Nice to see other free software advocates like Dave Neary taking the point of freedom. I had taken some similar points at gnome-marketing list.
Dave says about freedom: “Ignoring such a powerful concept, which we *own*, seems to me like suicide. “We’re the nicer browser to use” will work for a while, but one day that may well not be the case…”
That’s exactly the point! I think that freedom ist playing a very minor role in marketing free software.
And I want to suggest again to combine more marketing knowledge for free software. But I think we should beware not to just take marketing as something we need, not something essential. For good open source marketing I recommend the reading of The art of envangelism buye Guy Kawasaki and Creating passionate users: You ARE a marketer. Deal with it. by Kathy Sierra.
Lets learn from each other.
On October 24th Fedora Core 6 came out. I have installed it on my 1,6 Ghz Desktop with a 512 MB RAM and a new 250 GB Samsung disk and a DVD writer. My first impression: Really clean installation, many things go smoother than at last installation. For instance for me downloading additional is much better because there seem to be more mirrors. Yep and there is GNOME 2.16 – looks nicer and quicker really. The notification area applet is usedmuch more and better than other applications. Gaim beta is still buggy. I really do not like the icon-theme that Fedora does. I think Tangos icons are much better and they even fit better to the Fedora Theme! (strange) wih their blue.
What’s not so nice is that we did not get Firefox 2.0 . That would be a hit! GNOME 2.16 looks a bit rough to me. it looks like it wants to do everything right but the mechanics or the feeling is a bit hectic. They should work on the smoothness so that the overall impression feels more natural.
The installation of aditional repository like (for me) essential rpm.livna.org was relatively stressless, except a bug that forces the user to circumvent some obstacles by hand. Well, shit happens.
What I still find stupid is that in german Abiword is name “Textverarbeitung” and Openoffice.orgs Writer is names “Word Proccessor” (Which means “Textverarbeitung” in german.). I think there is a real problem with the idea of naming an icon by its function. Because what do you do if there are two applications that do the same thing? Why no use both? Or why not have an option to sort menu by application purpose? you can also look at one of my ideas at http://live.gnome.org/GnomeIdeas/DropBox. So far for now.
First off: No this is not news. If you’d expect that I tell you that this is happening you are at the wrong blog article.
I just like to be heretical. I want to tell you what I think:
- Both (Fedora Core and OpenSUSE) are free community projects
- Both are having similar goals
- Both work on things like 3D-Desktops
- Both have a tie with their parent companies (Redhat and Novell)
- Both use RPM as a standard.
- Both are already cooperating
I thin essentially Linux development should try to reduce redundancy in development. I think both come from different angles and that it would have been an illusion to bring Red Hat and SuSE together. But I now think that the projects that are more interested in the users as in the success of their parental companies.
I am not a software engineer, but as it is possible to install RPM packages on different platforms (OK don’t do that really) I think they have at least some things in common. My suggestion would be that somebody tries to unite both distributions, kind of a best-of both.
I guess repackaging is not so complicated. I would dump YAST because it is so monolithic and I would wish for OpenSUSE that they would dump it anyway.
What were the benefits:
- Much more packages!!
- More ease for the maintainers to only have to provide one RPM for tow major distributions!
- This could give Linux a boost as Fedora and OpenSUSE user base is maybe doubling and so more bug reports for one distribution.
I know Red Hat already said that they like to have many different distros on the market, but from my view these two are too similar and both unified would be a great thing. Yeah, maybe I only like it if people are cooperating 😉 – I am a believer in cooperations much more as in the “everybody does what he likes best” . I try to look at it simple: What goals do we have and what can we do to reach them? I think those two could make one great distribution. This should be an external project in order not to confuse users. So now how to name this beast.
Fedora SuSE? 😉
I just reorganised my tags so that I used those that are used more often (lower numbers). Hope this helps people to find my blog entries.
