FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-26-2008, 03:33 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Les wrote:


On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

Why should I be interested in a distribution that makes it
difficult for me to make my own choices about whether a license

>> is acceptable or not? I don't have a problem with downloading
>> my own copy of any >> particular code from any particular
>> place under any conditions that I find acceptable.


But that is the problem. The folks with proprietary want to limit your
use to only the systems they have chosen to support, thus you can end up
with instruments or software that you have purchased that will not run
when the OS changes.


That's hardly unique to proprietary software. I once relied heavily on
CIPE as a VPN, but FC2 just dumped it with no replacement. Yes, I could
have kept all the broken pieces of the source code...



Furthermore their licenses forbid you from reverse
engineering the code to figure out how to make it work some where else,
and the owner of the proprietary OS won't let you do any reverse
engineering legally to figure out how to interface to the software or
hardware he/she/it chooses to no longer support.


I'm perfectly willing to take the chance that if I need something there
will be a proprietary vendor. Aside from it being a silly argument
particularly when we are starting from a point where the free version is
the one that doesn't work, why is it anyone else's business?


> Thus you are obsoleted

with no legal recourse.


Fedora is hardly in a position to talk about obsolescence being a
problem since they force it on everyone with every version.



Those lovely sites where you download such
utilities are often legally not clean to use either, depending upon the
laws that the various entities have seen fit to pass.


Ummm, we were talking about Sun Java, here. Remember, the one that
defines the standard. The one you can download for free from their own
web site. Fedora is the site that ships the non-conforming version and
the one that is going to be obsolete.



Finally your own
documents, code and other encoded data may be unaccessable to you
either, because the formatting, encoding, encryption or compression may
be proprietary and non disclosed with the attendant no reverse
engineering clauses, leaving you without access even to your own
material.


Again - Sun Java. The programming language. The thing that everyone
other than Sun has tried to corrupt by making incompatible versions that
suit their own agendas better. Do you really expect fedora to ship
utilities to fix the programs you wrote earlier under their
non-conforming version to run under the real thing when they switch?



That is why these licenses, and the subject of libre or free software is
important.


Following standards is what is important and what prevents it from being
a problem when you switch components. The version that fedora ships is
a non-standard one. They aren't doing anyone any favors by making it
difficult to use the real one.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 03:36 AM
"max bianco"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Les <hlhowell@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Why should I be interested in a distribution that makes it
> > difficult
> > for me to make my own choices about whether a license is acceptable
> > or
> > not? I don't have a problem with downloading my own copy of any
> > particular code from any particular place under any conditions that I
> > find acceptable.
> But that is the problem. The folks with proprietary want to limit your
> use to only the systems they have chosen to support, thus you can end up
> with instruments or software that you have purchased that will not run
> when the OS changes. Furthermore their licenses forbid you from reverse
> engineering the code to figure out how to make it work some where else,
> and the owner of the proprietary OS won't let you do any reverse
> engineering legally to figure out how to interface to the software or
> hardware he/she/it chooses to no longer support. Thus you are obsoleted
> with no legal recourse. Those lovely sites where you download such
> utilities are often legally not clean to use either, depending upon the
> laws that the various entities have seen fit to pass. Finally your own
> documents, code and other encoded data may be unaccessable to you
> either, because the formatting, encoding, encryption or compression may
> be proprietary and non disclosed with the attendant no reverse
> engineering clauses, leaving you without access even to your own
> material.
>
> That is why these licenses, and the subject of libre or free software is
> important.
>
> Regards,
> Les H
>
>
Adobe Flash is something I can't for the life of me figure out why
anyone would use. You can't kill the adds like you can with gnash and
it leaves a gaping security hole in everything it touches.
Max

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 03:37 AM
Craig White
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 22:33 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Les wrote:
>
> > But that is the problem. The folks with proprietary want to limit your
> > use to only the systems they have chosen to support, thus you can end up
> > with instruments or software that you have purchased that will not run
> > when the OS changes.
>
> That's hardly unique to proprietary software. I once relied heavily on
> CIPE as a VPN, but FC2 just dumped it with no replacement. Yes, I could
> have kept all the broken pieces of the source code...
----
wasn't the cipe code dropped from the 2.6 kernel?

