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, 06:51 PM
"Arthur Pemberton"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

2008/4/26 Paul Shaffer <ace_wizard@yahoo.com>:
> If Redhat's legal staff spent half the time finding ways to make things
> doable instead of playing the "just say no" game, most of these problems we
> speak of would become administrivia instead of broken systems.
>
> But then again, it's more righteous to "take the high ground" not to mention
> easier and less costly.

Most self righteous comment so far. Maybe RedHat should higher
lobbyiest and simply pay of politicians.

--
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, 07:18 PM
Alan Cox
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:08:00 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Shaffer <ace_wizard@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If Redhat's legal staff spent half the time finding ways to make things doable instead of playing the "just say no" game, most of these problems we speak of would become administrivia instead of broken systems.

In my experience (and I work with these people) they spend their time
trying to find ways to make things doable, but sometimes the US legal
system has its head so far up its backside it can suck its teeth.

The people who can change that are not a few lawyers - it takes -the
people- to do so.

Alan

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 07:48 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

I think the main thing you're missing here is, no one really cares
whether Linux takes off on the desktop, in fact, Red Hat has said it
won't try because it's not cost effective.

An XP desktop costs around $200 whether it's added onto the cost of your
machine or not. Linux generally is between $50-100 from most that try to
sell it, but everyone goes for Windows anyways. You have to take several
steps to get it onto that machine, and you're still not going to be the
first choice because you're not what people are familiar with.

Red Hat charges in the thousands per machine for support to
corporations, that is where the money is, and by comparison, the home
desktop is chump change to them. That is without marketing costs,
without much of anything but a strong name in the corporate space.

Why should they pay around $15 per user for software the user didn't pay
for, just so they can play codecs that aren't relevant to the people
making them their money? They are available within the community, so
what is the issue? You'd rather Red Hat go out of business, just so it's
easier for you to play a damn audio file, or better 3D performance for
your games?

There is nothing you can really do about nvidia and ati, nothing but
reverse engineer things, or force them to open up the specs. There is
people trying to do that stuff, via Nouveau for Nvidia cards for
instance. There are even legal ways to get codecs (fluendo) and other
equally easy ways. Red Hat would rather fight to get those companies to
play ball right than just so "ok, we'll do it your way".

You run Linux today because Red Hat didn't say "ok, put it in, but be
gentle" to every corporation that told it to bend over. Today, Linux is
big business, and is really making strides even on the home desktop.

You wouldn't even have heard of Linux though if it wasn't for RedHat.
Why should they go back on what has made them successful just because
the current batch of Linux newcomers can't figure out how to add a yum
repo or read docs? Then, that IS why Ubuntu is so popular today... but
again, at least they're providing mindshare, so they're doing their
part.

I just hope they're not harming the rest of us by making it justifiable
to not open their hardware to Linux devs, that they are teaching people
the right way to do things. I hope they are doing more to wise users to
better codecs - codecs that allow them to actually OWN the media, and
share it legally.

I don't see much of that though, all I see are a bunch of Ubuntu guys
wandering out to the rest of the Linux community, and expecting Ubuntu's
flawed beliefs to be prevalent everywhere.

To answer your question, yes it does feel good being part of a minority
that asks "how are they able to get away with that?", and makes an
effort to ensure the industry can't rape users anymore. It speaks more
loudly for the ignorance of society at large that these things are even
an issue.

On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:25 -0700, Paul Shaffer wrote:
> Ah yes - the crux of the matter. May we also recognize that the
> "faint of heart" also represents somewhere around 99% of "potential"
> users? Even as some portion of the remaining 1% of the less faint
> seem unhappy?
>
> Feel good belonging to such a small, elite minority that shrinks further every day?

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 07:58 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Java6 is indeed redistributable, but it's not open source. RedHat
invested a lot of money into Classpath which forced Sun to make the
moves it eventually did. It wasn't because Sun was doing the right
thing, it was because if they waited much longer, they wouldn't be in
control of Java anymore.

It really surprised me that Debian signed it, they are generally far
more strict I thought. They rebranded Firefox because of similar
restrictions placed on the user... but then, it is the user that must ok
the agreement, not Debian itself.

Java is sort of a m00t point now though, in Fedora 9, Fedora will have
OpenJDK 1.6.