Some of you might already have heard of the problems between Debian and Mozilla. (see Debian Project Leader report for 2005-07-07 look for “Firefox”). I really think that this is more of a joke. First i want to comment on the so often called freedom of Debian. I don’t really think it is free. It includes more patent problematic software than any other distribution, especially related to OpenSUSE and Fedora. They have different repositories/sources for those, but they are distributed with Debian. That’s why you can listen to patented and copyrighted MP3 in Debian right from the start, but not on Fedora. The problem they have is with the trademark of Firefox.I don’t want to go too much into details. This is an evolving story. My view is that to make a fork should be possible. And if Debian chooses to do some patches quicker and better, why not. Sure this has the effect that a default installation base gets split, but if people are not really using Firefox in Debian they should see this by the name. So maybe this is what should be the default way. Debian often chooses to patch things that make software work differently – but mostly you do not recognize this “forks”. So maybe this whole issue should be seen more positive. Maybe Mozilla forces Debian to show their cards.
( see also Behind the Debian and Mozilla dispute over use of Firefox )
Filed under Browser, Linux
If you read the comments on “when the bough breaks” one might come to this conclusion. The think that formats like PSD an H.264 are free open file formats, which they are definitely not. They do not get the point and they insist that their Macs “just work”.
This is the result of an oversimplification in Apples marketing strategy. Although they sure have some fine people inventing new hardware Apple continuously betrayed users, locked them in and mistrusted them. And if Apple does not trust you, how come you trust Apple?
Some people coming from Windows may think switching to a Mac might be good idea – ans also some Unix geeks think that a Mac saves them time. Well: it is not. This is true if you are a real simple user that just needs a computer to tank your iPod – and it is only true if you are willing to pay a price. The price is the loss of your freedom and you can also count it by your expenses. Better have a credit card right by your side if you use a Mac. The Mac is just selling “it just works”. Why else did I have to help a Mac user hours and hours to get things working that I could do with my Linux box within a few minutes? Ah yes it is easy if your Mac dealer lives around the corner and you pay him for every help you get.
The truth is that there is no such computer that “just works”! Said but true. I am using GNOME on Linux. GNOME also has Human Interface Guidelines like Apple has and it also tries to make things simpler. But I would not say that it “just works” – but it often works much better than a Mac. The only argument pro Mac I accept is if you have an application you need and that only runs on a Mac. Than you HAVE to use it, poor guy/girl. 🙂
The concept of Linux and Free Software in general advocates the freedom instead of simplicity. It includes the possibility to develop applications that are easy to use, while Macs philosophy does not include freedom. So it might be easier at some points – but if it is more complicated you do not have the freedom to make it easier. Even if you could.
You might now say that the Mac also is able to use free software. True, but really a Mac that tries to use free software is much more complicated to use than a Linux that is build upon free software. I could not get Gimp-Print to work on a Mac, even though I use it for years on Linux. On a Mac many things are hidden because Apple thinks you are stupid. I admit GNOME is also hiding more things than KDE because it also thinks users are stupid. But in the end it is free! What is hidden is up for discussion. You can send in bug reports and it even might get changed in the next release or you can apply a patch and have what you want in only hours.
So Apple is only as far interested in its users as they are paying for their products. Apple really does not care about you! Apple wants your money, therefore it makes nice looking and working products. They don’t do it because they want to help you. In GNOME and KDE users and developers are one family that help each other and try to understand each others needs, even if they do not agree every time.
If you like freedom throw away your Mac-Os and install some decent and trustworthy OS. If you are rich and have people that help you in handling your Mac, keep using it you do not want or need freedom.
Inclusionism is a philosophy held by Wikipedians who favor keeping and amending problematic articles over deleting them.(read more at Mediawikis Meta Wiki) – thats just as a start for discussing some issues that Wikis andopen source projects do have in common. I think one could call me an inclusionist. But not in all aspects. I love the inclusion of everything so nothing will be lost.
I have just experienced the force of Wikipedia Deletionists in the german Wikipedia. I wrote an article about unconferences. That was deleted, but only weeks after that a similar article with the title BarCamp was written: The deletion was led by a highly respected Wikipedian who is a journalist . She search for the german word “Unkonferenz” and only got 64 results. So somehow this article got deleted, because she argumented it was not relevant. Indeed, if she had searches in english she would have gotten 1.2 million results. This is just one but a good example how “quality assurance” indeed leeds to less quality and redundant work. I would not say that wone should never delete a Wikipedia article but it should be the last choice for really stupid articles that do not make any sense at all. At least a REDIRECT should be possible.