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 03:38 AM
"max bianco"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Les wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > > Why should I be interested in a distribution that makes it
> > > difficult for me to make my own choices about whether a license
> > >
> >
> >> is acceptable or not? I don't have a problem with downloading
> >> my own copy of any >> particular code from any particular
> >> place under any conditions that I find acceptable.
>
>
> > But that is the problem. The folks with proprietary want to limit your
> > use to only the systems they have chosen to support, thus you can end up
> > with instruments or software that you have purchased that will not run
> > when the OS changes.
> >
>
> That's hardly unique to proprietary software. I once relied heavily on
> CIPE as a VPN, but FC2 just dumped it with no replacement. Yes, I could
> have kept all the broken pieces of the source code...
>
>
>
> > Furthermore their licenses forbid you from reverse
> > engineering the code to figure out how to make it work some where else,
> > and the owner of the proprietary OS won't let you do any reverse
> > engineering legally to figure out how to interface to the software or
> > hardware he/she/it chooses to no longer support.
> >
>
> I'm perfectly willing to take the chance that if I need something there
> will be a proprietary vendor. Aside from it being a silly argument
> particularly when we are starting from a point where the free version is the
> one that doesn't work, why is it anyone else's business?
>
>
> > Thus you are obsoleted
>
> > with no legal recourse.
> >
>
> Fedora is hardly in a position to talk about obsolescence being a problem
> since they force it on everyone with every version.
>
>
>
> > Those lovely sites where you download such
> > utilities are often legally not clean to use either, depending upon the
> > laws that the various entities have seen fit to pass.
> >
>
> Ummm, we were talking about Sun Java, here. Remember, the one that defines
> the standard. The one you can download for free from their own web site.
> Fedora is the site that ships the non-conforming version and the one that is
> going to be obsolete.
>
>
>
> > Finally your own
> > documents, code and other encoded data may be unaccessable to you
> > either, because the formatting, encoding, encryption or compression may
> > be proprietary and non disclosed with the attendant no reverse
> > engineering clauses, leaving you without access even to your own
> > material.
> >
>
> Again - Sun Java. The programming language. The thing that everyone other
> than Sun has tried to corrupt by making incompatible versions that suit
> their own agendas better. Do you really expect fedora to ship utilities to
> fix the programs you wrote earlier under their non-conforming version to run
> under the real thing when they switch?
>
>
>
> > That is why these licenses, and the subject of libre or free software is
> > important.
> >
>
> Following standards is what is important and what prevents it from being a
> problem when you switch components. The version that fedora ships is a
> non-standard one. They aren't doing anyone any favors by making it
> difficult to use the real one.
>
>
May i ask why you use Fedora if its such a royal pain in the ass?

Max

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:22 AM
Antonio Olivares
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

--- max bianco <maximilianbianco@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Les
> <hlhowell@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 13:45 -0500, Les Mikesell
> wrote:
> > > Why should I be interested in a distribution
> that makes it
> > > difficult
> > > for me to make my own choices about whether a
> license is acceptable
> > > or
> > > not? I don't have a problem with downloading my
> own copy of any
> > > particular code from any particular place under
> any conditions that I
> > > find acceptable.
> > But that is the problem. The folks with
> proprietary want to limit your
> > use to only the systems they have chosen to
> support, thus you can end up
> > with instruments or software that you have
> purchased that will not run
> > when the OS changes. Furthermore their licenses
> forbid you from reverse
> > engineering the code to figure out how to make it
> work some where else,
> > and the owner of the proprietary OS won't let you
> do any reverse
> > engineering legally to figure out how to
> interface to the software or
> > hardware he/she/it chooses to no longer support.
> Thus you are obsoleted
> > with no legal recourse. Those lovely sites where
> you download such
> > utilities are often legally not clean to use
> either, depending upon the
> > laws that the various entities have seen fit to
> pass. Finally your own
> > documents, code and other encoded data may be
> unaccessable to you
> > either, because the formatting, encoding,
> encryption or compression may
> > be proprietary and non disclosed with the
> attendant no reverse
> > engineering clauses, leaving you without access
> even to your own
> > material.
> >
> > That is why these licenses, and the subject of
> libre or free software is
> > important.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Les H
> >
> >
> Adobe Flash is something I can't for the life of me
> figure out why
> anyone would use. You can't kill the adds like you
> can with gnash and
> it leaves a gaping security hole in everything it
> touches.
> Max
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>

On adobe flash, you bring up an interesting point, ads
are everywhere, if adobe flash is not present, you
cannot do anything. You need it to do many things
view many webpages, it is hard to deal with, but
without it you will have a hard time doing anything on
the net. It is sad but true. I do not see how the
alternatives can do the same job.

I find the comment interesting as well here

> Why should I be interested in a distribution
> that makes it difficult for me to make my own
> choices about whether a license is acceptable
> or not? I don't have a problem with downloading my
> own copy of any particular code from any particular
> place under any conditions that I find acceptable.

It is very legitimate. If something does not work the
way you want it, you have to go your own way and while
Fedora does not open the doors fully open, it does not
close the doors to you either. You are still free to
incorporate the code that you need/desire and it will
run in Fedora some with more problems than others.
One that I find hard to deal with is xine. I remember
Totem very well and the dicussions that it has brought
up many times before and many concise arguments for
and against it. The free/vs nonfree stuff. If it
were up to me and many other users, there should be no
totem no "free stuff nor nonfree stuff", we should go
snatch the stuff that we want and we install it. That
is it no this is not free/not legal/good/verses it is
included by default and you cannot do much with it
because the rest of the world closes you out. You
have to get the *prohibited/nonfree software* because
the the other guys require it.

The source is there go and get it, install it
yourself, Fedora will not be liable/held accountable
for software that we install on our own. It is for
our own use and we should determine what we install on
our machines.

I see what Ubuntu does, but then again it only offers
you to make your life easier, but does not include the
nonfree stuff(with some exceptions nvidia*) like
mint/pclinuxos or other distros which include it. It
is still does not make them any better/any worse than
fedora. I can have the same in Fedora only it will
take a little bit more work, but I am happy with it
and it works for me.

