ressu ([info]ressu) wrote,
@ 2006-10-01 23:08:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
About creating software for the users (Debian)
It's that time again, Debian is preparing for a new release (just like, oh some, 3 years ago) and there lots of internal fights brewing. It would appear that there are people working towards making debian fully DFSG Compliant, which is nice. The problem is that it would require removing quite a few bits of the distribution that currently makes it usable. Firmwares and other bits that can't be distributed in source form for various reasons are now on the line.

I support free software and i know why this debate is going on. But i think there are people who are missing the bigger picture. We are loosing users due to the fact that debian just doesn't work on a lot of hardware. People go for Ubuntu and the alike. Then there are the other people who complain about Ubuntu stealing our users..

See the problem?

While the people at ubuntu try to keep the core distribution clean, they also provide easy access to the bits that people want. Providing people with 'what they want' is the thing that brings people to Ubuntu. It's not about selling out, it's about providing a service to your customers. Customers in free software world are the users. It's just like in the commercial world, we have the product and we hope that the customers want it. We can't force feed them, different customers have different needs. Either adapt to the demand or accept the fact that people go for something else because they want it.

Come on, lets start working towards providing our customers with the service that they want. Either that or stop bitching about loosing people to other distributions.



(Post a new comment)


[info]emacsen
2006-10-02 02:04 pm UTC (link)
It would appear that there are people working towards making debian fully DFSG Compliant, which is nice. The problem is that it would require removing quite a few bits of the distribution that currently makes it usable. Firmwares and other bits that can't be distributed in source form for various reasons are now on the line.

The problem is that Debian is working in a vacume against the grain of Linux. If you look at OpenBSD, they take a hard-line stance just like Debian does, and they eventually make it happen. Debian could do this if the kernel developers were backing this approach.

Yet again, it's Linus whose impeding progress.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ressu
2006-10-02 02:24 pm UTC (link)
The problem is that Debian is working in a vacume against the grain of Linux. If you look at OpenBSD, they take a hard-line stance just like Debian does, and they eventually make it happen. Debian could do this if the kernel developers were backing this approach.


It's not just about linux. There are reasons why OpenBSD isn't really widely adopted, one of those reasons is the lack of hardware support. If Linux is to be widely adopted, it needs to support hardware. There are companies that refuse to release the source code for their drivers. The only option is to reverse engineer the drivers (which is illegal in some countries). this means that either you deal with the fact that you are forced to accept binary blobs or deal with the fact that there is no wide adoption.

Once a system is widely adopted, there is a possibility to start putting pressure on releasing source code for the binary blobs. Currently, even though linux has been adopted as much as it has, it's still a few geeks against the commercial world.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]emacsen
2006-10-02 02:28 pm UTC (link)
The question is, "What is the objective?"

If the objective is to have wide adoption and a usable system, then using blobs makes sense.

If the goal is Free Software, then blobs are not as helpful.

The only sensible justification I've heard for blobs is that they don't run on the main CPU, but when I see this, I see others talking about the use of binary X drivers, or binary kernel modules.

At that point, the system is no longer Free Software, and then we have to ask, "Why is this benefitial?", a widely adopted system with lots of hardware support already exists, and it's called Microsoft Windows.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ressu
2006-10-02 02:40 pm UTC (link)
The only sensible justification I've heard for blobs is that they don't run on the main CPU, but when I see this, I see others talking about the use of binary X drivers, or binary kernel modules.

You are touching the other important issue. Whether or not we should support binary applications. For the record, in my head binary X driver is a binary application and not a binary blob.

Supporting binary applications is a good thing. There are various reasons why companies might want to provide binary applications. While not all binary applications are 'not Free Software', i'm not going in to these reasons here.

Enabling binary applications to function inside the Free Software environment is a good thing, it makes the platform more appealing for commercial entities. Also it allows more freedom for the users.

At that point, the system is no longer Free Software, and then we have to ask, "Why is this benefitial?", a widely adopted system with lots of hardware support already exists, and it's called Microsoft Windows.

Forcing an environment to be all about 'Free Software' is just as restricting to the users as the current commercial environments. Is 'Free Software' the next 'commercial software'?

Remember, this is all about freedom.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…