Posted on December 18, 2006 - by jono
Features vs. Freedom
This entry is my opinion and may not represent the views of my employer, Canonical.
Recently there has been a lot of discussion bubbling up regarding the possibility that Ubuntu will ship proprietary 3D drivers by default for some video cards. My aim here is not to discuss the specifics of that decision, which is still being fleshed out and ratified, but to instead define my views on the bigger picture behind the discussion – features vs. freedom.
I will warn you now people, my views and opinions on this are not exactly simple. While discussing this view with many friends and colleagues, I have been informed in words of single syllables that my position is complex and multi-faceted. I have had largely the same view on this subject since I got into free software, but I have been working to better define it, and here I want to document it. So, hang in there with me. I may give you a cracker at the end if you are still paying attention…
For some years now I have been expecting a show-down between freedom and features. That is, our community would need to make an important decision between freedom and a closed source technology that is deemed important. In this showdown each of us draw a line in the sand, but our lines vary hugely. In the past, the issue was largely moot – few closed source technologies were deemed important by the wider free software community. Today though we have a bling-tastic desktop just over the horizon, but for many of us the transparent-rounded-wobbly-shadowed masterpiece (!) is inaccessible without some closed-source driver wizardry being poured into your computer. The debate here is not really the specifics of closed-source 3D graphics drivers, but whether we are willing to compromise our freedom for closed source drivers that will ultimately get more people using Linux. Are we?
Compromise is an interesting word, and everyone’s definition of it and the freedom they defend with it differs vastly. It seems that for many people, their definition of freedom is closely interwoven with their ability or willingness to compromise on certain features. Although we have many holier-than-thou bloggers who demand freedom and “no compromise” as cornerstones of their philosophy, far too many of these people don’t themselves practise what they preach. Many of these people place freedom as the single most important aspect of Linux and free software, but crank up the wireless firmware, binary blobs in their kernel, send pithy emails of complaint about incursions to their freedom from their Gmail account and go to work every day in a Microsoft-shop. When queried about such abundant compromises in their own philosophy, the response is often that “you totally need a wireless network card to get stuff done”, “web applications are different”, “firmware is different” or “I have no control over my choice of career”. Each of these indiscretions are compromises, and many of the people who claim them do have control and the ability to change them, but the changes are simply too inconvenient. But hey, the “no compromise” lifestyle is not typically one befitted with ease and luxury – the ethos is to pucker up and suck it up in the name of ethics and free software.
My opinion on this is simple. I believe that people should simply practise what they preach. If your opinion is “no compromise”, then there should be no compromise. You don’t get to choose what is more ethically acceptable here, this is the point of “no compromise”. From the outset I have always stated that I believe in free software, but I do acknowledge that I sometimes use non-free software – as many of you know, my studio is currently non-free until we all feel the big Jokosher love. I have explicitly not taken a “no compromise” position because I know I could not maintain a “no compromise” lifestyle. As I made clear in a previous entry, I think sensationalism is an enemy in the free software world, but unfortunately much of the discussion about features vs. freedom seems to boil down to very vocal outbursts by the holier-than-thou brigade who often step beyond sage fact and fall into headlines and rhetoric to grab Planet
Those who shout the loudest are not always the best barometer of opinion.
Will the features work?
Today we live in a competitive industry. Although dominated by Microsoft, all vendors, including our friends in Seattle, are working hard to create features and innovations to keep them in the game. As the world learns to talk to each other over the Internet, computers become more centrally placed in our lives, and we spend more time caring about computers than we used to. They are no longer the ugly beige boxes shoved under a desk in a cold office, they are must-have items that help us run our lives, define our style and allow us to share and communicate with each other.
As computers have become so central to us, the vendors have ramped up the bling to provide a more aesthetically pleasing experience. These improvements not only make computers more attractive to use, but more usable too. Irrespective of the arguments behind freedom, having a sane bling-enabled desktop does create a better experience for the user. Microsoft and Apple have invested in this, and as such having a bling-enabled desktop is part and parcel of the competitive market. This is what happens when dominant market players define direction – to stay in the game, you need to compete on the same playing field.
Bling is important, not specifically for the features it gives us, but for the competitive advantage it gives us. If we can’t compete, we will lose. Simple. Now, some of you may be happy for Linux to always remain a niche Operating System that only a small subset of people of use, but I see things differently. I want us to win, and I get up every single day with the intention of helping us to win. Many of us talk about World Domination, but achieving World Domination is something that can only happen if we too keep ourselves in the game. When we step too far away from the competitive industry, we risk becoming an historical reflection in the computing timeline, not entirely dissimilar from BeOS or OS/2. Its tempting to get on our collective high-horses and snub the rest of the industry that they don’t follow our ethos and perspective, but while admirable in a puritanical sense, it is destructive in a competitive “lets kick some arse” sense.
So here we face the challenge – we have a clear conflict of interest between moving forward and being relevant and a conflict with the freedoms that underpin our whole community. I don’t see this conflict any easier than anyone else, and I too hold the values of software freedom close to my heart. But while it is tempting to pontificate, I would rather spend my energy trying to help us win. There are basically two options that I see here. We can either sacrifice our freedom a little bit to be competitive, or stick to our guns and stick with freedom, but potentially sacrifice the ability to compete. One way or another, something wins and something loses. Lets look at the possible outcomes, all pushed through my own notch filter of how I suspect it would turn out:
- We allow 3D proprietary drivers and sacrifice part of our freedom – by including the driver support for some cards, we will allow Linux to compete with Vista and Mac OS X, and stay relevant in the game. As we remain competitive, more people get to know about Linux and more people get to taste the freedom that is secured in 99% of most Linux distributions. As such, by remaining competitive, we get the ability to push out the message to more users and we get a bigger net win of people using free software. Essentially, our sacrifice of freedom in one aspect of the system (3D drivers) would result in a much bigger net win of users enjoying freedom in other aspects of the system (the rest of the distribution). This would result in more users, and importantly more contributors to the free software community, helping us to create more free software.
