the right to remove GCC!"? Nobody. That's completely not what I was talking about. > As for coding alternatives, I've written a small chunk of Free Software over > the years. Whether it's an alternative to something that only existed in > non-free form previously, I can't honestly say. But certainly free > alternatives to non-free software have been written - xpdf as an alternative > to acroread, kaffe as an alternative to the Sun JDK, and Mono and dotGNU as > an alternative to .NET. What exactly the authors of those free alternatives > were motivated by, I truly cannot say, but it's entirely possible that part > of the motivation was because they were non-free, people stood up and > publically said so, and someone thought "I'd really like a Free Software > version of that piece of software". I fully agree with you on that and you've given very worthy examples of applications that replace the non-free ones. But note one thing - NONE of their authors came moaning that "acrobat is bad, it has to be removed, guys, remove it" - but they sat down and wrote the software. And what I was talking about were people who go talking about something being wrong, about politics, theoritizing and pointing fingers but doing nothing in order to change anything. If somebody comes and says "the tg driver is bad, because it is non free and I will remove it" and offers no alternative then, in my book, that person loses _all_ the credibility as a software developer and a person that can be trusted to do some task which requires responsibility. But it might be just me. > > > 2) It encourages original vendors to open their source to the community if > > > they deem it appropriate. > > prove it - give some examples > > Adaptec. Ok, so we have two (2) - QT and Adaptec. Give me 10 more (out of, what, several thousands of vendors) and I'll be convinced. Want counter examples? Logitech and their webcams, Alcatel and their DSL modems, Lucent and their modems, Bilkin and their wireless hardware, D-link and their wireless hardware, stupid multimedia keyboards from many vendors, OGG/MP3 hardware players with proprietery USB protocols for file up/downloading. Can you address them? Adaptec did the right thing, but they did it for a reason to - not out of sheer altruism, they realized that a huge chunk of the server market belongs to Linux, BSD* - they knew they would earn money on it. Don't be naive and don't think any corporations do things like that because they are good uncles. The other hardware I mentioned above doesn't really have good support in the free software world and why is that? Because most of it is considered to be usable mostly on the desktop - and who is the king of the desktop according to marketoids? Yep, you've guessed right - 95% of the market belongs to Microsoft according to them - they will NOT invest money and time of their employers to produce drivers for the free software systems when they have no numbers to certify they will earn on the drivers (indirectly, by selling the hardware). What I'm trying to say is that if a commercial vendor releases software for free and with the source, they MUST be sure they will earn on the hardware they would sell to the people who will download the free software. And facing that situation, reasonable people using free software go for a compromise - they develop solutions that make it possible to use the hardware with non-free or partially non-free software - linuxant, the PWC driver, the Alcatel firmware loaders and probably many more I have no idea about - develop software that helps to bridge the gap and lets people who want to (or have) to use the otherwise unspported hardware on the free software platforms. That brings in more users, who buy the vendors' hardware and then the vendors start to realize that there is market for them in the free software world and, eventually (hopefully) go opensource with their drivers. But ripping a driver out of the kernel and providing no alternative does NOT help the cause, it harms it - since people with the hardware in question will NOT use the free software simply because they can't - there are no drivers for their hardware. > > > 3) It encourages people to support vendors who follow the tenets of free > > > software, making it a more profitable move to do so. > > ditto > > Ditto. Do you really have no other examples than Adaptec and QT? > > > 4) It increases awareness of free software and it's tenets. > > or rather creates a notion of closed-minded bunch of loonies who repeat > > their "free, freee, freeeeee" mantra without looking around themselves and > > getting down to earth. Yes, I've heard people saying they wouldn't switch to > > free software precisely because of that reason... They compared the free > > software community (represented by the "free uber alles" bunch, alas) to a > > fanatic religious group, yes, a sect. Did you consider that #4 above can be > > quite the contrary? Did it ever occur to you? > > <shrug> Not everyone follows the same religion, either, and rates members > of alternatives as a "closed-minded bunch of loonies". All I can say is, > awareness of the underlying basis for our decision will help people evaluate > and make their own decision. That can only be a good thing, even if it Bullshit... That might be true for developers, coders, hackers and CS studends, but not for an average user or Mrs Babs The Secretary, or a marketoid working in his office on Wall Street. And, the sad truth is we're after the normal people, not the developers. I sometimes really wish Linux was never such a commercial success... > causes them to think that Free Software "believers" are the loonies you say I'm not saying you/we are the loonies. I'm saying there are people who, usually very vocal, make such impression on other people. The silent majority of the free software community are hard working, intelligent, normal people - but the shouting and fighting minority is preceived as the representatives of the entire group. It's like with the soccer fans in Europe. Most games are attended by 30-50 thousands of people each week, only a 1000 (let's assume :)) are the ones who break benches, shop displays, throw in petards etc. and yet it's _them_ who are shown on the evening news, it's _them_ who people associate with the notion of the "soccer fan", even though they are not representative for the group, they do become one in the eyes of the public who is not acquainted with the whole "soccer fan" community. > we are. As long as people think, that's about the most I will ever hope > for. > > > > For firmware, (2) is the most pressing reason, with (3) close behind. (1) > > > is possible, but not as likely as, for, say, a PDF viewer. (4) is, I will > > > agree, slightly tongue-in-cheek. > > Matt, I don't know you at all, I can only read what you write and try not to > > become biased but, please, maybe we should all cut down on meaningless > > babble like the stuff above and just do the stuff we should do at debian - > > maintain and create good software? Don't take it personally, what I'm saying > > is not against you - just taking the opportunity to say (rant, whatever) > > what has been bugging me for the past few months, > > I thought meaningless babble was what we produced here at "Debian Flamewars, > Inc.". You should have gotten used to that :) > Unfortunately, you're always going to get heated discussions on various > topics, which generate large amounts of heat and not a lot of illumination, yep, that's true, alas > wherever you get a large enough group of opinionated, educated individuals. > You can opt out of participating, or even knowing they go on, without any > great detriment to yourself or even the larger world, but I doubt you'll > ever stop them. People just enjoy beating their drums louder than the other > team too much to stop. I'm not trying to stop them, there's no point in doing that, but I'd love to succeed in making them just a tad bit more substantial and effective. There's nothing wrong in calling each other names, even breaking a nose or two, as long as after the fight we can come to some constructive agreement, draw conclusions, heal the wounds and do something useful as the result of the fight. Don't you agree? (and flaming can be fun, too!) :) regards, marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature