Francis Earl wrote:


Who is that helping? You think users would continue to use AAC (iPOD) or
MP3 etc if they knew they do not own that media they just paid $1 for?


If we leave DRM out of the picture (and AAC doesn't necessarily imply
DRM) there's no difference in these formats than in any other forms used
for consumer sales. That is, if you buy a CD or DVD, there are
licensing fees involved for the devices that play them. Those do not
really have much to do with the concept of your ownership of the
physical media.



Apple is currently the largest distributor of music in the world, users
can't even share that music with their friends legally.


Again, no distinction from other types of media distribution. Paying
for your copy doesn't give you the right to make additional copies or
redistribute them.


> One dollar is a

small figure, but how much is Apple making for basically just allowing
users to listen?


Apple doesn't create this content and doesn't keep all of the dollar -
it's not really up to them as a distributor to give additional rights to
the buy.



Users do that willingly though, and complain if they're not able to be
ripped off in such ways. That is what RedHat is fighting in the consumer
space, and why they aren't willing to invest millions trying to appeal
to these people.


RedHat can hardly complain about restrictions on additional copies of
music when they place the same kind of restriction on the software they
distribute, requiring it to only be installed on a single computer.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

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

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 13:37 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Francis Earl wrote:
> >
> >> An interface is agnostic to what is on the other side, which is the
> >> point of it being an interface. And going out of your way to not work
> >> with certain others is anticompetitive behavior.
> >
> > You don't seem to get it, GNU was founded on certain beliefs, and just
> > because those beliefs are now entering the mainstream does NOT mean
> > RedHat and other strong believers should reverse their decisions.
>
> It's not a matter of 'getting it'. The mechanism used to enforce the
> beliefs are counterproductive to the goals. RedHat, of course has a
> huge vested interest in keeping others from being able to add
> improvements that they can't also automatically obtain but that's not my
> point here.
>
> > Take a look at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members to see how
> > anti-competitive Linux is in the tech industry. Anyone that wants in can
> > contribute and have a say in the direction of it... No one owns Linux,
> > all you have to do is play by the rules.
>
> But you can't include content already under different restrictions.
> There's a lot of that content - some with no legal alternative
> replacements possible.
>
> >> You can't choose to cater/not cater. You either present a usable
> >> interface and give the user the freedom to decide what to put on the
> >> other side, or you don't. The rest is just side effects.
> >
> > I'll remind you it's ILLEGAL to have non-free code link against GPL
> > code.
>
> Yes, and that keeps GPL'd code from being used at all in many situations
> which is the part I consider counterproductive. The way to oppose
> overpriced proprietary software is to make usable replacements for as
> much of it as possible - which necessarily involves using it with code
> under different restrictions for as long as there are no free
> alternatives. Instead, the license forces users to continue to use all
> non-free code since they can't be mixed.
>
> > The price you pay for that is that you get drivers a little late,
>
>
> No, code covered by copyright can be replaced by alternative versions,
> although in the driver case it is generally written by someone with less
> incentive to make it work than what the vendor would provide. However,
> in any location where software patents are recognized you can't have any
> algorithm covered by a patent until it expires or someone buys it and
> releases it for free redistribution.
>
> The scary part here is that no one really knows how much software is
> patented, or how broadly the claims might be interpreted. Even if we
> accept on faith that no one has intentionally duplicated any patented
> techniques into Linux, there's no reason to think that they haven't
> gotten there by accident as a matter of duplicating needed functionality.
>
> > oh well. Windows users have been perfectly fine using a system that
> > doesn't even support their hardware out of the box.
>
> Windows doesn't change its driver interface on a monthly basis, so users
> have no problem getting and installing a vendor-provided driver that
> normally continues to work for the life of their machine. That scheme
> is not a problem.
>
> > No one is suing ATI
> > or Nvidia, but they are some of companies not abiding by the rules.
>
> If their software uses components already under different restrictions
> they can't possibly abide by the law while releasing under GPL terms.
>
> > DRI
> > is working as fast as they can though to create a good story despite
> > that.
>
> Video drivers are a tiny part of this problem.
>
> --
And Microsoft and other large corporations are trying to get the patent
laws changed to first to file vs first to invent, which might open the
door to them patenting code that they did not invent. Think about that.

Regards,
Les H

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

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 13:37 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Francis Earl wrote:
> >
> >> An interface is agnostic to what is on the other side, which is the
> >> point of it being an interface. And going out of your way to not work
> >> with certain others is anticompetitive behavior.
> >
> > You don't seem to get it, GNU was founded on certain beliefs, and just
> > because those beliefs are now entering the mainstream does NOT mean
> > RedHat and other strong believers should reverse their decisions.
>
> It's not a matter of 'getting it'. The mechanism used to enforce the
> beliefs are counterproductive to the goals. RedHat, of course has a
> huge vested interest in keeping others from being able to add
> improvements that they can't also automatically obtain but that's not my
> point here.

