| Autor |
Nachricht |
|
|
Titel: Eric Raymond advocates Ideological Shift
 Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 01:19 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 16. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 219
|
|
I stumbled upon this article today, and since this is a hotly debated issue, I thought I'd mention it.
Eric Raymond is apparently advocating compromise in the way Linux distros deal with closed source media players. I don't know a lot about the free software movement. But, apparently, he's a well know person that's been involved with it for years.
Personally, after reading the article, I agree with a need to compromise.
One the things that I see as a drawback to Linux newbies is the ability to play proprietary video/audio formats from sites they visit frequently.
To make matters worse, they have to dig through forum posts, wikis on what players and codecs to get, add repositories to their setup that they may not feel comfortable with, and more.
Heck, due to legal concerns, apparently you can't even mention the names of some of the needed packages here.
I've seen some of you voice opinions that Linux users aren't trying to convert anyone. So, it's a non-issue.
Well, from my perspective, it is an issue, since I'd rather not let Microsoft get any more marketshare than it already has, and become even more influential on our lives, controlling what software we use, what video/music we can legally use, etc. (with the recording industry loving it).
If they have no formidable opposition, then user's choices will become more and more limited (especially concerning what platforms they can use for viewing content). I'm already beginning to see newer distro versions leaving out codecs that were in their previous version, just over the FSF's push to make distros comply with the GPL.
So, I think compromise is a good thing (although I've seen that some posters are really into strict compliance with the GPL). There are pros and cons from my perspective.
Here's the link to the article.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/eric_raymond_linux_compromise/ |
_________________
Jim C.
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Eric Raymond advocates Ideological Shift
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 02:25 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 16. Aug 2004
Beiträge: 1905
|
|
| Closed source stuff is unsupportable. We need to update libc/ X.org/ KDE from time to time; ALSA has gone through an ABI transition again? All it needs for dependend packages is just a rebuilt - oops, no source, no dice... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Eric Raymond advocates Ideological Shift
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 03:10 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 13. Mai 2005
Beiträge: 732
Wohnort: Texas
|
|
If think the quote is something like "You dance with the Devil, the Devil don't chance. He changes you."
I have no problem with other distro's making this compromise, but Debian making such a compromise would be a spit in the face to all the users that actually value the Social Contract Debian made.
(And I think we would end up with a mass exodus of Debian developers. Just look how heated it got with the Java inclusion between Anthony Towns and almost everyone else.) |
_________________
Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more.
Mark Twain
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 05:41 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 16. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 219
|
|
I had to look up Debian Social Contract and found this page about it:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
I really don't know a lot about the free software movement. 
But, I guess I should try to see it from all sides and learn what I can so that I'll be able to make better informed opinions. |
_________________
Jim C.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 07:06 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 01. Aug 2006
Beiträge: 17
Wohnort: Gold Coast Australia
|
|
Not a problem, JimC. I began using Linux almost 10 years ago. I'm still just an experienced - but not expert - user and it took a while before I realised that the Open Source principles are valid in many more fields than just software. The whole community has a lot to teach society in general. They can get touchy, but they deserve great respect and their hearts are definitely in the right place!
The quality of Kanotix and the quick and expert help available in this forum are excellent examples. You've found the right place to be...
...Bob (bobdawn). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 07:58 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 05. Okt 2004
Beiträge: 2069
Wohnort: w3
|
|
Closed source media formats (together with closed source file formats in general) are probably the biggest danger to our future in the new world. It's so trivial that I wonder why there is not a much bigger revolution going on:
Only the creator of the format really knows what's inside, only he is able to fix bugs and incompatibilities. He, the creator of the format that way overtakes the power over the content (a book you wrote, a piece of music a band recorded, a legal document your government archives for you).
Even if he is telling us now that his format is free of charge - what if he changes his mind later on?
Even if he is telling us he will fix bugs - what if he stops doing business?
Even if it might be fine technology today - will it be tomorrow?
Even if he promises that he will not spy on you - he already did.
The content of media belongs to us - to the people. It's our cultural heritage, our history, our artistic expressions, our legal documents - ours. We cannot accept anybody to close all that away from us. The free world has fought centuries for all the freedom we have now. Don't let a hand full of companies destroy this, just because "it's easier and more comfortable now".
More and more artists, responsible governments and specially the open source community do care for this problem. You should, too - in your own and your children's interest.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
"An operating system must operate."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 08:32 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 01. Aug 2006
Beiträge: 17
Wohnort: Gold Coast Australia
|
|
Here, Here, Slam!
