Taking over the world, one GNU/Linux PC at a time

Well there are a few rather obvious benefits; less licensing expenses, wide community feedback, ability to bundle much more with PCs and advertise this value, even make their own special customizations to the software in order to provide a unique experience with their PCs. In short, all of the things that they can't do with Windows because they don't have the freedom and source code to do so. I can't possibly name all the possibilities.

Not to mention that they would be more independent since GNU/Linux is really a community, not a single corporation pulling their own strings like Microsoft. There is simply more freedom in it for them too.

I think the business model is already here, but they just haven't been convinved yet that they should go for it. This business model, as seen above, is quite open ended too, leaving *them* and anyone else the ability to experiment.

However, we shouldn't *only* watch at the major computer vendors. We should promote small ones which already pre-install GNU/Linux, not to mention building our own GNU/Linux computer businesses. This way we send a clear message "either you do it or they will". The point is in creating and expanding this new market one way or another, and we have to start somewhere, which doesn't necessarily have to be with a big boost from Dell, HP or Lenovo.

Sure, and there already are companies selling GNU/Linux. Ask them. They may not be major corporations, but they apparently keep themselves healthy, like System76. They sure could provide some case studies.

Hmm, maybe we should interview someone from System76.

Well that does seem like a good solution, if it results with Free Software drivers and expanding of hardware support. Of course, it only compliments the effort towards selling GNU/Linux PCs, not replaces it.

The thing is that selling GNU/Linux PCs is the key, no matter what. If you say it can't be done then well that's bad, because it *has* to be done for GNU/Linux to prevail. And no, putting in proprietary software wont get you there.

how would you convince management of a manufacturer that supporting and adapting to opensource processes is beneficial for all parties? How does it benefit them specifically?

Intel did it with their graphics drivers. At least one company believes it can be done without harming profits. Here's why:

When hardware makers write drivers and then push them into the Free Software communities, they can effectively reduce the amount of money they use to maintain their drivers. For instance, rather than paying for every bit of change done to their drivers, they can allow the X.org community to tweak, edit and improve them. This raises quality without raising costs (and often while lowering them).

The comapnies could then re-invest this money in development and improvement of their hardware, giving them a competitive edge over their rivals.

Free Software drivers can be ported. When a wifi manufacturer limits their drivers to Windows, they can penitrate 100% of the Windows market and no more. A company that releases Free drivers can then capture the Linux, BSD, Solaris, BeOS and whatever else markets. This, in turn, means they sell more products.

The third large reason I see is public relations. People know Google "won't be Evil" and people really do trust Google. Microsoft, being notoriously closed, is mistrusted, even by people who ar staunch Windows advocates. Companies that people like sell more products.

Right now, Intel is the only 3D graphics comapany selling to the Free Software crowd because they're the ONLY option for staunch Free software supporters. If ATI were to Free their drivers, Intel would their grip on that market. This wouldn't be because of an anti-competition monopoly, but simply, Intel is the only graphics maker that is catering to a somewhat niche market. ATI and nVidia can easy expand into it, and until they do, they're refusing to accept customers. That point, made very bluntly to a CEO or CFO will make them think for a moment, at the very least.

You raise some interesting and worthy points, Kevin Dean.

That goes at least some of the way to answering the old question, "How would hardware vendors 'protect' their 'precious' 'intellectual property'?"

One of the reasons often offered for keeping drivers closed-source is to try to keep hardware implementation details secret. But why don't they just include an implementation-detail-hiding interface in the hardware itself? Because - we are so often told - it's cheaper to do it in software. After all, the software can be copied very, very cheaply once written, whereas the hardware is somewhat more costly to mass produce.

If an implementation-detail-hiding interface is included in the hardware, it may well cost a bit more to manufacture. But the driver development and maintenance costs will also be reduced. If done Open Source, the driver costs can be reduced even further, and, at the same time, the vendor can reach a wider market. The mere existence of the Open Source driver option reduces the benefit (to the vendor) of doing the implementation-detail-hiding stuff in a closed-source driver.

But then there are all those cases where the driver isn't merely hiding hardware implementation details, but also contains some (or even a lot) of the implementation itself. In such cases the driver isn't merely a driver, but is also something of a product itself. Things are not so straight-forward then, but we could start by conceptually separating the hardware from the software in our minds, just as we conceptually separate memory management units in processors from memory management parts of operating system kernels. I think we might then be talking about the virtues of tying hardware and software together in a single product versus the virtues of treating the hardware and software as distinct products. But anyway...

