[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tuesday 18 April 2006 9:04 am, Aaron Trevena wrote: > On 17/04/06, Neil Williams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Not wishing to start a flame-war or argument (so any replies direct to > > > me if you like), but some of us have no option. > > > > Simply untrue. Freedom is always the best option. > > And sometimes, free software either isn't available or doesn't meet > requirements. Someone needs to provide the motivation to fill that gap. The "missing" software isn't going to be written by magic. If the CUPS developers don't have data from this printer, they can't improve their drivers to support it. There are simply so many different models - it is quite possible that this particular printer is only in use by a tiny number of GNU/Linux users. Some of those don't need the extra functionality (e.g. me) so it increases the need for data from those who both have this printer AND have a need to fix the problem. It could come down to only a handful of users worldwide who fit both requirements. This is particularly relevant in the field of embedded Debian where I hope to make a positive contribution once my application to be a Debian developer is accepted - hopefully later this year. Maybe we overestimate the actual number of GNU/Linux users out there - the vast majority of Epson printers are connected to a Windows machine. > Unlike life in general, software only reduces your freedom when you > allow it, and you can choose your software at any time, unlike your > government, which if you're lucky enough to live in a modern democracy > you can change every 4 or 5 years. My point is that if those people with specific problematic hardware do not at least contribute to the data set of the free software tool for that hardware, that hardware will never be supported. There are simply too many devices out there and they change too often (thanks mainly to patents). It's one thing using proprietary, it's another to deprive the free software team of the data they would need to provide a free software solution. There's obviously something different about this particular Epson - my Epson worked fine. That indicates missing data and the only practical way for the CUPS developers to GET that data is for users of that printer to contribute that data to CUPS. If they aren't using CUPS, they can't provide the data. > > Stop thinking only of yourself and start thinking about others. If you > > want better free software in the future, you - as an individual - need to > > make a sacrifice for the greater good. > > Nonsense. The guy is already using Linux with hundreds of free > software applications, drivers and plugins on top. He's already > sacrificed time to learn the platform and get involved in the LUG > List, he's even put his hand in his pocket to shell out for software > in order to be able to use Linux for printing etc. The problem is that this money isn't actually supporting the free software community, neither is the code. GNU/Linux needs to have wider hardware support, it needs to have more robust and flexible drivers,configuration tools and hardware utilities - especially for peripherals and embedded devices. Digital cameras have become less of a problem since being able to access the data store directly via USB but that doesn't apply for printers or iPAQ's. > I think the best sacrifice for the greater good would be to STFU. You > can't demand everybody be like you and meet your self imposed > ideological purity. Not my intention. I do think we need to ensure that everyone is aware of the compromises involved and how the community could be missing out. > I write free software and contribute to the community in other ways, Same here. > one of the best ways I've contributed is by dropping the zeal, > learning to keep my mouth shut and stopped driving away anybody who > doesn't share my politics. Strangely enough, I've learnt the exact opposite. It doesn't have to drive people away - that isn't my intention - it does need to make sure people understand how and why things are this way and how things can actually be improved. Proprietary is not a good solution to any GNU/Linux problem. The community loses out and it takes longer than ever to achieve hardware support parity. GNU/Linux can have hardware parity with Windows (albeit with a time delay on new products) but only if someone contributes the data from each type of hardware. To get the problem fixed, that person needs to be motivated to contribute. That motivation comes from a real world need for the missing functionality combined with a philosophical / ideological understanding of why and how such contributions make things better for everyone. As a GLUG, we do have an obligation to encourage each other to further the development of free software solutions and that includes contributing data to fill gaps in current free software implementations. Settling for proprietary whilst doing nothing to improve the free software alternative is not acceptable. > I've actually managed to not mention software patents on the london > perl monger list and irc channel for close to 6 months. I reccomend > you consider following a similar strategy and contribute by your > actions rather than your rants. OK, these aren't meant to be rants. Not meant to come across that way at all. As for actions, I've sent fewer and fewer messages to the