If I may be forgiven for being a little whimsical, it's frightening to speculate what power the select few would have over us if it were still a secret that the earth is not flat! Would the discovery of gravity - and all that depends on that - have happened had not Newton "stood upon the shoulders of giants"? What if Bill Gates held the patent on the wheel, Chain and Florey had marketed an inferior form of patented penicillin, Jenner had patented smallpox vaccine and restricted its use to only the wealthy (as with AIDS)?
There's a huge and seriously important principle behind all of that and I have to worry about it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 15:03 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 07. Mai 2005
Beiträge: 526
Wohnort: Waliser Märze
|
|
| I suppose we could hope for a situation similar to ODF, whoever whould have thought that woulds happen even five years ago. The whole point of the net is communication yet it is far from open just about every aspect has faced challenges from proprietary software, ultimately it will have to change. The BBC were developing open source codecs but I don,t know how they are progressing with it. That may be an opening in the news channels with the like of CNN BBC Eurosport etc. with no commercial aspect just information. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 20:24 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 16. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 219
|
|
|
slam hat folgendes geschrieben::
The content of media belongs to us - to the people. It's our cultural heritage, our history, our artistic expressions, our legal documents - ours. We cannot accept anybody to close all that away from us. The free world has fought centuries for all the freedom we have now. Don't let a hand full of companies destroy this, just because "it's easier and more comfortable now".
I really haven't looked at most content from that perspective.
Yet, I do look at still images from Digital Cameras as needing to be in more open formats.
For example, I've been vocal in my opposition to encryption used in raw files from Digital Cameras, especially since Nikon started doing it with some of their DSLR models like the D2x (and then later, D2Hs, D50, and D200).
Raw Files (what was captured by the camera's sensor before any image processing) from Digital Cameras are your "Negatives".
If a manufacturer thinks they've got a better product for processing, viewing and storing that image, they should let the product stand on it's own merits versus throwing up road blocks like encryption.
So, you've got some good points about other types of content, too. I've just never looked at it that way before.
Here's an old post where you'll find lots of comments from me about encryption (I'm a moderator on a Digital Camera Forum, and JimC is me).
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/view ... forum_id=2
Here is a site that is advocating that manufacturers open up raw formats used by digital camera, and this page there explains why it's needed:
http://www.openraw.org/info
I can see a lot of parallels between still images and other content types, now that I think about it. |
_________________
Jim C.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 21:48 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 02. Mai 2004
Beiträge: 471
Wohnort: Portland, OR, USA
|
|
ESR's been making this argument for some time now. One might think he would now start recommending Freespire, which includes most of the proprietary multimedia browser plugins and codecs by default.
I think the answer is for open-source advocates to come up with alternatives to Flash and proprietary multimedia codecs (like QuickTime) that are just as good or better, and then push them.
(Ignore the rest of this rant, if you like...)
It comes down to this, really: The principles of the free software movement versus those who want to make money. DRM and proprietary software are both ways of controlling access. DRM tries to control the end user's access, while proprietary software (such as the tools to create Flash and QuickTime content) tries to control the content creator's access. In exchange for money, they'll give you access, either to the content, or to the software used to make the content.
In a society based on the twin pillars of private property and capitalism, it's not surprising things have ended up this way. Even though bits and bytes, and computer algorithms, don't qualify as tangible goods, they've been shoehorned into pre-existing paradigms. What is surprising is that such a thing as Linux should come to exist in such an environment. (And it's kind of amusing to see people with otherwise totally conservative political beliefs become free software advocates.)
It's a difficult problem. Who am I to tell Joe Web Developer he can't sell his Flash creations to his clients? Who am I to tell Jane Linux User she can't install a proprietary codec so she can see the same content her Windows-using friend can? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 18.08.2006, 22:25 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 1005
|
|
I don't think the answer comes in the codec area, I think it comes by creating enough demand for open standards. Exactly what is happening with with ODF for example, that didn't happen because governments decided to compromise and ask for open source read/write of closed document formats, it happened because they refused to do this.
If enough users begin to demand ogg or theora support, then the major media players will have to begin supporting those codecs.