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:51 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 20:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Francis Earl wrote:
> > > It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
> > > encoders/decoders is available.
> >
> > Not everything that fedora makes difficult is illegal. Sun Java, for
> > one example, the drivers provided by the vendors of the hardware users
> > have chosen to purchase for another.
>
> (doing my part to move the thread back to some-what on topic...)
>
> It *used*to* be illegal to redistribute Java without Sun in the middle
> (still subject to interpretation). That is until Java6, when Sun made
> the DLJ (https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html) and made it
> retro-active for Java5. That said, have you /read/ the DLJ? It's not
> exactly a fertile ground for Fedora mission objectives.
>
>
> E.g. (http://download.java.net/dlj/jdk/LICENSE) (from the FAQ section):
>
> """
> 16. If some program in my OS specifies the option -Xbootclasspath to
> the java command, is that considered a breach of Section 2(c)?
>
> We realize there is some confusion about this because the
> documentation for the java command at
> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/tooldocs/solaris/java.html
> makes specific mention of the Binary Code License (BCL). The intent
> of Section 2(c) is not to restrict what end user programs do with
> command line options but rather to ensure that the Sun Java
> platform is not used to create hybrid implementations with
> alternate technologies, or mingle the JDK code with alternate
> technologies so they run together.
> """
>
> This along with FAQ section 14 make it sound like it excludes running
> gcj and classpath. Fedora also bytecode compiles to platform specific
> binaries, using, gcj.
>
> FAQ Section 17 says that you *still* have to provide a click-through
> license before installation to end users, at least notifying them of
> the licensing.
>
> There was also wording that sounded like you may not be able to break it
> into pieces (distribution is subject to the wording in the included
> README, from the FAQ Section 9: """it allows us to adjust the technical
> details of what constitutes the "Software" and what parts may be
> redistributed separately or omitted from a distribution without revising
> the license itself."""), even the way that JPackage does it. JPackage
> is not subject to the DLJ because they are not a distro. Furthermore
> they provide nosrc RPMs which require users to still go through the Sun
> click-through... which satisfies Sun.
>
> Doesn't sound very libre to me...
>
> Additionally, there are only *three* distros that have signed the DLJ:
> Debian, Ubuntu (Mark helped Sun draft the DLJ, BTW), and Gentoo. RH has
> a separate agreement to "distribute" (essentially the drop-in RPMs that
> Sun provides) it with EL that is not subject to the DLJ.
>
>
> Disclaimers:
> 1.) IANAL.
> 2.) I like libre software...fanatically even; I have no stake in this
> otherwise, professionally or not.
> 3.) Any non-quoted portions are of my opinion and not a position of any
> other entity.
> 4.) Any quoted portions were not intentionally misquoted.
> 5.) Any misrepresentation is purely through my ignorance or
> misunderstanding.
>
>
> --Tim
> _______________________________________
> / And so it was, later,
> | As the miller told his tale, |
> | That her face, at first just ghostly, |
> | Turned a whiter shade of pale. |
> -- Procol Harum /
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
> /
> ( )
> .( o ).
>

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

Craig White wrote:



the impatience of youth...

Remote offices have this thing about not liking to be down for years.

----
thankfully there are people with vision and knowledge that can navigate
these troubled waters.
----


In spite of the efforts of OS distributions to make that difficult.

It's not about bitching so much as
a reality check for other people's lies supporting their own agendas.

----
ah but you're missing one teensy, weensy bit of information here...that
you actually have the source code so you can continue to use it even
when it becomes orphaned.


Yes, I could have gotten a copy of the source code that it's own author
and the experts involved in the OS packaging couldn't fix. That's just
wonderful.



With proprietary software, you don't have the
source code, you cannot rebuild it when the OS changes, you cannot fix
bugs, you are left completely out to dry.


That's not an issue - the point is that it is unrealistic to think it is
unique to proprietary code, or even more likely. There have been many
instances of previously proprietary code having its source released as
the product was abandoned. Yet everyone pretends that it is an issue
because it supports their agenda.



What you're really complaining
about is that Fedora stopped packaging cipe but that never precluded you
from packaging it yourself and maintaining it yourself.


What I'm really complaining about is that an interface changed without
backwards compatibility and nobody cared about the damage it caused.



I think you need to talk to Real World Accounting users in order to
consider the real ramifications when the proprietary software you are
using ceases to exist to get real perspective. If Microsoft succeeds in
taking over Yahoo...you're likely to see the vaporization of Zimbra. The
dangers of committing to proprietary software should never be
diminished.