If some software is illegal, what will the big guys do
to a little guy? Will they sue me because I have
nonfree stuff? What will they do to me? I can see
the logic for the big corporations and companies, but
for the little guys, the home users, it does not make
much sense. Either way, I respect the decision by the
Fedora Board and I am happy to use Fedora. I'll try
to deal with the problems on a one by one basis.

Regards,

Antonio


__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:46 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

max bianco wrote:


That is why these licenses, and the subject of libre or free software is

important.


Following standards is what is important and what prevents it from being a
problem when you switch components. The version that fedora ships is a
non-standard one. They aren't doing anyone any favors by making it
difficult to use the real one.



May i ask why you use Fedora if its such a royal pain in the ass?


I haven't actually installed a version since FC6 - I just keep my eye on
it because Centos eventually tends to inherit its mistakes.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:56 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Craig White wrote:





But that is the problem. The folks with proprietary want to limit your
use to only the systems they have chosen to support, thus you can end up
with instruments or software that you have purchased that will not run
when the OS changes.
That's hardly unique to proprietary software. I once relied heavily on
CIPE as a VPN, but FC2 just dumped it with no replacement. Yes, I could
have kept all the broken pieces of the source code...

----
wasn't the cipe code dropped from the 2.6 kernel?



It was never part of the kernel - just a victim of the ever-changing
Linux interfaces. There were eventually patches to fix it, but fedora
never bothered to pick them up or even add openvpn which would have been
a usable replacement.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:56 AM
"Arthur Pemberton"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Antonio Olivares
<olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On adobe flash, you bring up an interesting point, ads
> are everywhere, if adobe flash is not present, you
> cannot do anything.

You need to start visiting better sites. No good website relies on
flash that heavily.


> If some software is illegal, what will the big guys do
> to a little guy? Will they sue me because I have
> nonfree stuff? What will they do to me? I can see
> the logic for the big corporations and companies, but
> for the little guys, the home users, it does not make
> much sense.

Who says it has to make sense? Big business sue little guys all the time.

--
Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine
( www.pembo13.com )

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 05:08 AM
Craig White
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 23:56 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Craig White wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> But that is the problem. The folks with proprietary want to limit your
> >>> use to only the systems they have chosen to support, thus you can end up
> >>> with instruments or software that you have purchased that will not run
> >>> when the OS changes.
> >> That's hardly unique to proprietary software. I once relied heavily on
> >> CIPE as a VPN, but FC2 just dumped it with no replacement. Yes, I could
> >> have kept all the broken pieces of the source code...
> > ----
> > wasn't the cipe code dropped from the 2.6 kernel?
> >
>
> It was never part of the kernel - just a victim of the ever-changing
> Linux interfaces. There were eventually patches to fix it, but fedora
> never bothered to pick them up or even add openvpn which would have been
> a usable replacement.
----
been so long that I have forgotten the reason but I know that it was
simultaneous to migration to 2.6 kernel that occurred with FC2.

anyway...openvpn is indeed available...

# yum install openvpn knetworkmanager-openvpn
Loading "priorities" plugin
396 packages excluded due to repository priority protections
Setting up Install Process
Parsing package install arguments
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package openvpn.i386 0:2.1-0.19.rc4.fc7 set to be updated
---> Package knetworkmanager-openvpn.i386 0:0.2-0.1.svn20070815.fc7 set
to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: knetworkmanager = 0.2-0.1.svn20070815.fc7 for
package: knetworkmanager-openvpn
--> Running transaction check
---> Package knetworkmanager.i386 0:0.2-0.1.svn20070815.fc7 set to be
updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution

Dependencies Resolved

================================================== ===========================
Package Arch Version Repository
Size
================================================== ===========================
Installing:
knetworkmanager-openvpn i386 0.2-0.1.svn20070815.fc7 updates
34 k
Installing for dependencies:
knetworkmanager i386 0.2-0.1.svn20070815.fc7 updates
350 k
openvpn i386 2.1-0.19.rc4.fc7 fedora
356 k

Transaction Summary
================================================== ===========================
Install 3 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)

Total download size: 740 k
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Exiting on user Command
Complete!

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 05:13 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Antonio Olivares wrote:

I find the comment interesting as well here



Why should I be interested in a distribution
that makes it difficult for me to make my own
choices about whether a license is acceptable

or not? I don't have a problem with downloading my
own copy of any particular code from any particular
place under any conditions that I find acceptable.


It is very legitimate. If something does not work the
way you want it, you have to go your own way and while
Fedora does not open the doors fully open, it does not
close the doors to you either.


So you like it because it's not quite impossible to do what you want?


If some software is illegal, what will the big guys do
to a little guy? Will they sue me because I have
nonfree stuff?


If they had any sense, they would arrange simple ways for you to get
legal, licensed copies. And the OS would go out of its way to make sure
that the one such copy you obtain continues to run for at least the life
of your machine. With Java, getting the copy is matter of accepting the
form as you download from the Sun site - getting fedora to recognize
that you have a JVM installed for the packages that need one is a whole
different matter.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org