To me , the litmus test is "do updates require physical access to the machine?" In the case of driver updates that are "more" than just drivers, yes, it can be done remotely. This then, is not a hardware component, it is software. Some have used the term "firmware" and while I recognize the technical distinction, it is software by everything that I define it as; and as such, needs a Free implementation.

How many bits are missing on a default Windows PC? How convenient it is for a user who just shelled out his money for a PC, to have to shell out some more again for productive applications?

I think people are overblowing the "some bits are missing" point a bit too much. People in the Windows land have been living with some incredible inconveniences already! Just give them that "just works" GNU/Linux PC and then ask them how convenient it is. We first have to get to that point though.

Yes, and it is incredibly easier to install flash if they need to than to shell out another hundred of bucks for Microsoft Office to become productive. Again, it's an overblown disadvantage. What I don't want to see is boxes with pre-installed flash, but if someone offers easy access to flash (and similar stuff), but with a warning that it is proprietary (plus a scary EULA ), then I can live with that.

The thing is that these little inconveniences are nothing compared to the inconvenience people were going through on their Windows PCs, right after they bought them.

So? Not everything works with Apple either, heck some things don't work too well even with Windows. The computer, or a third party, can set up an easy to read and access hardware database, linked to some GUI on their new system, which would guide these users towards buying only supported hardware. They should be informed that by buying these devices they will work out of the box even without having to install any drivers, which is again much more convenient than anything on Windows.

The only reason why have I considered the idea of accepting proprietary bits before is because I thought maybe they would be absolutely necessary, mandatory even, to pushing GNU/Linux to mass adoption. Now I am not convinced about that at all. No, proprietary bits are not the answer. Their value, which you describe, in supposedly adding convenience (while removing it in some other area such as support, quality and development, not to mention freedom), is simply not worth it compared to the value of rejecting them, which is sending clear messages to hardware vendors that if they want our support, they have to support us first (and not only hardware support, software support too).

But if we still allow leeway to proprietary stuff, we'll always have vendors second guessing their decision to support Free Software, because they didn't get a loud clear signal from our community about what exactly we expect from them.

Read above reply. They are not the only ones in this game, even if they're the biggest. If we can't start with them we can start with small vendors who already sell GNU/Linux PCs, as well as our own businesses.

So, Stojic, shall we build a GNU/Linux PC business in Croatia?

But we've already achieved the critical amount of hardware support needed to start with GNU/Linux PC businesses because we *can* build a few lines of very good and useful PCs today without using unsupported hardware.

The problem is, mass adoption simply cannot happen otherwise, and again (and I really can't emphasize this enough); proprietary bits will not make you ready for mass adoption, never, not until people are able to buy their PCs with GNU/Linux on it. Proprietary fat is not the answer we are looking for..

Yes, as a result of use of GNU/Linux, because we have the critical support in the world to start with PC vendors. But now that we are at this point already, do we need to compromise with proprietary software? I say we don't and that this wont get us too far anyway.

Do you think the reason people use GNU/Linux as much as they do today is because of proprietary bits? Think again, there's much more to it than that, to a point that this alone doesn't mean all that much.

We sure should, and bringing GNU/Linux to the masses is part of that effort. It will be much harder to eliminate these obstacles if our operating system still remains on sidelines. With that much I agree with the WD201. I just believe proprietary compromise is not the way to move from sidelines into the mainstream. Besides, we are all about freedom, that opposite ideal to the ones behind DRM and software patents. The best way we can promote this ideal is by practicing it ourselves, which includes rejecting all proprietary bits. Our message is weakened if we don't.

And the point is we don't even have to because it wont bring us to the mainstream, and certainly wont bring freedom to the mainstream.

I agree. However, I somewhat disagree on the idea surrounding this point.

I hear "Linux Adoption" thrown around a lot, but I think that seriously misses the point. I couldn't give a rat's tail if GNU/Linux is adopted. I want Free Software adoption.

Rather than looking at YouTube and saying "Users will be inconvenienced by this" we should ask "Why do users not see that YouTube is bad?". We can give people all of the Free alternatives we can crank out, but until they begin to value freedom, we will constantly be overcoming "the next YouTube".