Gnash is already well on the way for open flash support, although it's a pity it had to go that way in the first place. Java is about to get open sourced, finally, sun has gone over most of the code to make sure they can open source it in the first place and except for some remaining with unclear licensing, components, java will be open sourced fairly soon.
re conservatives etc, in the old days, conservatives cared about freedom, that's changed in some parts of that scene, but that part has exactly zero to do with real conservatism if you look at what they do and not what they say, so I don't consider those types conservatives anyway. Caring about freedom shouldn't be dependent on one's political tastes, although of course for some it does come to that I guess.
Raymond is fast moving himself into irrelevancy, if you've read his stuff before, all this comes about because he can't get this stuff easily running on his fedora. Does he think to himself: Eric, baby, maybe it's time I change distros? No, he just attacks fedora for not being what he wants. Does he then look for a new distro that does what he wants? No, he just attacks fedora for not doing what he wants. I don't know if his brain has failed him over all the years, or what, he's written some good stuff in the past, but it's time for him to take a look around and stop whining so much.
Another earlier whine came when he couldn't find a theme to his taste for his new wordpress blog. Did he try to hack one, did he look more into it? No, he just whined about wordpress not coming with the theme he wanted. Really. He's getting pathetic. For those counting, he finally did find a theme he liked, and stopped whining, but not before he had once again shown how mentally lazy he's gotten in the last few years.
So here's my suggestion to eric: shut up and stop whining. You're getting boring, and are not contributing anything meaningful to the dialogue. |
_________________
Read more on dist-upgrades using du-fixes-h2.sh script.
New: rdiff-backup script
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 19.08.2006, 03:47 Uhr
|
|
Artist
Anmeldung: 11. Aug 2005
Beiträge: 451
Wohnort: Australia
|
|
I thinks this little quote sums it up quite nicely.
"It was never the object of patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of unknown liability lawsuits and vexatious accounting for profits made in good faith."
(U.S. Supreme Court, Atlantic Works vs. Brady, 1882)
The US supreme court were accurate prophets in this matter. Structuring our laws for the benefit of corporates have brought it to pass. It's an absurd situation where Intellectual Property can be owned by something that doesn't have an intellect.
As I always say; if the current mentality regarding copyright/patents was always with us, a caveman would have patented the straight line and the curve when they first started painting on caves and that's where art would have stopped.
Closed formats are the work of greed and greed leads to the dark side young Luke. mmmmm |
_________________
Cathbard.com
The real pirates by Courtney Love
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 19.08.2006, 13:20 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2004
Beiträge: 275
Wohnort: Paris-France
|
|
I don't think this is a black and white issue.
In many ways slam makes a good point on IP in general. Just as many of the great masters of fine art were unappreciated during their lifetimes etc.we don't realise our cultural heritage being made. The idea of IP being a corporate thing is also pretty new in the grand scheme of things, being a bit tongue in cheek its a good job the wheel wasn't patented and then that patent extended indefinately but on a more sensible note the printing press, steam engine, motor vehical etc. etc.
We might not realise it but we are making similar advances today, we are just a part of them and don't reliase it the same way as looking back at the telephone or such. Indeed if you look back at fine art copying was normal, the lasters themselves often made copies and if they had students the students were often encouraged to make copies or similar works.
Zitat:
Closed source stuff is unsupportable. We need to update libc/ X.org/ KDE from time to time; ALSA has gone through an ABI transition again? All it needs for dependend packages is just a rebuilt - oops, no source, no dice...
and
Zitat:
I think the quote is something like "You dance with the Devil, the Devil don't chance. He changes you."
I have no problem with other distro's making this compromise, but Debian making such a compromise would be a spit in the face to all the users that actually value the Social Contract Debian made.
(And I think we would end up with a mass exodus of Debian developers. Just look how heated it got with the Java inclusion between Anthony Towns and almost everyone else.)
These are both true.... but it doesn't mean the whole idea is unworkable....
I kinda feel like debian is debian.... it serves a role and the world would be poorer without it.
But at the same time it would be easy to make an external project like debianmultimedia.org
Somewhere 3rd parties like drivers and firmware could actually submit their debs.... they would be responsible for rebuilding but at least have a centralised repo.
Zitat:
It's a difficult problem. Who am I to tell Joe Web Developer he can't sell his Flash creations to his clients? Who am I to tell Jane Linux User she can't install a proprietary codec so she can see the same content her Windows-using friend can?
I think this is the point ... along with a huge dose of reality....
To me Debian shouldn't change, its important that it exists as per social contract, its what makes debian debian.
At the same time making life difficult for people isn't a great goal and not the reason for the social contract, its just a consequence. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
