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 04-22-2008, 11:24 PM
"max bianco"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Robin Laing
> <Robin.Laing@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> wrote:
> > I came across this article and as a Fedora user at home and work, I think
> > this is important to know.
> >
> > A few weeks ago, there was a discussion about Ubuntu on this list and I
> > feel that this is part of that discussion.
> >
> > ----Article link----
> >
> > The Biggest Blunder: Or why Red Hat and Novell just left the door wide open
> > to Ubuntu
> > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/102011/index.html
> >
> > In recent announcements both Red Hat and Novell made it pretty clear that
> > their foray onto the desktop would be delayed quite a bit longer. What they
> > do not know is that they just left the door wide open for Ubuntu to conquer
> > the desktop and the server space.
> > ----/Article link-----
> >
> >
> > Basically, both Novell and RedHat are backing away from pushing Linux to
> > the desktop. But Ubuntu is not backing away.
> >
> > As a Fedora user, I see this as an issue. At home I need games and the
> > applications that my family use. To date I have not had issues with Fedora
> > up to 7. When I updated my machines at home, there were applications that I
> > couldn't get for F8 so I installed F7. I have not checked to see if these
> > are available for F8 at present. But they were available for the latest
> > release of Ubuntu.
> >
> > I am interested in others views on this.
>
>
> Do what you feel is best. I have some qualms with how Ubuntu runs
> their distro, but I doubt they are shared by many. By all indications,
> Ubuntu is a better desktop distribution than Fedora.

How is Ubuntu better? They make things easier but I don't know if that
makes it better, is there no other reason?
I often suggest Ubuntu for people completely new to Linux but recently
I have had to reconsider that position. I have tried Ubuntu , it is
easy but first off, how do I recommend something I don't use?
Secondly , because I don't use it, I am much less familiar with how it
works and troubleshooting it can be harder than troubleshooting
fedora for that very reason. For these two reasons , plus the third
brought up here that RedHat will not aggressively pursue the desktop
market at this time, I wish Fedora would do one long term release. I
believe that is the only good thing about Ubuntu, they have one LTS
version. Besides eventually all desktops systems will be open source,
this is just a matter of time, and community supported. Right now home
users get no support, if you want support you have to pay. The
majority of desktop systems are in peoples homes.

Max

> I applaud RedHat for their focus, and would like to list some of the
> reasons that I use Fedora and not Ubuntu
>
> * I started linux with RedHat, they made a lot possible for me
> * I like RedHat as a company
> * I like Fedora as a community
> * I like the idea of pure OSS software, even though i do install
> Flash, Nvidia drivers etc
> * I believe a lot of work gets done in Fedora, although sometimes it
> seems like there is no specific objective in mind
> * I feel that there are far more jerks/iditos/annoyances in the
> Ubuntu community than i would prefer to deal
> * Fedora works for me
>
> --
> 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
>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-22-2008, 11:29 PM
"max bianco"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Francis Earl <lunitik@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company
> to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red
> Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it.
>
> Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3'
>
> Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't
> licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed
> it from the wrong people.
>
> Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and
> Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart
> to distribute this stuff.
>
> Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low
> market share that it's not worth it today.
>
I don't know that making it easy to access qualifies as distribution.
Ubuntu used to say on their home page that they only shipped free
software(OSS) , has this changed or am I mistaken?

Max

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-22-2008, 11:33 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

You're mistaken. "Multiverse" and "Restricted" on their servers, as well
as every mirror that hosts Ubuntu, distributes these codecs and other
non-free things on their servers.

Take a look at 'ubuntu-restricted-extras' in the Multiverse repo on
their servers (packages.ubuntu.com) to see some of the things they are
distributing and maintaining for users.

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 19:29 -0400, max bianco wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Francis Earl <lunitik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company
> > to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red
> > Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it.
> >
> > Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3'
> >
> > Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't
> > licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed
> > it from the wrong people.
> >
> > Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and
> > Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart
> > to distribute this stuff.
> >
> > Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low
> > market share that it's not worth it today.
> >
> I don't know that making it easy to access qualifies as distribution.
> Ubuntu used to say on their home page that they only shipped free
> software(OSS) , has this changed or am I mistaken?
>
> Max
>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-22-2008, 11:36 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
encoders/decoders is available.

