[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Don Marti]

begin Alan DuBoff quotation of Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:11:09PM -0700:
>> That's why the PC business model will never die,
>> much as some of the ditherati want everyone to be on
>> Network Computers that are sold, serviced, and billed
>> like mobile phones.
>
> Absolutely, it is no different than how Gates looks at a PC in every 
> home. Isn't his vision really about providing a system to run on those 
> very PCs? That's all fine and dandy, I don't have any problem with that 
> type of vision, I have a problem with how he practices his business, 
> that's the unfair side of it all.

Sure.  The early Linux scene could have had a lot
worse than the Windows 3.1 market to contend with.
MSFT only lost its mojo when it started smoking
whatever makes you think DRM is a good idea, gave
up on users and decided to empower the IT Department
and the Media Cartel instead.  A lot of the companies
that now sell Linux are much more evil.

>> Maybe what we need is more entertainment devices
>> sold without software, or with a minimal load.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of a device sold with a base system 
> on it, but all the other software located in cyber to be downloaded, so 
> that no one entity owns the software. I don't like the idea of any 
> corporation holding copyrights or licenses on software, why? Why should 
> anyone hold anything on software that is purely free? I think Stallman is 
> digging himself into a hole with all the versions of GPL, it is not right 
> to place restrictions on the software in claims to keep it free, IMO.
>
> OTOH, I do support his efforts, I just wish that there was such a thing 
> as free code, in it's pureist form, and it really gets down to how 
> fundamentally incorrect how the patent and copyright laws are created and 
> enforced.

The main problem with getting companies to make
code Free is _not_ managers acting in the interests
of their shareholders or in their own interest.
The main problem is just inertia.  If the policy
at a company has been "never release source code"
you have to do something to make it happen the first
time, and you can't justify putting in the time to do
it unless you can say that you have to.

If you're Joe Product Manager and you want to put
source code for your device on the net, or on the
bundled CD, you can easily explain it as "we're
complying with our obligation under the license."
If you don't have the GPL to point to, _you_ have
to come up with the reason why you're sharing code,
and it had better not be "community mumble mumble
hippy dippy 2.0 mumble mumble."

>> Imagine a CD player that, out of the box, is just a CD
>> player/clock radio.  But install the right open source
>> firmware from the net, and it's a net radio/ripping
>> station/FM time-shifter/web-controlled jukebox.
>
> I like that of course, but I sure would like to see devices include it 
> all when you buy them.

And I want a pony.  If you're big enough to make
lots of devices cheaply, you're big enough to be an
attractive lawsuit target.

> I have some concerns with Google in that regard, as well. Not that Google 
> would be deceitful, but that when I look at the license for the Android 
> SDK, there seems to be about 15 various ways the user agrees to their 
> license even when not agreeing to it. :-/ I realize Corporations have 
> liability and things to protect, but it makes one ponder, IMO, certainly 
> before agreeing to the click-through in my case. I'll just look at the 
> public examples for the time being.

Google will change a license if a high-profile blogger
mentions it.

-- 
Don Marti                                               +1 510-814-0932
http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
dmarti at zgp.org         Linux device driver unconference: http://freedomhec.org/