Actually, they don't. It is simply a matter of law. RedHat contributes
ALL of its code under GPL or similar licenses BECAUSE of that law. All
of the companies that contribute to Linux do so understand that the
other parties will do the same.

Why should one company be able to leech off of them without investing in
the code themselves? Why should other companies benefit from the work of
those companies that DO NOT WANT THEM TO? That is the point of GPL, you
scratch my back, I'll scratch yours... translated into legal-speak.

If someone decides to not play ball, and their is enough interested
parties, there is always a way to work around the issues. That work
around simply never benefits the group not playing ball.

RedHat believes Linux isn't ready on the consumer desktop because there
are so many huge holes in what the consumer desires.

> > Take a look at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members to see how
> > anti-competitive Linux is in the tech industry. Anyone that wants in can
> > contribute and have a say in the direction of it... No one owns Linux,
> > all you have to do is play by the rules.
>
> But you can't include content already under different restrictions.
> There's a lot of that content - some with no legal alternative
> replacements possible.

You can distribute that code under GPL if you have the copyrights to it.

> >> You can't choose to cater/not cater. You either present a usable
> >> interface and give the user the freedom to decide what to put on the
> >> other side, or you don't. The rest is just side effects.
> >
> > I'll remind you it's ILLEGAL to have non-free code link against GPL
> > code.
>
> Yes, and that keeps GPL'd code from being used at all in many situations
> which is the part I consider counterproductive. The way to oppose
> overpriced proprietary software is to make usable replacements for as
> much of it as possible - which necessarily involves using it with code
> under different restrictions for as long as there are no free
> alternatives. Instead, the license forces users to continue to use all
> non-free code since they can't be mixed.

So the way to counteract expensive proprietary software is to use
proprietary software in the making of the alternative? No, the best way
to counteract such things is to replace the ENTIRE product.

Also, the point of Linux is NOT to be a cheap alternative. That is in
fact a stated NON-GOAL. The GPL explicitly allows making money from the
code. If I want, I can charge you $5 million dollars for a copy of GIMP
on CD-ROM, if you're dumb enough to pay it :P

> > oh well. Windows users have been perfectly fine using a system that
> > doesn't even support their hardware out of the box.
>
> Windows doesn't change its driver interface on a monthly basis, so users
> have no problem getting and installing a vendor-provided driver that
> normally continues to work for the life of their machine. That scheme
> is not a problem.

I'll state again, Linux currently provides an interface for drivers that
is stable, but it's only available to those willing to release their
code under GPL.

> > No one is suing ATI
> > or Nvidia, but they are some of companies not abiding by the rules.
>
> If their software uses components already under different restrictions
> they can't possibly abide by the law while releasing under GPL terms.

Uhh, hence my insinuating that their drivers are illegal.

> > DRI
> > is working as fast as they can though to create a good story despite
> > that.
>
> Video drivers are a tiny part of this problem.

What do you consider the more important area for the discussion?

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

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 13:54 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Francis Earl wrote:
> >
> > Who is that helping? You think users would continue to use AAC (iPOD) or
> > MP3 etc if they knew they do not own that media they just paid $1 for?
>
> If we leave DRM out of the picture (and AAC doesn't necessarily imply
> DRM) there's no difference in these formats than in any other forms used
> for consumer sales. That is, if you buy a CD or DVD, there are
> licensing fees involved for the devices that play them. Those do not
> really have much to do with the concept of your ownership of the
> physical media.

Your points here are valid of course. The artist should be able to
choose how they distribute their media.

Think about the case where I save myself saying something as an MP3 or
WAV or whatever. Is it then right that the patent holders for those
codecs own that voice sample? No. Currently though, they would.

That is why the Xiph Foundation exists, they develop codecs that do not
have such restrictions.

> > Users do that willingly though, and complain if they're not able to be
> > ripped off in such ways. That is what RedHat is fighting in the consumer
> > space, and why they aren't willing to invest millions trying to appeal
> > to these people.
>
> RedHat can hardly complain about restrictions on additional copies of
> music when they place the same kind of restriction on the software they
> distribute, requiring it to only be installed on a single computer.

RedHat also releases their entire source code freely for each of their
releases, so you can simply use CentOS if you don't agree with their
terms. Only thing you lose is their support, and a few pretty pictures
are replaced.