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:57 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company
> > to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red
> > Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it.
> >
> > Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3'
> >
> > Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't
> > licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed
> > it from the wrong people.
> >
> > Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and
> > Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart
> > to distribute this stuff.
> >
> > Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low
> > market share that it's not worth it today.
>
> AFAIK he doesn't "distribute" it (for some meaning of "distribute"),
> just makes it easy to get. I may be wrong (and I've no interest in
> arguing about it), but I think the Fedora rationale for not doing the
> same thing has more to do with avoiding lockin than avoiding lawsuits.
>
> poc
>
> > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 14:29 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > > > The only real benefits of Ubuntu are proprietary drivers by default, and
> > > > easier access to patent encumbered codecs... catering to users so much
> > > > is why Ubuntu is so popular... no other reason.
> > >
> > > How dare they offer something that users want :-)
> > >
> > > poc
> > >
> >
>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-23-2008, 12:00 AM
"Patrick O'Callaghan"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:36 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
> encoders/decoders is available.

Fair point. However the precise nature of the difference between Fedora
and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. On both systems
the user can install propietary codecs, and on both systems there are
clear warnings that this is "at your own risk" and the proprietary stuff
is not installed by default. The practical difference from the user's
point of view is that Ubuntu tells you how to get it and Fedora doesn't
(the fact that Ubuntu actually hosts some of it is to my mind a red
herring; they could just as easily provide pointers to 3rd-party sites
if they were worried about keeping legal distance, so apparently they
aren't worried about it).

It may also be relevant that Red Hat is a US company, and Canonical
isn't, and that US law allows software patents, and many other countries
don't (yet), but IANAL of course.

poc

> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:57 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > > Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company
> > > to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red
> > > Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it.
> > >
> > > Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3'
> > >
> > > Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't
> > > licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed
> > > it from the wrong people.
> > >
> > > Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and
> > > Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart
> > > to distribute this stuff.
> > >
> > > Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low
> > > market share that it's not worth it today.
> >
> > AFAIK he doesn't "distribute" it (for some meaning of "distribute"),
> > just makes it easy to get. I may be wrong (and I've no interest in
> > arguing about it), but I think the Fedora rationale for not doing the
> > same thing has more to do with avoiding lockin than avoiding lawsuits.
> >
> > poc
> >
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 14:29 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > > > > The only real benefits of Ubuntu are proprietary drivers by default, and
> > > > > easier access to patent encumbered codecs... catering to users so much
> > > > > is why Ubuntu is so popular... no other reason.
> > > >
> > > > How dare they offer something that users want :-)
> > > >
> > > > poc
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-23-2008, 12:27 AM
Todd Zullinger
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Fair point. However the precise nature of the difference between
> Fedora and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. On
> both systems the user can install propietary codecs, and on both
> systems there are clear warnings that this is "at your own risk" and
> the proprietary stuff is not installed by default. The practical
> difference from the user's point of view is that Ubuntu tells you
> how to get it and Fedora doesn't (the fact that Ubuntu actually
> hosts some of it is to my mind a red herring; they could just as
> easily provide pointers to 3rd-party sites if they were worried
> about keeping legal distance, so apparently they aren't worried
> about it).

It is not so simple. Even if you don't host the infringing code, you
can run into problems pointing people to it. See below.

> It may also be relevant that Red Hat is a US company, and Canonical
> isn't, and that US law allows software patents, and many other
> countries don't (yet), but IANAL of course.

Yes, that is quite relevant. The problem with Fedora telling users
how to install things that violate US law is that it is considered
"contributory infringement" (google that .

--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
User, n.: The word computer professionals use when they mean "idiot."
-- Dave Barry

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-23-2008, 12:40 AM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Yes, I Ubuntu/Canonical are based in Isle of Man (that Island between
England and Ireland) on paper. I believe they are actually in London
England however, and in either case, the recent EU decisions related to
software patents apply. The EU and US patent systems related to software
are mostly equal today, and yet Canonical still distribute these things.

Difference is, Ubuntu/Canonical are funded by one man, and are not
profitable today. Red Hat is a public company, and must make money.
Risking legal ramifications is not something Red Hat is willing to do,
however it is something Mark is apparently comfortable with to appease
his users.

It is those things though that halt growth on consumer desktops, so
until such issues are resolved, Novell and Red Hat will never appeal
much to Joe User. Technically uninclined people do not care about such
issues, they just want to play their media library, use their webcams
and other similar things, and have their games work.

Until Red Hat and Novell can answer these questions in a way that allows
them to profit enough to appease shareholders, they will never have a
good consumer desktop product offering. I think Ubuntu is
counter-productive to that goal though, they are just ensuring consumers
continue to not care, rather than trying to really inform them in an
effective way. At least they are providing Linux with more mind-share
though, that can't be a bad thing.