I've made this arguement on here before, but I think it really comes down to this for me. "If Freedom isn't the reason to do it, I don't want GNU/Linux adopted." A non-Free Linux does NOTHING for users OR the GNU/Linux community.

I disagree. And timing plays a HUGE part in this. I am at work at this moment, and a Norton Anti-virus subscription just ran out on on of my co-workers' XP machines. This spurred both her and another co-worker to install AVG. During the process, I was watching when the AVG License Terms popped up and within 2 seconds she said "Yes, I agree". I asked "Did you read those?" and she said "Too many words."

That's why I disagree that making them easily accessible with a warning is okay. Non-Free software is a burden to manage. It restricts users. It SHOULD be a pain in the ass to install, because it's a pain in the ass to deal with.

This may be true in massive conglomerate corporations. However, those kind of businesses are actually rare (at least, here in the USA). By far, the vast majority of businesses are small to medium sized. My company has about 35 people, a big chunk of them sales. In the office, we've got a core of 7 people. We're not a Free Software business, but in the year I've worked here, Free Software has become more and more important. Businesses like control over their services. When my CEO demands of me that we have a certain kind of web traffic statistic to show our customers, and our proprietary "solution" doesn't do it, Free Software shines. To someone who wants NOTHING more that to spread Free Software, there's always an opportunity, and a reason.

In a year, we've replaced MS Office with Open Office. Our servers are now running Debian without contrib and non-free.

I've also been here long enough that even the CEO shudders at the idea of depending on a non-Free solution now.

That's actually exactly how I'm thinking as well. The reason why I mention GNU/Linux specifically so much is that it is still the one Free OS which has the best chance of getting there. It basically spearheads the overall Free Software adoption.

But of course, this is why I oppose adoption of non-free software with it, and instead say that computer should be built only with Free Software supported hardware, and popular distros should come only with Free Software by default.

Well, considering that we're obviously coming from the same direction, I would agree with you here. I certainly wouldn't be the one providing the easy access to this software myself, but given how things stand someone likely would, even if I actively oppose this. And I would, in fact, oppose this and advise people not to use flash. I don't have flash and I can live with it. I download YouTube vidoes using KeepVid.com and avoid flash based sites.

No matter what, it is still not such a big inconvenience as people make it to be, compared to the inherent inconveniences of Windows. And it is safer for ones system and freedom to be without it. If we promote freedom as one of the biggest selling points of GNU/Linux, people may appreciate it more and start viewing the unavailability of flash on their system as a feature, not an inconvenience.

That's excellent to hear. It shows that even business people can be well tuned to the idea of Free Software and just how beneficial it can be.

If I am not allowed to run any software I want or need on MY hardware am I still operating in a "free" environment or simply exchanging masters?

I am not new to this argument so save the 101 stuff, I could quote it to you. But in the heat of this argument I have seen some comments that have seriously given me pause, and have caused me to rethink some of the fundamental issues of computer freedom.

When MS actively tried to stop people from modifying hardware that they bought and paid for, people went nuts, and rightfully so. "How dare they tell me want I can and can't do with a piece of hardware that I bought". However, some of the arguments surrounding running proprietary and free software side by side in a Linux environment is sounding uncomfortably close to MS logic as far as I am concerned. I am free to use whatever software the powers that be allow me to. It does not matter at all to me what names the "powers" go by.

Whether you choose to use open codecs or not is your business, this is freedom. If I feel like I need closed codecs and if I also prefer to use Linux and a host of other free software. I should be able to. It seems to me that there are a lot of people in the Linux community that would prefer to make those 2 things mutually exclusive, or with a wink, tell me, no problem just break the law (or move to another country I guess). I don't see a lot of freedom in that. "Hatred often turns people into the very thing they hate". I have never applied that saying to software before but lately I have wondered if it is not a true statement in this realm as well.

What are you saying in the end? You seem to be mixing a few things here to a point that it is hard to understand clearly what's your point in the end?

What I actively oppose to is offering non-free software on a system by default. What you do with it once you get it is indeed your business more than anyone elses, so if you want to abide by the restrictive terms of some proprietary software, despite how much someone like me would urge you not to, it's your call, and we don't deny you the freedom to make that call. It mostly affects you, because you're the one agreeing to be restricted.

