[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sunday 27 November 2005 2:40 pm, Matt Lee wrote: > On 27/11/05, Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is there? I know of no such need. IMHO, the proposition itself is deeply > > offensive and, frankly, insulting to me as a GNU software developer. > > Like most of the software that's written, it's custom software for a > particular job that never sees the light of day, outside of a > particular office or team. They're already able to do quite a lot with > their own work, and if using a tool like RealBasic gets them on to > GNU/Linux quickly, I don't have a problem with that. The problem is that they cannot then use that work in GNU/Linux. It's a waste of effort. > > There is no need to develop anything new under Cocoa on OSX, there is no > > need to develop anything new for WinCE. We have complete replacements for > > those, in free software. If it isn't to your taste, then help it improve > > - don't encourage the proprietary side. > > So, you don't think there's a need for any new free software for the > Mac? Did you read that line? There is no need to develop anything new under Cocoa on OSX. Simply port to fink and X11. > See, for the next few years at least, I think I'm pretty much > stuck using my Macs, and I'll get on to why in a second... Then use the existing free software, via X11 and fink. > > There is a clear need for more free software that runs on OSX (i.e. X11, > > not Cocoa). > > Wrong. X11 is ugly and doesn't follow the Mac HIG, and most people > won't use it. So? I don't care, it's free software and that is what matters, above all else. If people want to use GnuCash on OSX (and many, many do), they use it via Fink and X11. End of story. GnuCash is not being ported to Cocoa, there is no point. GnuCash is moving to support the Gnome HIG - at least that is an open framework. > > There is a need for free software that runs on Windows - like the Mozilla > > family and OOo. > > With or without Cygwin? Mozilla and OOo don't need Cygwin, so I think > you contradict yourself here. No contradiction, it's just simpler to use Cygwin as it generally requires less changes to the original GNU codebase. > > There is NO need to have non-free code on a GNU/Linux system. Absolutely > > zero. > > I want to play Flash movies in my browser and listen to MP3 files. > What should I do? DO NOT USE MP3!!! For £$%& sake, Matt. You are deliberately compromising your free software browser with proprietary crap. There is NO free usage of MP3 or Flash. MP3 is patented, Flash is proprietary - so far. The signs of change in Macromedia need to be supported by people actually using the free software available, not giving in and accepting proprietary binaries. It's high time you decided where you stand. If you truly support GNU as much as you once protested, you must dump your preference for these proprietary systems that attack GNU! Switch allegiance to those projects that are trying to implement a free software alternative - no matter how much less functionality they may currently provide - as a means of ensuring their survival. The more people use these things, the more the proprietary providers see the need to work with the free software projects. It is unseemly for a gnu webmaster to be putting proprietary requirements above freedom. This comes back to the choice. There could come a time when we have to either support GNU and ditch MP3, RealAudio and all the rest, or give up on GNU and install Vista. It is our responsibility to make sure that the GNU system around at that time is fully capable of justifying it's selection. Give up your selfish desire for immediate gratification using MP3 or Flash and prioritise the freedom of those who will follow you - they will need Ogg Vorbis and GPL flash plugins for Konqueror. Do your bit and run this for me: # rm -rf *.mp3 :-) It should be no problem to replace all those .mp3 with .ogg from the original media. OK, it'll take a while but I dare say a little bash script can handle most of the work for you!!!! (even prompt you to change media!) :-) > Actually, the free software that does meet my needs gets used, but the > stuff that doesn't - I don't use. No problem with that. Just don't use proprietary to fill any gaps - tell the closest free software project about your ideas. > Free software is fantastic, and when > I can actually do all the things I need to do, I'll use it.. Insufficient. You need to engage with those projects that don't meet your needs and at the very least let them know the kinds of things you would like. > but I > don't know C or C++, and I have no desire to learn them. I have no desire to learn Python, Zope, Lisp or Scheme - doesn't mean I don't help out where I can. > I develop for > the web, with Python and Zope, largely, but occasional bits of MySQL, > PHP and I'm starting do things with Ruby. I'm doing all my deployment > on Debian using completely free software... because that free software > actually works. Firefox, I use that, and I've been working with RMS > and the Mozilla Foundation to get a totally free version of that out, > so we can use it. I'm now working with people at the FSF to improve > the quality of the GNU and FSF web sites, one uses Plone/Zope and the > other is largely static and messy... Fine, I do all that too, plus C besides. Now dump your MP3 files and ditch Flash - or at least use only that Flash that is supported by the GPL versions of the plugins. > > Which side are you truly on? > > I like freedom; Like isn't the same as support. If someone forced you to choose between either running Debian for PowerPC on your Mac or having a new version of OSX that, for arguments sake, removed all your freedom - what would you do? Do you truly appreciate that this situation is beyond your control? Apple still control OSX and can remove X11 and all free software at a stroke. No notice, no appeal, just a change in the EULA. Now I don't doubt that this would be a stupid thing to do now, but then who is to say how things will look by the time OSX 10.8 is ready? Only free software provides this assurance - the freedom you have now cannot be revoked or removed. Consider permanence and you will see that proprietary models are counter-intuitive and counter-productive. My objection to Cocoa is that I cannot be sure that Cocoa will continue to support my code. I have to write for X11 because the entire architecture is free software and it cannot be taken away from me. What worries me is that though this is fine for my PC platforms, my OSX box is still not at this stage of assurance. Fink cannot expect to stand up to Apple and Cocoa is not assured to remain available. So my only solution is to code for X11 and keep an eye on Debian for powerpc so that I can switch if the OSX climate becomes intolerable. I may switch anyway - it depends on how things go with gnucash where it is useful to have an OSX build. > > Non-free software on