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

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:35 -0400, max wrote:
> > Da Rock wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 09:58 -0700, BRUCE STANLEY wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Rex Dieter <rdieter@math.unl.edu> wrote:
> > >> Paul Shaffer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > This is the attitude that will eventually marginalize Fedora
> > >> into a
> > >> > non-issue:
> > >>
> > >> I humbly disagree. There's a right and a wrong way to do
> > >> things, and I'm
> > >> glad fedora chooses to take the higher-ground.
> > >>
> > >> -- Rex
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Taking the higher ground means keeping your feet dry.
> > >>
> > >> But if you want help/rescue the drowning user
> > >> (e.g. Laptop users, some desktoppers), you have to be willing to
> > >> get your feet wet! :-)
> > >
> > > Indeed. And even by your count thats a handful versus the world in
> > > computing... I'd say thats marginalized.
> > >
> > What's with the defeatist attitude?still harboring bitterness against
> > M$? Forget M$!
> >
>
> No, I am by no means a defeatist.
>
> I mean marginalized against every other platform and distro out there-
> including unix. Hell, even FreeBSD (another completely free software
> organisation) makes it easier to access the software people want.
> Getting it to operate correctly is another matter... but at least it is
> made available easily to the end user.
>
>
So use the others if they suit your needs better. I discovered this
distribution on my own. Nobody recommended to me that it was the "one"
to use. I like it. I like that it doesn't include proprietary software
and I don't see any reason for Fedora to go out of the way to
accommodate non-free software, especially when the proprietary
software makers do everything they can to make sure free software
dies. Why should anyone hate free software? It empowers people, you
think in terms of playing music and opening word docs, there are
plenty of distros that cater to that, that is their right, that is not
what I want on my desktop. So what, I ask you, is wrong with one
distribution out of hundreds taking a principled stand?Is that not
their right? If you don't like Fedora then don't use it. Why are you
using Fedora anyway?