- We deny inclusion of the 3D proprietary drivers by default for reasons of freedom – if this happens we would be secure in that freedom is preserved in the 3D aspect of the distribution, but we would lose our ability to compete on the 3D level, which while not exclusively bling-related, would impede our competitive ability. This would give our competitors the ability to steam ahead of us, leaving our comparatively boring and flat looking OS in the dust. As our competitors grow they will increase their assault on other parts where we do win, and this would put more pressure on Linux distributors. This increased pressure could involve layoffs and result in less time being invested in distributions and less time being invested in upstream development. As such, our current standard of living would begin to drop and less time and money would be invested in Linux.
Now, of course, I am not suggesting the world is going to come crashing down if we don’t include the bling, but the world will come crashing down if we don’t keep Linux competitive. Sure, on the server we have things mostly sewn up, but on the desktop it is an entirely different game and a different set of rules.
What I believe is critically important is that we never stop fighting for Open Source 3D graphics drivers. A comprimise in freedom in part of the wider Linux distribution needs to be backed up with a confidence that the freedom will continue to be the priority as market share grows. The key difference here is our approach to getting this freedom – it will only happen with market pressure. The fight for free drivers for reasons of freedom has not proved successful, and the choice to only buy Intel will have some impact, but not a huge impact due to lower market share. We need to become a large and relavent player, a player that can mandate decisions at a market level that will truly affect the market. Sure, there are plenty of challenges to this approach – when we get a large market share, would Linux distributions really want to rock the boat and demand Open Source drivers? Well, this is the proof of the pudding. I expect companies such as Canonical, Red Hat, Linspire and Novell to always place consistant market pressure on the hardware manufacturors to understand and migrate to the ethos of free software.
Although the decision about binary 3D drivers in Ubuntu is not yet concluded, the bigger picture encroaches many other areas. Of all, I would love to see our community get a better, more representated voice when it comes to issues of freedom. We all hold freedom close to our hearts, but sometimes the very loud voices of the few can blur the general opinion of the masses. We each have one voice in the choir.
166 Comments
We'd love to hear yours!
Leave a Reply
Here's your chance to speak.
-
Flickr Photos
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I’m just curious to know how people are defining ‘free’. For me, ‘free’ has always meant that my wallet stayed firmly shut, and I wasn’t made to pay for software that I felt everyone should be allowed access to. In the case of the nvidia drivers, I always felt they were ‘free’. Why shouldn’t I? Because they were distributed under a license different from that sponsored by the FSF? There are plenty of projects out there developed by groups of friends with no interest on letting others become involved in their work. I look at nVidia as just another such group. But if there drivers work, which from my experience they do, and do well, then why is there an issue? Why must people be so unyielding in the face of something like this? Shouldn’t we be focused on providing the best possible experience to users, and not handicapping them, solely because we’re miffed that we’re not included in the development? I’m all for the integration of the nvidia drivers, it’ll save me time, and when I lend my discs to friends, I know they’ll have an out-of-the-box Just Works setup.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
First of all Ben H …it’s not at all about money or the fact that we can be “involved” in the development. It’s based on the 4 freedoms.
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose. Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program. Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor. Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
Secondly, Jono you are 100% correct. Many people, including me are concerned about freedom yet we continue to use proprietry drivers for our devices. After reading this i have disconnected my monitor from my brand new (to me) nvidia 6800 and have gone back to the intel on board card which came with my machine.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
First of all Ben H , this is a common mis-conception. It’s not at all about money. It’s also not so much about the fact that we can be “involved” in the development. The issue is that Free software gives you the 4 freedoms.
Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose. Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program. Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor. Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
Now i realise not everyone cares about this but the reason much of this software is available for $0 and is such good quality is because developers who _do_care about the freedoms work on them. I honestly don’t think that the free software community would be at the current stage it is if developers hadn’t been assured that the work they were doing was going to be made freely available to others and them selves at a future date.
For a second imagine if the one application / piece of free software you value the most, wasn’t distributed under a free license but was only free as in $0 cost. Now imagine that someone or a commercial company decided to purchase the copyright to that code from the developers. This company had a competing product and never actually intended to keep developing the newly aquired application..it just wanted it to stop improving. For a small project this isn’t such an issue as someone can just start again, but for something like Gnome, or KDE or the Linux kernel this is something thats taken 5-10 years to get to the current stage. Can you imagine trying to start from scratch on that ? can you see that for developers it will basically be the same as wasting that time as the project can no longer improve, or gain bug fixes.
Secondly, Jono you are 100% correct. Many people, including me are concerned about freedom yet we continue to use proprietry drivers for our devices. After reading this i have disconnected my monitor from my brand new (to me) nvidia 6800 and have gone back to the intel on board card which came with my machine.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Hmm. Though I do sort of see where you’re going, I don’t particulaly agree. I think the competitive power of sliding windows is pretty overstated. I mean, seriously, MS hasn’t had sliding windows since 2000 when OS X introduced it, but they haven’t lost market share in any sense of the word.
People buy the OS because it can get a job done. We can get a lot of those jobs done right now. Enough to get us a sizable chunk of market share: RIGHT NOW. We have a really rocking desktop RIGHT NOW. Nobody is choosing not to use GNOME right now because we lack sliding windows and rotating cubes. I highly doubt that will be the case in the near future.
We have TIME before we have to make this decision. Lots of it. We are growing really fast RIGHT NOW. Lets just keep that up, and keep making rocking applications.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
A short, pragmatic note on the argument concerning market pressure. It has been said by the author that by including closed source 3D drivers, one might achieve a market presence sufficient to force the opening of said drivers. This was countered by saying that hardware producers would still be holding the bigger end of the stick, as it would be the distribution that would be the worse off in such a case.
