Re: what's after slink
How about naming it after species of penguin? That should keep us going for a little while... "I like my new debian emperor system" ;) `Debian Fairy'? I don't know about that... (BTW Linus was bitten by a Fairy Penguin) I like the Hitch Hikers idea: Debian Zaphod Debian Beebelbrox Debian Slarty Debian Bartfast Debian Dent Debian Vogon Debian Trillian Debian Marvin Debian Paranoid-Android or even better - Debian "Don't Panic!" -- Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/> - "There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now." - Sancho Panza.
KDE gone, Linux next ?
I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is what problems the GPL might make now that Linus is allowing proprietary drivers to be loaded into the kernel. Isn't this effectively the same as linking against a library? And even if it isn't, what are we going to do if proprietary drivers become common? We'll have a main dist that is useless on a lot of computers. I think Debian should take a stand against proprietary drivers and only distribute kernels with the proprietary driver code removed. I mean people were worried about the proprietary QT becoming a standard on Linux - I think a much more worying prospect for Linux (and the free software community as a whole) is having Linux boxes that won't function *at all* without proprietary drivers! Debian can have a lot of influence with this (linux journal rated us as second most popular dist) and Red Hat seems to be like minded on these matters, so we can probably rely on them too. What does everyone think? Do we give Linus a good spanking? -- Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/> - "There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now." - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:00:52 +0200 From: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Matthew Parry wrote: > > I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is > what problems the GPL might make now that Linus is allowing > proprietary drivers to be loaded into the kernel. Isn't this > effectively the same as linking against a library? [...] or b) A non-free driver links against the free Kernel. Compared with the KDE debacle, Linux would be the library and the driver would be the program. For me it looks like the situation is exactly the other way round. If Linux were under the LGPL then that would be OK, but if the relavent parts are under GPL it's still the same problem. > And even if it isn't, what are we going to do if proprietary > drivers become common? We'll have a main dist that is useless > on a lot of computers. Maybe we're not able to distribute them. So what? People should instead buy hardware for which the specs are available. That's just ridiculous. There might be a small number of people like myself who bought a computer so I could run Linux on it, but most have a computer already and want to try Linux out. What sort of advocates would we be if a lot of people's first experience with Linux was a CDROM that did nothing? Linux isn't just a hacker thing anymore. > I think Debian should take a stand against proprietary drivers > and only distribute kernels with the proprietary driver code > removed. I mean people were worried about the proprietary QT Define "proprietary driver code". The parts of the kernel code that would allow closed source modules to work with it. > becoming a standard on Linux - I think a much more worying > prospect for Linux (and the free software community as a > whole) is having Linux boxes that won't function *at all* > without proprietary drivers! This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free drivers. I'm not really worried about winmodem style hardware. I'm more worried that if hardware manufacturers start releasing non-free drivers then people might be less inclined to write free ones from scratch. Allowing crucial parts of Linux to become closed source is inherently evil - Hence the importance of the KDE/Qt debate. -- Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/> - "There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now." - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ?
Can you explain to me what "parts" of the kernel can or cannot allow "closed source" modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't prevent it, unless I'm missing something. I really don't know, I'm just relaying what I've read Linus and RMS say. It might just be a licence issue, or more probably it might make drivers less likely to break with a kernel upgrade. -- Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/> - "There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now." - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next ? [binary only support != good support]
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must [valid complaints and security issues elided] > good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only > support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position. > I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line.=20 Us, sure. A lot of places, no. Look at the number of businesses using MS. Obviously they aren't overly concerned about these things. Heck, when security breaks under MS, for the most part, they don't *get* a fix, broken drivers or not. But really, these are things best left to the individual. If a person wants to take the risk, fine. With MS there is no choice. You have to wait for microsoft to release a fix - or even wait for NT5 (aka Godot). If we allow Linux to become monopolised, even if it is just for a particular peice of hardware then Linux becomes no better then closed source distributions. FWIW, I shelled out $20 for a commercial OSS license back when OSS/Free didn't support PNP devices so I could get my AWE64 working, and haven't regretted it. [...] Don't expect other comapnies to behave with such good manners. RedHat recently had to stop distributing TriTeal CDE because they were lax about fixing security problems. One of Linux's greatest streangths is that whenever a problem appears there is a hacker somewhere who wants to fix it straight away. We shouldn't give up this core part of the system without a fight. [...] Quite frankly, if companies providing closed binary-only drivers don't provide decent support for them, including a new version for every development kernel, I don't think they're going to be much of a threat, since the general populace is going to be too irritated to stop writing drivers (which is really all that concerns us, I think), and other companies will treat them about with as much support as they treat any other unsupported product. As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software instead. It's a matter of whether open source is important. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them to release free versions? -- Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/> - "There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now." - Sancho Panza.
Re: KDE gone, Linux next?
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must [valid complaints and security issues elided] > good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only > support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in Company X's position. > I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your business on the line.=20 Us, sure. A lot of places, no. Look at the number of businesses using MS. Obviously they aren't overly concerned about these things. Heck, when security breaks under MS, for the most part, they don't *get* a fix, broken drivers or not. But really, these are things best left to the individual. If a person wants to take the risk, fine. With MS there is no choice. You have to wait for microsoft to release a fix - or even wait for NT5 (aka Godot). If we allow Linux to become monopolised, even if it is just for a particular peice of hardware then Linux becomes no better then closed source distributions. FWIW, I shelled out $20 for a commercial OSS license back when OSS/Free didn't support PNP devices so I could get my AWE64 working, and haven't regretted it. [...] Don't expect other comapnies to behave with such good manners. RedHat recently had to stop distributing TriTeal CDE because they were lax about fixing security problems. One of Linux's greatest streangths is that whenever a problem appears there is a hacker somewhere who wants to fix it straight away. We shouldn't give up this core part of the system without a fight. [...] Quite frankly, if companies providing closed binary-only drivers don't provide decent support for them, including a new version for every development kernel, I don't think they're going to be much of a threat, since the general populace is going to be too irritated to stop writing drivers (which is really all that concerns us, I think), and other companies will treat them about with as much support as they treat any other unsupported product. As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then most of them will. But if we force them to release as open source then they'll still release the drivers - because market demand requires it - but they'll release them as free software instead. It's a matter of whether open source is important. In the case of word processors, I could care less. But when it comes to something like the kernel - something that at times requires fast bugfixes - it is extreemly important. Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them to release free versions? -- Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.bowerbird.com.au/people/mettw/> - "There now, didn't I tell you to keep a good count? Well, there's and end of the story. God knows there's no going on with it now." - Sancho Panza.