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 19:30 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:36 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
> > encoders/decoders is available.
>
> Fair point. However the precise nature of the difference between Fedora
> and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. On both systems
> the user can install propietary codecs, and on both systems there are
> clear warnings that this is "at your own risk" and the proprietary stuff
> is not installed by default. The practical difference from the user's
> point of view is that Ubuntu tells you how to get it and Fedora doesn't
> (the fact that Ubuntu actually hosts some of it is to my mind a red
> herring; they could just as easily provide pointers to 3rd-party sites
> if they were worried about keeping legal distance, so apparently they
> aren't worried about it).
>
> It may also be relevant that Red Hat is a US company, and Canonical
> isn't, and that US law allows software patents, and many other countries
> don't (yet), but IANAL of course.
>
> poc
>
> > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 15:57 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > > > Yes, despite it's legal ramifications... far better to risk your company
> > > > to appease users. It's not like it's not available for Fedora, but Red
> > > > Hat doesn't risk the future of the company on it.
> > > >
> > > > Google for 'Microsoft billion mp3'
> > > >
> > > > Mark is rich, but that's about 3 times his worth right there... he isn't
> > > > licensing MP3 or any other codec for his distro, Microsoft just licensed
> > > > it from the wrong people.
> > > >
> > > > Now wonder consider ffmpeg for instance has Apple codecs, mpg2/4 and
> > > > Microsoft codecs just to name a few, and ask yourself whether it's smart
> > > > to distribute this stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Only reason he gets away with it is because Ubuntu represents such a low
> > > > market share that it's not worth it today.
> > >
> > > AFAIK he doesn't "distribute" it (for some meaning of "distribute"),
> > > just makes it easy to get. I may be wrong (and I've no interest in
> > > arguing about it), but I think the Fedora rationale for not doing the
> > > same thing has more to do with avoiding lockin than avoiding lawsuits.
> > >
> > > poc
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 18:08 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 14:29 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > > > > > The only real benefits of Ubuntu are proprietary drivers by default, and
> > > > > > easier access to patent encumbered codecs... catering to users so much
> > > > > > is why Ubuntu is so popular... no other reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > How dare they offer something that users want :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > poc
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-23-2008, 01:02 AM
Chris Rosewarne
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Redhat as a US company can not distribute code that infringes on US
patents as this would leave them open to huge lawsuits. They also cannot
even link to information or packages on how to install this code, as
this could be interpreted as 'contributory infringement' and also leave
them open to lawsuits. If Redhat left themselves open to this
possibility they would rightly be crucified by their shareholders.


Now Mark may have deep pockets and have slipped under the radar so far,
but it is a really risky and irresponsible strategy, especially as a lot
of newcomers using his distribution may be left high and dry.


-Chris

Message: 13
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:30:03 -0430
From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
To: For users of Fedora <fedora-list@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1208908803.10350.8.camel@bree.homelinux.com>
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 16:36 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:


It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
encoders/decoders is available.



Fair point. However the precise nature of the difference between Fedora
and Ubuntu in legal terms is not entirely clear to me. On both systems
the user can install propietary codecs, and on both systems there are
clear warnings that this is "at your own risk" and the proprietary stuff
is not installed by default. The practical difference from the user's
point of view is that Ubuntu tells you how to get it and Fedora doesn't
(the fact that Ubuntu actually hosts some of it is to my mind a red
herring; they could just as easily provide pointers to 3rd-party sites
if they were worried about keeping legal distance, so apparently they
aren't worried about it).

It may also be relevant that Red Hat is a US company, and Canonical
isn't, and that US law allows software patents, and many other countries
don't (yet), but IANAL of course.

poc




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-23-2008, 01:16 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

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.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-23-2008, 01:21 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Francis Earl wrote:


It is those things though that halt growth on consumer desktops, so
until such issues are resolved, Novell and Red Hat will never appeal
much to Joe User. Technically uninclined people do not care about such
issues, they just want to play their media library, use their webcams
and other similar things, and have their games work.

Until Red Hat and Novell can answer these questions in a way that allows
them to profit enough to appease shareholders, they will never have a
good consumer desktop product offering. I think Ubuntu is
counter-productive to that goal though, they are just ensuring consumers
continue to not care, rather than trying to really inform them in an
effective way.


What would you like to inform them about? That it's a bad idea to use
an OS that doesn't include licensed codecs as part of its cost and
doesn't run itunes?


--
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 10:16 AM.

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