Similar problems come up in open source. See the article “About leaving” from Russel Coker. Fedora decided not to support Xen for older CPUs like his (that he got from Red Hat as he left the company). There we see the problems with the classic WONTFIX approach. I found that distributions like FreeBSD have this WONTFIX attitude more often – and sure Fedora also does this more often than Debian. I think it is understandable if you have limited ressources but want to get a working release in time. I think the probklem is starting if people have less opportunities and are forced to switch (like from Fedora to Debian). There are other examples where people siwtch from Debian to Fedora for similar reasons. On my partI switched to Fedora because Debian never had uptodate software. Ubuntu really filled a gap here. Maybe I had switched to Ubuntu and not Fedora if it had existed at this point. I think the problem is that users often like to have a fork, something slightly different but that the efforts for switching or extending are often big. We still have different package formats. So as a user you often stuble accross a site where a developer builds only for his distribution (that might be Gentoo, Debian, or Fedora/Red Hat, etc.) and that just does not is what you are using right now. I think there is something wrkong in this development processes. People are starting to write for a distribution because they have limited ressources. At the same time that emans that many users will not be able to uses their packages and that some extra work will have to get in migrating the package.
I think the classic distribution development is outdated. Understandably but outdated. This approach only makes sense for tools that should only be run on one distribution and never on another platform. I am not a developer but I think it should be possible to automatically build for different distributions
while programming? Ok, sometimes you want to build on one library version that does not (yet) exist on other distributions, but this could be solveable. Maybe a tool could help you in deciding where to build on knowing what libraries all distributions use. Also I think development tools should enable users to write code that immediately is published online like with wikis or with Gobby. So certainly a devtool needs a jabber chat built in! So I am talking about live programming. And I am also astonished that translations of GNOME still happen via mailing lists and not while the code is written. This is ridiculous. This takes weeks instead of hours or minutes to fix some characters. The problem is that open source development is “traditionally progressive” – but in fact it often does not usenewest technologies to do the job better. hail to Launchpad that enabled very easy translating without people having to subscribe to mailing lists and so on. This social software stuff really is about enabling people to help each other more easily without much administrative hassle. But organisations like Fedora think that open source development needs strict organisation, while indeed it does not. Or better: development does not, creating a distribution DOES. Fedora really chose the opposit principles to Debian. While Debian chose to release when “it is ready”, Fedora chose to release on a regular basis. But a release often is nothing more as a working snapshot. I found the efforts of FedoraUnity interesting because they were able to build releases of their own without all the administrative overhead. I really think development and release building should be a complete seperate process. Distributions should not be proprietary. So it just does not makes much sense to waste time in trying to build a product as whole. I think distributions need to share much more ressources. I think distributions like Gentoo, Fedora and Debian should have a collective developer base. So that many packages get audited and worked on together and only after that the packaging happens in the manner that all developers try to automatically build packages for all possible distributions. And after that distributors fetch these packages and make installable ISOs out of it. in open source combining powers always will leed to better results. Do your forks like Inkscape did from SodiPodi but do not develop for a distribution. Development needs freedom. Freedom from policies like DFSG or Fedora meritocracy. Its just plain stupid to bind users and developers to a specific philosophy. Science and softwre development need as much freedom as can be. If the common basis would be bigger I could see much more choice for each distribution. The authors could enforce the use of specific licsenses if they want, but it should not be the distributions that bind the developers. And that you can see on many distributions nowadays. Take OpenBSD, take Debian, take OpenSUSE or FreeBSD. All do have their philosophy but mostly development and distribution comes in one. Let the developers discuss their philosophies and let the users decide what they want. The problem today is that you really would have to build Linux From Scratch and do all the work of you want to have your freedom. But doing all the work is also redundant and unneccessary!
Filed under Uncategorized