To give a proper assessment of these arguments, we have to consider competition in the 3D graphic card industry, mainly, AMD (ATI) and NVIDIA. Let us consider that we have attained a sufficient market weight. If by then there is still serious competition, as there is now, then the author’s argument works. One could bully one, and just one, of the industry players by dropping support for them while retaining closed source support for the other. Since that would put them at a clear disadvantage, it’s likely that they would accept. Once they accept, the remaining hardware producer can be bullied in the same fashion.
On the other hand, if there is but one manufacturer left, say NVIDIA, then the objector’s argument would be valid, because they would indeed be holding the bigger end of the stick. Note that a purely community driven distro could possibly wrestle harder here, because it might be said that they really don’t have anything to lose, while the company has money, and even worse : shareholders.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see why we have to ship proprietary drivers by default. Why not just, during the process of autodetecting the graphics card, access a database that says whether the particular card will require proprietary drivers or not for 3D acceleration. Then, if proprietary drivers are required or are known to give a better experience, present a dialog to the user, explaining the issue and asking whether the user would like the proprietary drivers and a 3D desktop or the open source drivers and a 2D desktop? In this case, Ubuntu is not shipping binary drivers “by default,” but if people want to install them it would avoid all the posts and HOWTOs on the forums about how to install ATI and Nvidia drivers. It seems like having this one little dialog would solve everyone’s issues with this, no? (After all, the drivers are already available in the linux-restricted-modules package, and all one has to do currently is to install that package.)
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Please give users what they want–let them choose to support their hardware using the drivers (video, WiFi, et al) they like. Torvalds is right–having others make decisions for you is just what the DRM folks are doing. Folks who limit choice are no better than those who take it away.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
great article about a fascinating issue. We do tend to get caught up in the here and now. The Opensource Desktop has a healthy future, and we need not worry about that – to believe that there is a limited window of opportunity that’s gonna be shutting, is being slightly paranoid. Having the bling installable after the fact by those that want it (and have intel card or are happy to install nonfree drivers), is fine for current and future competion. As long as it’s a one click install with synaptic, to get nonfree 3D drivers, flash, codecs. But it isn’t. Flash is a tarball. No YouTube for newbies. Ouch.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
First of all, 3D desktop won’t get us on the same level OSX and Windows desktops are. There are lots of fundamental pitfalls in Linux desktop that should get higher priority (even copy paste isn’t perfect yet) than 3D desktop.
Non-free drivers? I think no one should force anyone to use them or not to use them. An option in installer, where user can choose free of non-free driver is so simple solution. Forcing someone to use free of non-free stuff is against freedom. Giving a chance to use you hardware is a good thing. Giving a chance, so much different than forcing.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
The choice is NOT feature vs freedom, but 1 click installation of closed drivers vs 0 click installation. In this optic your argument falls apart.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I use ratpoison as my window manager, so I am not sure I’m qualifieed to comment here. However, I recently got beryl working on my edgy laptop to see what the fuss was about.
Like others posting here I am not convinced that beryl is a major step forward in usability. However, I actually find the plethora of configuration options and the ability to control everything via the keyboard very attractive. The rotating cube is a great metaphor for virtual desktops — in the past I have not made as much use of these as I should.
One think that is undeniable is that the bling may well attract a few new users, which is surely a good thing.
The binary driver issue is a tricky one. It will suck if I show someone beryl on my laptop, give them a feisty live disk and find beryl won’t work on their hardware.
If Ubuntu must have the binary drivers then I feel it should ensure that users are informed about the issue. It should be pointed out how much harder it is to support the hardware that the user has. Perhaps Ubuntu should also consider keeping a database of hardware which has open source drivers?
I don’t have a problem with Ubuntu making it easy for people to have the best possible experience on existing hardware, but it should take the opportunity to educate users. Things will only change if users start asking for hardware with open source drivers.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I think the issue is about freedom. Banning non-free drivers is taking away people freedom to choose whether they want to compromise or not. As long as a message or warning is displayed about the use of non-free software upon installation, the user is then free to make their own choice. Isn’t that what freedom is all about?
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I prefer to look at value, which is more than a binary choice on freedom.
Hardware with no working drivers has no value to me.
Hardware with partially functioning drivers has some value. If those drivers are open source, the value is greater than comparable closed source drivers, as I can modify them and get long-term support, and don’t have to pay extra for source code escrow. And they are likely to work even if the kernel and other software is upgraded.
Hardware with fully-functioning open source drivers has the greatest value for me, and I’m prepared to pay more for it. That provides an economic incentive for manufacturers to assist with open source drivers, as they can charge higher prices.
The harder question is the root of the debate – which has more value, partially-functioning open source drivers or fully-functioning closed source drivers? My answer is that it depends what I’m doing, sometimes I’ll rate one higher, sometimes the other. But – especially in enterprise work – I’ll factor in the long-term cost; and that long lifetime and code escrow of open source is worth a lot. Which makes me look around at other manufacturers. Paying a little more for hardware with open source drivers makes good economic sense if you can keep using them for longer.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
StarScream – are you saying that because you cannot have freedoms 1,2&3 – that you would deny me the right to freedom 0? In my book there is no freedom there.
I used to be a linux user. Not the hard coding geek – just a normal user. After a year of using both FC3 and Ubuntu I gave up… Why – the Linux desktop is not ready to be used by normal users.
I still have MythTV box (try doing this without Non-Free drivers) read the blogs, boot up the occasional live distro, and listen to LugRadio. But I won’t switch back until using the desktop at a reasonable level that doesn’t require following installation guides of about 13 pages long just to get going. I love to use computers, and sometimes program them – but I loath working late into the night just to get them into a usable state.