a GNU/Linux system is not an option, it is an > > offensive compromise - a sell-out. You might as well go the whole hog and > > patent your non-free code. See what a pariah you would have become. > > This is why I don't use it.. I kind of agree with you, but at the same > time, I don't see someone using a non-free Mozilla plugin as a > problem. I do. I see it as a problem that a non-free plugin is even possible for Mozilla. That, to me, is a licence weakness that is unacceptable. A plugin licenced via the LGPL would be OK, but a non-free plugin should not even be possible with a free software program - it certainly is NOT possible under the GPL. > If I want to watch Homestar Runner on my laptop, I don't > think I'm betraying anyone. You are betraying the future. The people who follow us in free software need to have their freedoms protected. If you refuse to use such software, you increase the demand for a GPL version which would protect the freedom of future users to do what you want to do. Put others before your selfish desires. It is better to suffer inconvenience now than to sacrifice freedom for those who follow us. > There's a GPLFlash plugin in development - > awesome, and when its finished, I'll use it. Would you rather I ran > Windows XP on my laptop and watched my Flash cartoon there, instead? Simply don't watch the cartoon. Complain to the designer in the strongest terms and don't play his game. Simple. What loss is it to you? One mindless cartoon. WOW! I thought you cared about free software - it seems the ideas are less important than your desire for immediate gratification. Sad. > > Stand up for GNU: > > 1. Never install non-free on a free system. > > 2. Never promote non-free above free on any system. > > 3. Always seek to use free on any non-free system. > > 4. If free isn't to your taste, use the freedom granted to you to improve > > it! > > I'm actually in the midst of producing a new project, in which people > up here in Leeds (I moved, btw) are going to be getting me trying to > use a free desktop, and I'm going to write up and provide > documentation for all the things I'd like to see. Good. A wishlist is a start. However, try submitting some wishlist bugs to the projects that you would like to see improved. Let the developers know by active participation - don't expect them to come to your website. > > What does everyone else think - shouldn't we adopt these principles for > > the group as a whole? Make the promotion of GNU an explicit goal for the > > group in our mission statement? Should we not be clear that non-free is > > deprecated - and explain why? > > I think *for now*, it's a goal, but shouldn't be a requirement. It's > my goal too. Your goal is being compromised by your practices. > > Doubtful because the underlying methodology cannot be transferred - you > > still need a separate runtime library for each platform. Each application > > uses a particular version of the library and you end up with copy after > > copy installed. It's worse than the JRE. > > I think it uses a fat binary, actally. I quite like that approach. Duh! The fat binary is the runtime library for that platform! You like to have code hidden from you and unmodifiable do you? How is that compatible with the basic freedoms? > > Solve the problem, not the symptom. > > How? GET INVOLVED. > > Split that monolithic runtime library into inter-operability libraries > > that can be installed separately to suit the needs of the individual > > user. That is how Gnome and KDE work - if you want a GUI RAD tool, it > > should support the free software principles. > > Yeah, I can agree with that. Finally. > > The weakness in that statement is the subjective term 'quality'. KDE and > > Gnome are quality desktops and there are plenty of quality applications > > that will run on either, IMHO. If you disagree, do something to fix your > > own problem using the freedom that has been granted to you. > > GNOME is good, and there's a fair bit of good software.. I'm not in a > position to fix things with code, but I can certainly help with > usabilty. It's the usability of stuff that's part of the problem, I'm > not happy to edit a configuration in a terminal, when it SHOULD be > done in a GUI. It should not. As before, most people don't have the same GUI as you. > > THAT is the solution to your problem, Matt. NOT using non-free as a > > 'quality improvement' but replacing all non-free code with free. > > Okay, so how do we progress with this? 1. Dump your non-free code and habits. Wholesale. 2. Publish your ideas for what you want improved. Let people know and answer their queries on how it could all work - but remain strict on it being free software solutions only. 3. Submit bug reports of wishlist severity to each free software project that you would like to see improved. 4. Respond to each enquiry from the bug reports and offer any help you can. > > Run free software on whatever non-free system you like - but it is > > fundamentally wrong to run non-free software on a free software OS. > > I agree, but I really think I need to wait for a bit then. You are, again, putting your immediate gratification ahead of what is best for the future. Decisions you make on what to use and what not to use impact on how those programs develop. You should not be reinforcing the proprietary models by using their products. For every site that insists on a proprietary plugin, there is another that is just trying to use the technology and wouldn't like people to be missing out. These are the people who will respond - they'll be open to using an older version or providing an alternative content format. In turn, these people will feedback to the proprietary developers (because they pay their licence fees) and the proprietary developers become aware that a) they have competition they cannot undercut: b) that their users have unmet needs and c) that there are users out there who will not sacrifice their ideas for convenience. > > You've got things the wrong way around, Matt. As a GNU supporter, you > > should be seeking to have GNU software your priority in all situations. > > I'm certainly seeking free software, GPL is my preferred license. That's a start, but to my eyes, you still need to take a firmer line on non-free. > > You won't encourage much development by ignoring what is already > > available and insulting those developers that do work on the code by > > dismissing their work in favour of the non-free sell-out. > > I'm not dismissing anything, I want things to be better for everyone. That doesn't square with your practice. Everyone includes those who will follow us - do nothing to remove their freedoms. That means encouraging and using all free software now so that it meets future needs whilst remaining free. Backing any proprietary model simply delays the implementation of a GPL solution. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp7pYpciyMsa.pgp
Description: PGP signature