The thing you should commit to are interfaces and standards - this lets
you replace components without worrying about whether they are
proprietary or not. But if you walk away from your interfaces
particularly without supplying replacements for the things that will
break, no one can be expected to trust you.



I recognize your point about firewire but it has worked for me whenever
I used my combo firewire/usb hard drive and my earlier iPod which used
firewire. I do recall reading about some issues with firewire but never
had to confront them directly so I can't say that I noticed. I think the
firewire issue is somewhat off point.


The specific instance isn't the point here. It is just an example that
I have personal experience with where the proprietary binary flavors
have worked for a decade or more with no problem, yet I keep hearing the
lies that interfaces don't matter and binary drivers are a problem.


--
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, 08:09 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

fwiw, I wasn't attempting to top post or anything... I was simply
replying to those that had replied to me, and to other things that
didn't sit right.

I generally just read along and say nothing... sorry if I wasn't
following proper etiquette though, I suppose it's much better etiquette
to make pointless off-topic posts declaring such things.

Live and learn.

On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 09:21 -0600, Steve Lindemann wrote:
> Ric Moore wrote:
> > Top posting is universally despised among Linux and Usenet users for
> > years and doing so is the mark of a newbie user who comes from a
> > Windows-centric background, where such things are condoned like having
> > drive letters instead of names.
>
> I've been trying to explain to one of my windoze centric co-workers why
> top posting is not appropriate and couldn't find the right words. Thank
> you! List ettiquete has always been a contentious issue, right from the
> beginning when we etched our missives using rock tablets (I vaguely
> remember it 8^) but I've always read from left to right and top to
> bottom and it's hard, for me anyway, to go at it backwards.
> --
> Steve Lindemann __
> Network Administrator // ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> Marmot Library Network, Inc. // against HTML/RTF email,
> url: http://www.marmot.org // vCards & M$ attachments
> email: mailto:steve@marmot.org
> voice: +1.970.242.3331 ext 116
> fax: +1.970.245.7854
>
>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 08:25 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Antonio Olivares wrote:
>

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


Yes, it is not impossible. Just leave the default
Fedora stuff alone, put the stuff you need elsewhere
and you are good to go. Fedora does not prohibit us
from compiling from source and installing our own
programs.


But it's not really the best platform for this since it changes so
quickly and makes you repeat much of your own work frequently.



Now if you want to use third party rpms for
the programs that you need, that is another matter,
that is between you, the third party packagers and the
fedora team. This I cannot say much because I try not
to depend too much on third party packagers.


And likewise, their choice to change interfaces rapidly makes it
difficult to take advantage of other people's work.



I commend the third party packagers because they work
hard to make the *non-free stuff* work on Fedora. The
programs work nicely, but then updates come about and
the program might not work as it did and bugs appear
and it takes time for the mirrors to sync and us users
complain that a certain program is not working. We
want everything right here right now, and we simply
cannot have that. It is not a matter of Fedora being
the bad guy, Life is like that in general.


Interfaces and standards are what makes cooperation possible. Whether
you think they are bad guys or not will depend on how seriously you take
the proposition that interfaces are contracts among programmers. I take
it very seriously because every change hurts everyone else, and
everything that is not backwards-compatible or standards-compliant will
cost other people time and trouble. I think that is a bad thing. Other
people have a different opinion and think everything an upstream
developer writes should be published even if it is buggy, badly
designed, not compatible with what they did last week and breaks all of
the work others had been trying to do to build on it. I can respect the
long view of that opinion in that new ideas and code have to be tested
somewhere, but I do what I have to to avoid being hurt by it personally.



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.


They tried to do that with Fluendo/Codec Buddy, but in
many ways it sucks! The third party packagers *put
their name here* make programs work in combination
with the fedora programs and everything works as it is
supposed to.


Agreed - the sensible approach would be to design a strictly-standard
interface around all patented code so you could get a licensed copy for
yourself or a specific device once, ever, and continue to use it
regardless of OS or application changes. But with any GPL'd code
involved there is no way to design such a thing and no business model to
support it. Proprietary OS's and applications can simply roll the cost
of the license into the cost of the overall product.



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.


The legal staff is the one that recommends that Fedora
do this to avoid potential lawsuits and to restrict
certain stuff from happening.