Come on Linux geeks – Are you willing to sacrifice your OS for these die hard principles… Actually I suspect that you are! And although I disagree, I totally respect that. So what will become of your OS? I suspect a split. A and a major one at that – there will be two groups of distros, one that strives to keep the OS usable, and one that strives to keep true to the principles of ‘Freedom’. The question is how will you ‘Freedom’ guys compete in that environment?
The rest of the world (potential OS X and MS converts) will not view your ‘Free’ OS as free – but ‘requires specialist skills’. It will forever remain the OS of the Geek – to remain unusable on principle!
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I know one thing for sure. After using Beryl daily for a few weeks and testing Vista, I will not use one single distro anymore that does not offer the same. You see, some people want aesthetics over features. Some features over aesthetics. I want them BOTH and see no reason whatsoever to get them both, always.
Ship the binary drivers and get over with it.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
A pop-up at install time for cards where the open drivers lack similar features/performance to the closed ones is the only sensible way to proceed.
I also agree with others who have said that the case has not been made for ‘bling by default’ versus ‘bling with 2 clicks during install’.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I write my comment since I both agree and disagree with the author and the posted comments. This writing is much from my personal point of view, and I am sure many don’t agree. That is your choice to do. Writing may be a little harsh, but it is that since I do care. None should take that too personally. This is not really a comment about whether to include 3D drivers or not, but an opinion about the whole discussion and future of Linux in general in regards to casual users.
First we have the ‘bling’ issue that I almost take as an offence. Was it not that the author made comments about its importance, I would. The whole term ‘bling’ gives an impression as if it is not important and to be despised. As if it has no value. It seems that many people in this community do not understand ‘bling’ or ‘eye-candy’ at all.
If I sit at my desktop 8 hours each day (thankfully not quite), it is darn better be easy for my eyes (in literal and non-literal sense). No offence, but much of the Linux software looks non-classy shit (pardon the language, but I feel it needs to be communicated very clearly) done by l33t folk (there is a great difference between ‘cool’ and ’stylish’) and has the great merit to fill my screen with unimaginable options that take space from what I really want to do. I can understand that since the GIMP people have done pretty good job to alienate great part of the designer/graphics community.
On the importance of the ‘bling’ to the ‘normal’ user; as mathew said, ‘if you don’t care about freedom or are willing to compromise, you might as well switch to OS X…’. Funny thing to mention, that is exactly what seems to be happening in increasing numbers. In this corner of the world, Apple raised its markets to 173% just this year (of course it would be silly to generalise this to be happening everywhere).
The ‘bling’ or ‘eye-candy’ is not just irrelevant wobbly-windows, but it has uses to help users to understand what goes on and make the whole experience much more ‘friendly’ (virtual desktops, hiding windows etc). It gives gives a feeling of trust, it makes the usage much more pleasant when done correctly. It is really important aspect of making computers usable, what might be hard to grasp for those who think xterm is enough. Humans are not measurable actors but beings that are not always/never purely rational.
The importance of the 3D drivers does not stop on desktop. As Karl Lattimer mentioned the usage of Autodesk Maya on Linux pretty much depends on 3D acceleration and that not the only application to use such (Blender, for one). Adobe Photoshop CS3 takes advantage of the graphics processing power in image editing, even if that is not available for Linux. More esoteric uses can be seen in Folding@Home project.
It is a pipe-dream to think that new arrivals to Linux will buy specific hardware just so that they can try Linux. Even less so when they would do drastic chances to the system such as Intel video card that is quite laboursome purchase. Sorry, it will not happen in the large scale. No, it won’t. Many don’t even bother to put their comptuers together, and quite frankly, rightfully so. They test it with what they have, and if you manage to sell that, perhaps the next time they pay a little attention to the computer they are after (asking ‘does this work with Ubuntu?’ from the clerk).
I don’t wish to take a stand if the binary drivers such as these should be included by default or not. There are many options, and as long as their inclusion is easy to do it is fine for me. But the option needs to be there and stay there, make it very obvious and easy to install them when necessary. What I consider this to affect is the first impression and what Ubuntu wishes to offer and what is the purpose of Ubuntu in general.
This is very much along the lines of (Tristan Rhodes), any effort that the user needs to make later on is bound to affect his (or her) image of the easiness of Linux. As of now, 3D may not be essential, but if he has been given the PROMISE of Compiz, that is a huge deal. If that is the case, you betray your user if he does not get the thing he tried the system for. Things that matter to the targetted user should really Just Work. In most cases, these include images, music and videos (plus the ‘normal’ web and office stuff).
As of writing this, there are many cases where FSF or ‘free’ (by the definition of this target audience) equals ‘it does not work’. You may pretend it is not the case, but it comes up time and time again. Yes, there are exceptions, some huge ones. Yes, the progress so far has been for better. But to many, to a very large crowd, the Free Software is inessential if it does not let them do what they want. Before they can do that with comfortably enough, FSF does not stand a chance. I personally take some of their evangelism as an insult. As if these people would try to make me feel ill for using software that is not free when they themselves can’t offer anything that works even remotely as well. “Do it yourself”, “use this instead” are common arguments that are sometimes as good as the instruction to amputate your legs from knee down so you don’t need to use Nike sneakers.
I symphatise with free software and do use Linux (Ubuntu) where it is appropriate. And coincidentally, most of the software I use on top of that is proprietary. Now, take away the 3D acceleration that I need or make it too hard and I switch off; I bet many others will do the same. While I care for the ability to use computers freely, it does not override the things I want to do even more. In the life of many people, software and computers are not the most important things. You have things like your children, your wife, girlfriend and relatives, just to name the most obvious ones. Perhaps you just love golf or sailing.
Imagine a casual Linux user as a supporter to the free software. He can’t code worth a crap, but uses, say Ubuntu, and by that alone can make a duifference. He is a role model to the n people around him. Make his life harder, and you start to alienate them. What is it that you gain? Your puritism? Good luck for you, currently the world cares about as much as it does for religious cults that have < 5% of the population supporting them.