GLUG list over the last years as my contributions elsewhere have spiralled. It therefore takes a little more effort to allocate time for the list which in turn means that things have to be that little bit more important before I hit Reply. Any frustration that may give the impression of a rant is down to the frustrations and problems of getting opaque hardware to work with free software. OSX is a case in point. I'd much rather not use OSX at all but in order to support my software on Fink - the free software layer for OSX - I retain OSX on one machine. (1 out of 6, the other five all run GNU/Linux exclusively, according to their architecture.) I have to do this because the OSX hardware and developer environment is a complete mess. It duplicates OSX tools with BSD tools which don't work with GNU autotools so I end up adding a third layer of GNU. It stinks, but users want it and it fills the gap. What I will NOT do is write software for OSX itself (using Cocoa) because of the poisonous licence required by Apple. I could insist that everyone with a Mac removes OSX and installs Debian to use the software I've written but I don't. It can work via Fink without any loss to the community. In fact, it's a net gain because other free software tools can look at my source code and learn how to get around the problems of the OSX/BSD/Fink layer cake and make more software available for that platform. Gradually, free software provides more tools than native OSX software and the case is made for users to dump OSX and use only the free software. > > If we all did the same with other hardware, there would be no free > > software at all. > > Wrong. There is free software because people like me write it, emacs, > etc had to run on proprietary unix on proprietary hardware until Linux > and Hurd came along. True, but why was emacs written? There were loads of proprietary text editors and IDE's a-plenty. If emacs had not been written, how much free software would still be missing now? I don't like emacs, but I do appreciate the effect it has had and continues to have on the availability of free software. There has to come a point where the proprietary option is dismissed and a free software alternative is started. At that stage, the free software is bound to be inferior but it cannot develop unless others also make that sacrifice. Free software improves when users and developers make the positive decision to use it in preference to a proprietary solution that usually has more functionality. i.e. CUPS instead of Turboprint. > > > Until CUPS etc provide a full solution to this > > > I'll continue using Turbo-Print. By doing so, the gap between the two will not be closed. If CUPS is to become a full solution, it needs data from those who would otherwise use Turboprint. The best solution would be to have both installed (I don't know if this is possible) and to report bugs in CUPS each time CUPS fails to do something that Turboprint can do. The worst possible solution is to use Turboprint alone. Not coincidentally, it is also the best possible solution for the Turboprint developer(s) and, presumably, Epson (at least within their limited mindsets). > > You're missing the point of free software. CUPS don't have access to > > these functions because of the ideology, not a lack of code. > > So blame epson rather than somebody who's already brought a printer > from them. I do blame Epson, but I consider it from the perspective of CUPS - they need data to workaround luddites like Epson. The more that can be done in that way, the less relevant the Epson drivers become. Proprietary software houses listen when their income stream is affected, hence the need to motivate GNU/Linux users to move away from Turboprint. > You can't expect people to throw away their hardware > because the vendor doesn't play well with open source. I didn't say that, I just said to help CUPS fill the gap. The printer will work with CUPS, just not the full functionality. > If CUPS doesn't work well enough, than paying for a solution that > jumps through the necessary hoops makes sense. But CUPS should not lose out - use proprietary if you feel you must but do everything you can to help the free software alternative to fill the gap. > > Do you really need that extra? Do you actually value free software? > > He's using linux, and he's paying out of his own pocket to make it > meet his requirements, rather than whining or running back to windows > so I'd say yes to both. If that money went to further free software development it wouldn't be a problem. Instead, CUPS is losing out. > The proprietary software is enabling use of free and open source > software - this benefits everybody, every additional linux user of > epson printers is another reason for EPSON to open up, the alternative > would be another windows user and no reason for EPSON to change it's > ways. The benefit is only real if the gap between CUPS and Turboprint can be closed. Otherwise, the benefit is only to the Turboprint developer and indirectly Epson who presumably benefit from Turboprint payments (not that this is a significant income stream for Epson, granted). It's not just Epson who need to open up - the Turboprint developer(s) also need to open up. If they see CUPS has closed the gap, they may be encouraged to change their ways too. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpWGfSrmzSYa.pgp
Description: PGP signature