The jpackage nosrc rpm approach had no legal issues.


Java is coming along
very well, in Fedora 8 there was iced tea,


Standards compliance is a yes or no question. Almost doesn't count.


in the
upcoming Fedora 9, there will be an adaptation to the
OpenJDK/ whatever it is called and it is working for
me very well. Of course some of the stuff that Sun
puts in there does not get there because of little
technicalities, but otherwise the product works and
many users appreciate that.


Do you expect this to be backwards compatible with what they have
published previously? That is, will the almost-java code that has been
written to work around the non-compliant version that fedora has shipped
for years run transparently on a compliant JVM? If it doesn't, how is
the fedora near-java different from the one Microsoft tried to ship from
the perspective of an end user who doesn't want to be locked into a
platform?


--
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, 08:29 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Alan Cox wrote:



If Redhat's legal staff spent half the time finding ways to make things doable instead of playing the "just say no" game, most of these problems we speak of would become administrivia instead of broken systems.


In my experience (and I work with these people) they spend their time
trying to find ways to make things doable, but sometimes the US legal
system has its head so far up its backside it can suck its teeth.

The people who can change that are not a few lawyers - it takes -the
people- to do so.


Did someone say Debian redistributes the Sun JVM? If so, I think that's
the real surprise here. I always considered them to be the most
conservation of the distributions and the least likely to include
anything that isn't strictly open source.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesel@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 08:45 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Francis Earl wrote:


There is nothing you can really do about nvidia and ati, nothing but
reverse engineer things, or force them to open up the specs.


Of course there is: provide a stable interface for drivers and cooperate
with instead of subverting the vendors that try to improve your product.



To answer your question, yes it does feel good being part of a minority
that asks "how are they able to get away with that?", and makes an
effort to ensure the industry can't rape users anymore.


Industry can only rape users if there is no competition. Users choose
what they buy. The way to help them is to increase the available choices.



It speaks more
loudly for the ignorance of society at large that these things are even
an issue.


No, it means that you aren't addressing the real issue at all. The real
problem is that Microsoft has no competition, and by working to ensure
that Linux distributions cannot contain everything they need to be a
competitor, you are helping them maintain their monopoly status and
their ability to rape users.


--
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, 09:31 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 15:45 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Of course there is: provide a stable interface for drivers and cooperate
> with instead of subverting the vendors that try to improve your product.

This has already happened. Greg Kroah-Hartman is leading up work to
ensure it, however they still will not cater to proprietary venders.


> Industry can only rape users if there is no competition. Users choose
> what they buy. The way to help them is to increase the available choices.

There are plenty of choices out there, users don't investigate choices
though, they go with whatever is cheaper, or whatever their friends and
co-workers are using.

> No, it means that you aren't addressing the real issue at all. The real
> problem is that Microsoft has no competition, and by working to ensure
> that Linux distributions cannot contain everything they need to be a
> competitor, you are helping them maintain their monopoly status and
> their ability to rape users.

There are distros that agree with you, Ubuntu being a prime example.
Most of the industry is coming around to what RedHat is preaching
though, and until it does entirely, Linux will never be ready on the
consumer desktop.

Red Hat is a multi-billion dollar company today because it stood by its
beliefs, Microsoft is running scared, and are in Asia right now begging
the Chinese government to pay for Linux so that software doesn't become
entirely valueless. It is this kind of thing that over time has
convinced hardware venders that their companies value is entirely on a
driver that makes something work how it should... is that right? No.
Their value is in the hardware itself, and supporting that product.
Software is just a means to that end.

Microsoft knows that, and that is why it sees Linux as such a threat. If
you argue this point, you should ask yourself who taught you that...
there are plenty of software developers getting paid writing open source
code... there are plenty of companies making billions from that code...
but everyone benefits, not just one greedy monopoly.

Why cater to the companies that don't get it yet just because users
whine and run to a distro that does cater to them? They're still
reporting bugs on FOSS software, they're still working on FOSS code, who
cares. Let those with a vested interest in Linux do what they think is
right, and let the Ubuntu's of the world that just package the result
worry about trying to get Linux onto your Mom's desktop.

When Linux is truly ready, when RedHat is comfortable that it can
effectively go after that market, it will do that. Until then, they'll
continue becoming more profitable in the spaces they currently feel
comfortable going after.

--
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 09:18 PM.

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