All I would ask is the people to step back and look around them. Think on their own in larger perspective. About the ‘normal’ people, what they do and what they want. Ubuntu, “Linux for Humans”, anybody? Or are you as a linux evangelist after what you want?
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I agree with Janne Kaasalainen comments – I don’t believe that “Linux for Humans” is currently the case.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
what I miss in the discussion on ‘open source or not’ is any nuance in what software should crucially be open source. For me: Anything that carries my data (from music, pictures, email to text documents). And next ofcourse the programs I use to create this data. This is where we should wake up the masses; don’t let your own creations be limited or dictated by others, stay in charge of what you express and how. Many people working in software may feel that their operating system itself is ‘what they created’. I’d love to see everything open source, but drivers are not the first priority that come to mind when not everything is. And ofcourse, if you want to reach the masses, get sane, you need a flashy 3d desktop. Those who believe in commandline and plain text as a religion are free to do so. But if you want to promote an operating system it might be usefull to talk to some non-programmers some time. You will find that nobody agrees with you. It might be off-topic, but I strongly believe that number 1 priority to promote linux is to abandon the (need for) commandline completely and thoroughly. Thoroughly meaning; I have an ftp Gui but I cannot chmod -R with it. Which makes it close to obsolete.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Jono, Linux desktops already make it easy to install hotly demanded proprietary software such as 3d graphics drivers or the Adobe Flash player. In fact, it’s easier to do this on Linux than it is on Windows because of our automated installers (apt, yum, etc). So how Linux is less competitive than Windows on this front, I don’t know.
One of the things I know I’m getting when I install an Ubuntu system on my computer is the peace of mind that the base installation is entirely free software, with all the benefits and reassurances that brings. If I then choose to go out and install proprietary apps (which I do), that’s my business and a decision that I make on a case by case basis. It’s not something I’m happy doing, but I make that compromise based on my needs.
The point is, installing non-free software should be my decision to make, not my provider’s.
On this point I’m concerned with what I hear about Ubuntu choosing to install closed drivers by default, and I think the concern expressed is entirely justified because it sets a precedent. OK, fine, they explain the implications to you before you hit “install”, the same way MS explain the implications of their licence agreement to you before you click “I agree.” How many people do you think are aware of those implications they just agreed to?
As far as winning or losing goes, what do you want to win? For myself, I simply want to be able to continue to run free software. And realistically that means being able to install and run an easy-to-use system like Ubuntu. If I find myself installing more and more proprietary software on my free software OS then I’m losing, not winning. If I’m installing a proprietary system by default, then I’ve already lost.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Well said. Typically, that is what goes on in the minds of folks switching over to Linux. Both in terms of application equivalents and usability. When you get the open source fever you want to remain as true to the spirit of the movement but find out that computing and user experience will find you wanting. The dissonance is we love open source but don’t want to be unreasonably bound. Freedom begets liberty.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I personally feel, 3D drivers are a must in linux. I am from a country where most people use pirated softwares..Whereas they couldn’t try the same on vista ..so this is the right time for us to get those guys to linux. I’ve showed my friends the 3D effects using beryl live CD (sabayon) and they were simply astonished..Now they are using it using a live CD at least for browsing and watching movies (since it comes with kaffine).
I was able to catch their attention using 3D…So i think 3D drivers are a must for a main stream adoption.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
A guy sits in an open prison, contemplating his freedom. There are places he wants to go, but isn’t allowed to go to. So he thinks “I know, I’ll wear a pair of handcuffs, then they’ll let me out!”. So he puts a pair on and is released. At first it’s great, because he can go wherever he likes, but then he realises that with the handcuffs he can’t make the most of the freedom he has. Unfortunately, the keys for the handcuffs are in his pocket and wearing the handcuffs he can’t get them out and cannot release himself. He now wishes he had simply served his time while trying to convince the powers-that-be that he should be released. While it may have taken a while, he would eventually have achieved true freedom, instead of the limited freedom he now enjoys.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I noticed you have to scroll quite a bit to read this now, and found this to be a handy plugin to page comments on Wordpress http://www.keyvan.net/code/paged-comments/
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
stupid long bullshit post.
either you are running an open os or not. once you load a 2mb binary blob of custom made crap you are on your own. distrubuting such crap places you on very low standard.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
in addition to the saskboy’s comment#82 – the rule background-attachment: fixed; makes scrolling your pages a pain. Even a single scroll unit with the mouse-wheel, it makes my processor busy 100%. This is in Firefox/Iceweasel.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
This has become an interesting debate. As far as i can see, one thing has not been addressed yet: the fact that Ubuntu won’t be the first distribution that adds non free driver support. I think Mandriva, among others, does that as well.
So why the fuss now? The difference seems to be that Ubuntu will provide these for free (as in free beer), whereas other distro’s that include non free drivers and software are sold for a small fee.
Would anyone care if Ubuntu had a distribution that was non free in both ways?
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Bleedin’ nora, there has been a lot of comments. I don’t have time to go and reply to each of them, although I wish I could. It is interesting to see how divided in opinion about this issue so many people are. The discussion has also taken into account many different reasons for opinion – freedom, technical merit, market pressure, desire for bling etc.
One recurring fact that I would like to clarify is that I don’t believe bling is the most important thing in the world. Too many people have interpreted this discussion as me saying “bling is really important! we must have it at all costs!”. I think bling is functionally important, but it is not as important as many other functional aspects. It is just that bling has raised the bigger picture issue behind my post.
As I said in the post, my main talking point is not the 3D binary drivers issue – it is the conflict of opinion between freedom and features – for many people, freedom is something that cannot be compromised, and for others freedom is something that can be compromised to a limited degree to get Linux out to more people.