Max

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

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Da Rock <rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 10:44 -0400, max wrote:
> > Da Rock wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 11:39 -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
> > >> Alastair Neil wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:wayward4now@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:05 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> > >>> > That article ENTIRELY got it wrong. All RedHat said was they won't be
> > >>> > pushing Linux on the consumer desktop for some time. They make their
> > >>> > money from servers, and they are a company, so it's not in their best
> > >>> > interest to have a product they aren't profiting from.
> > >>>
> > >>> OTOH, as I've said for years, desktops beget servers. Who in their right
> > >>> mind would have ever thought that Windows would become a choice as a
> > >>> server platform?? The Windows3.1 users got used to the desktop and it
> > >>> rolled from there. Disregard the desktops of college entry level users,
> > >>> and they'll migrate with their favorite platform and comfort level to
> > >>> using it to admin their future server needs. What's not to understand in
> > >>> this? RedHat could very well be blowing their lead and not seeing it
> > >>> until too late in the game to recover.
> > >>>
> > >>> We (RH) used to have college programs all over the place ...usually
> > >>> promoted as install fests at Universities. I haven't heard of one in the
> > >>> press for years now. Servers are where the money is, no doubt. But, it
> > >>> is better IMHO to have the future admins loyalty through the user
> > >>> desktop by catering to them. I spent years in Marketing. I learned to
> > >>> never EVER disregard the little guy. He might become the next purchasing
> > >>> agent and/or decision maker. My two cents, Ric
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> An where has it got Microsoft? 20 years and countless billions invested
> > >>> in marketing and they still manage only 30% of the server market.
> > >>>
> > >>> True, Novel lost out to WinNT in part because users got used to the
> > >>> Windows interface and wanted a similar experience for managing their
> > >>> servers. I refuse to believe that there is such a gulf between Ubuntu
> > >>> and RHEL in functionality that users would have the same visceral
> > >>> reaction and defect in droves from RH to Ubuntu - because they love
> > >>> brown backgrounds on their Gnome desktops. Red Hat has focused its
> > >>> desktop efforts on crafting a distribution that is best in class for
> > >>> administering servers, just as SUSE is crafting a business productivity
> > >>> centric desktop distribution with an emphasis on Windows
> > >>> interoperability (thus Evolution, Mono/silverlight and "Don't Sue us
> > >>> please Bill!" agreements). These distros have carved their own niches,
> > >>> I don't as yet know what Ubuntu's niche is - windows malcontents? home
> > >>> tinkerers/hobyists? Small Home Office? You could argue that this is
> > >>> exactly the way linux started and who knows in 10 or 20 years maybe they
> > >>> will have a significant enterprise share, however, I doubt it. Being
> > >>> able to play MP3's out of the box rarely makes it onto a enterprise
> > >>> server deployment specification.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> This is an interesting comment. Just a few days ago, I read an article
> > >> about Microsoft pointing out companies that have moved from Linux
> > >> servers due to the desktop support as well as gui management tools. Of
> > >> course I hear that they are now adding more command line tools for
> > >> administration due to demand.
> > >>
> > >> I see two aspects to this part of the debate.
> > >>
> > >> If people use Linux at work, they will be more likely to use it at home.
> > >> They will use what they are familiar with. Most computer users are
> > >> not that intelligent to using their computers. Some cannot even figure
> > >> out how to update their computers.
> > >>
> > >> As for MS not getting a larger server share, this is a strange aspect.
> > >> Part of the issue in the past has been many admins that new Unix found
> > >> it easier to move to Linux from Solaris or other versions. The share of
> > >> Windows servers from what I am reading is increasing. I see this as a
> > >> result of the new point and click mentality. If you cannot click it,
> > >> then you cannot manage it. Damn kids today.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I know thats the mentality, but my god thats bullshit! I'll use cli
> > > anyday for major tasks- try migrating stats support on a IIS server with
> > > 400+ sites then you'll know!
> > >
> > >> FWIW, this thread has brought out many of the comments that have been
> > >> stated in this article.
> > >>
> > >> Did Canonical Just Get Punked by Red Hat and Novell?
> > >> http://blog.linuxtoday.com/blog/2008/04/did-canonical-j.html
> > >>
> > >> Basically, the announcements are to support the server sales.
> > >>
> > >> I did like this comment though.
> > >>
> > >> "Curiously, very little attention was paid to Ron Hovespian's comments
> > >> on Novell's similar plans, made before Red Hat's. If I were Novell, I
> > >> would take this as a bad sign. Not only did the mainstream media not
> > >> pick up on Novell's news, but even most of the hard-line Linux
> > >> blogosphere wrote them off with nary so much as a "meh" And if you can't
> > >> get those folks mad, you must be doing something wrong! "
> > >>
> > >> From the people that I know, the reason to move from Fedora is the
> > >> upgrade path being easier. Longer support is appreciated. Some of
> > >> these people are also old time Solaris users as well.
> > >>
> > >> I will stick with Fedora as long as I can get third party application
> > >> that me and my family use. If they are only available on Ubuntu, then I
> > >> will have to move.
> > >
> > > I think it comes down to ease of support as well. If support doesn't
> > > keep up then the software is rendered useless. Ie MPlayer and codecs...
> > >
> > Obviously Fedora is not for the faint of heart.
>
> No, unix is not for the faint of heart- Fedora could and should be made
> easier to gain a greater share of platforms (and help reduce the zombies
> on the net).
>
Greater share of platforms? why? If you define success by marketshare
then M$ won long ago. Everyone else might as well curl up in a corner
with their knees to their chest and blubber. You say you want to
*take* market share but what ever for?what will you do with the
marketshare once you have it?Spend all your time wondering how to keep
people from jumping ship that's what.


Max

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

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, max bianco <maximilianbianco@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you don't like Fedora then don't use it. Why are you using Fedora anyway?
>

I forgot. I've been a longtime Redhat aficionado. Looong before the Fedora moniker came about. Even got certified a few years ago. Lately the reasons not to use it seem to be weighing more heavily. Point well taken.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________
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

Do you even use Fedora?if so why?

Max

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

> Greater share of platforms? why? If you define success by marketshare
> then M$ won long ago. Everyone else might as well curl up in a corner
> with their knees to their chest and blubber. You say you want to
> *take* market share but what ever for?what will you do with the
> marketshare once you have it?Spend all your time wondering how to keep
> people from jumping ship that's what.

I disagree, I believe RedHat and others WILL gain marketshare eventually
on the consumer desktop. I think they will just take their time to do it
CORRECTLY. If companies like RedHat are effective, then the consumers
demands will change. It takes time to educate people that do not want to
be educated though, that is the battle for RedHat.

Linux is leading the embedded space, and the server space as far as I
know, that is where the future is. Consumers won't continue to demand
PC's, they want cell phones and similar devices to do everything their
PC's do today. The industry doesn't want Microsoft or another large
company to control that space though, which is why they're turning to
Linux. As Linux devices take off, there will be less demand for Windows
as such things will work easily on the Linux desktop.

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

> > If you don't like Fedora then don't use it. Why are you using Fedora anyway?
> >
>
> I forgot. I've been a longtime Redhat aficionado. Looong before the Fedora moniker came about. Even got certified a few years ago. Lately the reasons not to use it seem to be weighing more heavily. Point well taken.

So you're going to give up on all that... because you can't figure out
how to set up the Livna repo?

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