Another significant point in my post is hypocrisy – I am a firm believer that if someone is strong enough in their ideological opinions that they lecture others on how they should lead there lives and make their choices, that that person should indeed practice what they preach and live up to their own standards. Not enough of this is going on – some people do, and I would cite Aq and Matt L as two key examples – they have strong ethical views but are indeed willing to have a “no comprimise” lifestyle to varying degrees.
I have a huge amount of respect for those people who take a hard line approach to freedom and live their lives by the rules that they mandate. It is easy to demand freedom from others, but can you demand it from yourself?
So, all in all, some great points are being raised and long may the debate continue.
One final point that is essential to stress – the decision about 3D binary drivers in Feisty is NOT DECIDED YET. I don’t decide it, the community does and it is still being discussed. Feedback is always important, and the Ubuntu development community would love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks people.
Jono
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I believe it is too big of an issue to let the graphic card vendors off the hook by shipping binary drivers. If Ubuntu wants to leave an program in the system configuration pulldown that will download and install the appropriate closed source binary drivers it would be a much better solution. There are people working on open source drivers for both ATI & NVIDIA cards but it will take time. Intel has released open source drivers for their built in graphics. Personally at this point I plan on buying an Intel based system for my next system to reward them for leading the pack on open source graphics drivers. This will be my first non-AMD system in ages. I believe that at this point AMD has a better processor but I will not compromise on open source drivers.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I won’t comment on the issue itself, but there was a detail that caught my eye.
You claim that there has to be “bling” in order to be aesthetic. That’s quite far from my definition of aesthetic, which, I admit, is more on the spartan and minimalist side. Aesthetic, in machines, means efficient and uncluttered, not simply pleasing to the eye. I find the black depth of the terminal window much more aesthetic than any semi-transparent GUI. But that’s just me.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
None of this is new.
Linux has always been in competition with other OSs and relevance to the marketplace has always been an issue, whether stated or not. It’s a simple fact that Linux has been born, grown, prospered and flourished in an extremely competitive environment. Nothing has changed.
Your comment: “I believe that people should simply practise what they preach. If your opinion is “no compromiseâ€, then there should be no compromise.” Is fine from a theoretical standpoint but rarely to extremes survive in reality. So what….it’s not that big of an issue.
Some distros want to add proprietary drivers, others don’t. Fine. People will embrace, use, extend and preach about the virtues of what ever distro floats their boat. Fine….all this is good for open source and computer users.
Adding closed source drivers will not destroy Linux nor will it mean the end of a particular distro. Why? Because as downloads dry up and as the boards for those distros become barren wastelands of moderators hoping for a post to moderate, these distros will adapt or not. They will either change or die. Fine….nothing is wrong here…this is the way all companies (open source or closed) operate.
In the end it really doesn’t matter because the users will use whatever they like most. Trying to convince them to use something else is fruitless…..as I’ve heard it said before:
A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Lets make this simpler to understand. We have our nudists (FOSS supporters) and we have are clothed brother and sisters (Close Source/Propriety supporters). Now, the battle has been should we take it all off (FOSS) or put it all on (Windows/Mac). In a perfect world the weather (the hardware/software market) would be sunny skies and 75 degrees but its not and we all can be naked
. Oh, there are some situations (places to live in my analogy) that allows a person to be naked all the time but not everyone likes the heat (or being exposed for that matter). There are those who like the Cold and prefer to put all that restricted clothing on(Propriety Hardware/Windows).
I guess you can say I’m a t-shirt and shorts kind of guy. I like the idea of open/Foss but I don’t like the idea of somebody telling me I HAVE to always without question be naked. I want choice. I want to wear what I want, when I want too and I suppose so do some distros and the people who support those distros.
If you remember I said in the perfect world the weather would always be nice. Well, right now, the weather is still a little chilly with scatter showers. What I mean is that 90% of computer use doesn’t require 3D graphic card right now. but the “potential use” is still there. Yes I like the weather to remain nice majority of the time but I also like to ski. I can’t ski unless it snows. I have to wear clothes if I don’t want to catch frostbite. I don’t want someone telling me I can’t ski (use 3D Hardware) because it requires me to wear clothes (Propriety drivers).
This is the same with allowing propriety drivers. Nothing is stopping the FOSS community to create a FOSS version of Ubuntu that allows them to be naked and free all the time. However, it isn’t right for the FOSS community to tell Ubuntu they can’t ski (enjoy 3D GUI ) because it requires them to put on clothes ( propriety drivers/use close source hardware).
Freedom is choice. When you remove choice you remove Freedom. Its my opinion that the FOSS community view of freedom is to restrictive to be called freedom. I feel 3D GUI can become just as intuitive and easy to use (even easier in my opinion) than the 2D GUI . Just like the 2D GUI brought innovation and creative ways of working on a computer – 3D effects can help. Remember, 3D GUIs are relatively new and it will be years before we will probably see a real good implementation of a 3D GUI . As a matter of fact, I don’t think we’ve achieved a perfect 2D GUI yet but there are a lot of things that are easier to do compared to using no GUI.
What we should be doing is providing choice not taking away freedoms. A lot of great Free and Open source software have been created because these people had access to the Graphic Hardware. If we were to strip(pun intended) these people of their freedom to create software that takes advantage of GPUs then I can’t see how we can call it freedom.
What we need is choices not restrictions. What we need that we don’t have is a Hardware Company willing to make a GPU that competes with Nvidia and ATI that uses open source. This way the FOSS community will still support its cause and not try to push their version of what the define as freedom on to others. It is by education and competition, not Attrition, that we should be teaching and converting our non open source followers.
So, when the FOSS community offers me a compelling Video/Graphics Card for my computer that is opened sourced and free, then I will definitely switch but until then – bring on the Beryl and Compiz and the games and all that need GPUs of which right now the only two choices I have are Nvidia and ATI which, unfortunately, are closed sourced and pretty much the only choices I have( for 3D of course).
Until then, its a little chilly in here better go update my Nvidia drivers
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
First of all I appreciate this discussion very much. I think it is the most important step for future direction of SoftwareLibre (OpenSource is not automatically free). Although I use the proprietary nVidia drivers they annoy me for two reasons:
1) These drivers are not as good as the drivers for the MS OSes – nVidia is kind of playing “catch up” with kernel and X.org developments.
2) I might not upgrade to newer, safer/faster/better kernels or a newer, safer/faster/better X-Server because of nVidia’s slower development/support cycles. Security fixes appear quite late.
This of course also applies to other drivers for Wifi or Webcams. Open specs are a benefit for Solaris and BSDs, too. Focusing on Ubuntu or even Linux is too narrow minded! I am very confident that 80% of potential OS switchers would prefer WLAN or even good ACPI support (suspend/hibernate) over Bling within the next two years. The main selling point for 3D accelerators is the “premium huge budget games sector” where Linux has an even lower potential to compete with than in the desktop market.
The main functional uses for 3D acceleration on Linux in order of importance are:
3D modelling with Blender and Maya Native SoftwareLibre games Cool screen savers UI transitions and compositing aka “Bling” Proprietary Windows games in Wine/Cedega
The only functional ergonomic reasons for Bling are “Expose´” like overviews of active tasks and better thumbnails for workspace switchers.The rest is just styling.
My conclusion is to allow proprietary drivers as long as the kernel developers and the terms of the GPL seem fit, but NOT to include them per default. The has to be a BIG reminder before installing them. When I install equivalent software on Windows I have to read and agree the manufacturers terms, too. The bottomline is to show new GNU/Linux users that they are leaving “free software land” and at least grasp the disadvantages of those proprietary terms like “security fixes” and “vendor lock in”.
Phew… that’s all folks
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I will deliberately choose a free distribution, because i really think distributions can make a difference. And i will always look for the free solutions. Nonetheless i will install non free software, if i can’t use my computer without. Call me a hypocrite.
Ubuntu might include non free drivers, but won’t include non free codecs. That’s not very consistent either.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Jono, you commented “Another significant point in my post is hypocrisy – I am a firm believer that … person should indeed practice what they preach”.
I think you’re missing something fundamental. There are basically three sides to the debate (none of which are hypocritical) and two wannabies (who are hypocritical):
Side 1) The means justify the ends. Anything that can get Ubuntu more popular, even loading down default Ubuntu with tonnes of proprietary codecs, drivers, and software is okay. As you correctly point out, these people are best served by Windows or MacOSX. You can disagree with this opinion, but you can’t call this hypocritical.
Side 1 wannabies) They know side 1 is unsustainable for Ubuntu in the long term, but push it anyway because if Ubuntu collapses, they can just pick another distro or go back to Windows/MacOSX. These are hypocrits.
Side 2) The ends justify the means. Anything that interferes with Ubuntu’s FSF purity is bad. They will go out of their way to buy freely supported software and do without, rather than use proprietary software. These people are best served by gNewSense. You can disagree with this opinion, but you can’t call this hypocritical.
Side 2 wannabies) They profess a belief in side 2, but secretly run proprietary software and/or codecs and/or drivers but don’t tell anyone. These are hypocrits.
Side 3) Just tell us what the means and the ends are, and we’ll chose on a case by case basis. This group believes in choice, and I’ll submit that this group is by far the biggest group of Ubuntu users. This group wants recognizes that each compromise of FSF purity carries consequences, but is willing to live with some compromises. The key thing to note is that because each compromise carries consequences, this group wants to make the choice itself and not delegate it, partially because different people are willing to make different compromises, and partially because by being aware of the compromises, they can make better hardware choices later. I really doubt you can call this practical pro-choice group hypocritical.
Obviously, I fall into Side 3 and from what you’ve said of your own personal choices, you’re on Side 3 also but being strongly influences by Side 1 and Side 1 wannabies and are looking for a compromise to draw these people in and convert them to Side 3.
Please realize that Side 3 is more than a compromise, it’s a possible form of a general consensus for dealing with all sides. Let Ubuntu chose Side 2 by default but make it easy for people to chose Side 1 if they like (just mention the consequences and some possible alternatives). This gives Side 2 what they want (a free system), Side 1 what they want with a minimum of fuss (a few “Yes/No” choices that give them a fully loaded system, dam the compromises), and Side 3 what it wants (the ability to chose what compromises to make).
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
“I don’t decide it, the community does and it is still being discussed.”
obviously it’s important to not piss off large parts of the community. but what’s so great about Ubuntu (in contrast to Debian) and the kernel in fact, is that difficult decisions are made by a handful of people. they’re explained and things /move/ /on/.
if ppl are pissed off by a decision they are more than welcome to go go somewhere else, or fork!
i hope Ubuntu doesn’t fudge, and has the guts to follow its own philosophy:
“[...] that people should have the freedom to customise and alter their software in whatever way they see fit”
(actually that answers the “freedom vs features” question right there. there’s no mention of market share, but there is freedom “to alter”)
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Day to day I have to be a pragmatist, I work as a teacher and things just have to work. Desktop clients at College are windows, but there is some open source being used at the server level (Moodle, very popular in the West Midlands now and some other bits and pieces). Open Source/free software at client level may find itself in drop-in centres and the like, but again it will just need to work.
Long term, I’d suggest that the computer will begin to disappear (a la Donald Norman) as we become task centred.
OK, so a task I do will be writing handouts and doing e-mail/conferencing on the Web. Is the current desktop metaphor the best we can do for that? Will people perhaps be using tablet like devices with handwriting recognition and a Jef Raskin style humane interface (ie no bother with file names, just a live search)?
Will GNU/Linux be able to support other tasks transparently, ie media centres, TV, music generation, graphics and so on?
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Gotta keep the proprietary stuff out of the core distro. Eventually they’ll come for their pound of flesh and you’ll either have to pay or remove the features. Keep the freedom. Lose the closed binaries.
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
I was going to say something about how silly it is think that adding proprietary drivers to Ubuntu will ever have any impact on ATI or Nvidia, but I think the plethora of posters before me have pretty much made that point plain and clear.
I will add that I think the only way GNU/Linux is ever going to have the hardware support it needs will be to create Free Hardware to go with it’s Free Software. I cannot for the life of me understand why Canonical wouldn’t jump on this opportunity to start a hardware company supplying it’s growing user base. Most of the Ubuntu users are still the tech-savy kind, and I suspect 80-90% would jump at the opportunity to buy a graphics card/network card/mobo whose design from has been Free from the ground up.
STOP including proprietary drivers, and START competing with them!
Visit My Website
December 19, 2006
Permalink
Wrong… It’s the LACK of really great BIG COMMERCIAL APPS AND GAMES on the LINUX DESKTOP that is going to kill it… oh – and an EASY way to install those COMMERCIAL APPS AND GAMES for the average user… oh – and a DISTRO UNIVERSAL PROGRAMMING API that those COMMERCIAL APPS AND GAMES could be written with so they could target EVERY DISTRO… it’s a mess… I really like Ubuntu… but I could go on and on and on…
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
Good luck making kernel patches and supporting non-x86 architectures.
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
People are missing a very important point about drivers – they are fundamentally different from other types of software. They are part of the hardware. Hardware cannot be made to accord to the four principles of freedom as defined by the FSF. You cannot give copies of hardware to your mates. You cannot modify hardware. And the drivers are support software intimately tied to the hardware.
One of the main freedoms that people appreciate about free software, being able to copy it and give copies to their friends, still applies to the closed source drivers. Nvidia and ATI are’nt charging for them – they charge for the hardware. The drivers are useless without the hardware. So you can get a copy of the propretary driver for free for your nvidia card – fine. But only if you have the card, otherwise its no use. And you arent ever going to be able to get the card for free – it requires labor and materials to make each card.
If you realise and accept the obvious fact that the proprietary softare goes with the proprietary hardware, then this whole debate is a non issue. Making the drivers open source doesnt make the hardware open or free. There is nothing unethical about paying for the labor and materials of the people who manufacture the cards.
Why the hell does the free software community want to shoulder the burden of writing free software to support proprietary hardware – to help the hardwre manufacturers make a bigger profit by relieving them of the burden of writing the drivers? In my opinion that is more unethical than letting them write the software.
Its really simple:
QED.
I think the GPL should be amended to make an exception for drivers that allow binary drivers to be shipped with GPL’s software. If not, and you want to take a no compromise position, then you should also refuse to use prorpietary hardware too.
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
in reply to SCOTT -
If Canonical designs and builds hardware, in what way will the hardware be “free”? They will have to charge for it, and without the large marketplace enjoyed by the big players the price will be very high. Also, from an ethical point of view, what difference between buying a mobo from Gigabyte or buying one from Canonical? They are both companies, and they will both have to make a profit (in order to fund development, etc).
And just how many Ubuntu users will want to modify the Canonical hardware drivers?
What would be much better is for the open community to design the hardware, and then contract an existing company or better still companies to build it. But not Canonical – which is just basically one man, and an entrepreneur at that. Id go with the idea of a FSF graphics card. But it would probably have to be made by IBM or NVidia anyhow.
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
Let hope that AMD opens their ATI hardware. If that happens everything should sort itself out. It will be very difficult for Nvidia to stay closed if everyone else is open.
A key point was made in the comments that without some open hardware there is no way to do the necessary R&D to build the next generation. That problem is significantly impacting desktop R&D today.
Don’t get stuck looking at today’s desktop and saying we don’t need better graphics hardware. I doubt if anyone has even dreamed up what the desktop will look like 20 years from now.
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
I have a crazy idea to greatly increase the popularity of linux, which involves customizing it to a specific device, and making it easy to synchronize with a counterpart on the desktop. I’d like to talk the the author of this blog about my idea pretty soon, and would appreciate it if they would shoot me an e-mail.
Thanks!
Jeff
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
Just don’t put the binary drivers in by default. Put them into a non-free repository which must be explicitly enabled by the user. Might that be an acceptable compromise for both sides in this debate?
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
Well said Jono.
Welcome down the slippery slope that I and Linspire have been running down for years. Using what works for ME is what I call “freedom.” Limiting my choices is what I call slavery, be it from Microsoft OR anyone else. It’s a computer. Not my religion. Not my family. Not my life. It’s just a computer, and I want it to work.
In the end it’s about individual choice. I’ll never take the choice away from others to use any mix of software THEY wish. That’s their choice, not mine.
Kevin Carmony CEO, Linspire, Inc.
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
I think your strawman fell into the well and poisoned it, Kevin. Care to address the actual issue of distributing and enabling binary drivers by default?
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
Its really simple:
QED.
I think the GPL should be amended to make an exception for drivers that allow binary drivers to be shipped with GPL’s software. If not, and you want to take a no compromise position, then you should also refuse to use prorpietary hardware too.
This is the most down to earth SENSIBLE post out of the lot. #103 needs to be read, and then read agan. 111. should read it as well.
This binary blob crying over HARDWARE is not only stupid, but….no…stupid covers it perfectly.
If this were proprietary SOFTWARE such as oh, quickbooks, yep, I guess I could see the point. We BUY the damn video cards, and for those who would say “ooh look at intel”, I say, also-ran looking for any edge to increase their sales.
Nvidia and ATI support Linux by providing drivers, and they are improving their releases as well as feature sets on a monthly basis.
I say BRAVO Ubuntu and full speed ahead.
Visit My Website
December 20, 2006
Permalink
I agree – stay relevant in the game while pushing for openness. Nicely put. Your opinion not only applies to Linux and open source community but also to our lives and goals we trying to achieve. Great article. Keep coming.