But when a distro maker ships proprietary software with its OS by default, in the name of getting to the mass market (as if that will really get them so far), they are choosing for a certain amount of people who would accept that distribution without second guessing its content. This is a whole different thing.

So I say give people freedom by default. If they want to break that for themselves alone who will stop them? What's wrong with that exactly?

I don't have a real problem with your position as stated above. I was speaking a bit more generally and using your post a a starting point. I'm sorry, that was not totally fair. However, I have been reading a lot of posts along these lines lately and my thoughts above are sort of a distillation of what I am starting to pick up as a theme. I just want people that are very passionate about Free software to stop and consider the final outcome of their own opinions when fully fleshed out, and make sure they still have something they want, if they ever get what they wish for.

Some of the most troubling comments I have read lately are connected to things like Linspires desire to make a system for licensing, distributing, and installing non-free software into various Linux distros. I think this is a fantastic idea depending on how well they are able to implement it.

With todays news regarding Microsoft and the EU if a person in the future wants full interoperability with certain Microsoft products(which is very important to business uptake of Linux) a mechanism like linspires will become absolutely necessary, and I prefer it to under the table deals like Novels. I happen to believe that ownership of intellectual property will never fully go away. Nor do I think it should, I think sharing should be voluntary or again it is not freedom.

So to sum up as long as nothing gets engineered into Linux that prevents such freedom and flexibility in the future (GPLv3? I don't know. I am not trying to start a fight here) then I am happy because I think user demand will drive the rest and eventually Linux will be the most free and open and best OS out there.

Ah, but there is a vague statement. What is "intellectual property" exactly? It seems to be a term that the industry and misguided others use to jointly describe copyrights, patents and trademarks. But those three concepts are rather too different from each other to be thrown so readily under the common term "intellectual property".

The big question is whether it is even possible to really own what is intellectual, knowledge and information, fluid things that are inherently shared between people. I've become convinced that it simply cannot be a "property" in the same sense as physical goods. We can only arrange the system to artificially behave in a way that makes us treat information and other intellectual goods as "property", but we're seeing how good, that is bad, does that work today.

Copyright is not going away, but it needs a serious reform. Trademarks aren't going away, but they aren't at the issue. Patents aren't going away either, but they should be ceased for information and software.

Even GPLv3 is an optional license. It is not fair to talk about it as some sort of a imposition machine. You have a choice not to use it! That said, yes indeed, user demand. All we can do is try to influence their decisions. We can't force anything upon anyone nor should we be able to.

But we are all humans with a gift of thinking for ourselves, making intellectual decisions. An open dialog is good. We can all learn something and apply it to our actions and decisions.

Just to clarify I think software patents are absurd and definitely destructive to the software industry both free and proprietary. Software should be handled with copyright or "copyleft". In other words copying someone else's work if they do not want you to is stealing. But doing something similar in your own words(code) is not. However, content like movies and music are not likely to be "freed" in the sense many people talk about it because they do belong to the artist/studio(I hate what studios have become but the underlying concepts involved force me to accept their claims on the material) and can not be forced to be "free" in either the beer or freedom sense.

Again people are free to give away whatever they want and I am a huge fan of collaboration. But in the context of this discussion Linux will never enjoy a very wide uptake(IMO) if people are not free to use it the way they choose. Like, listening to popular music or watching movies.

"Stealing"? What is it that they cease to have if you copy the stuff they wrote without their permission?

Exactly. It's already tiring having to point that out constantly. Thank you.

I am tired of being painted up like a troll if I don't tow the company line here. That is what I was opining about in the first post and now you just verified it, unfortunately. Just to set the record straight, everything I have ever written for public consumption has been under either GPL or Creative Commons. I do happen to believe that things I create are mine however, whether I create them with my mind or with my hands. I therefore, decide on its distribution and use. If that is GPL then I expect those terms to be honored if CC same deal. Your knee jerking to the word stealing tells me more about you than about me I think. Call it whatever you want, but the stuff is not there for the taking, every license I have ever seen including every free one has terms and conditions of use. To nit pick and say "yeah but its not stealing", I say "whatever helps you sleep dude". The fact is, there is, and should be, such a thing as intellectual property, but I will be the first to point how many ways it has been abused particularly in recent years as the old media are being supplemented with new, that are much harder to control. And huge corporations are driving through changes to laws that are self serving and ultimately destructive.
Now I know there are a lot of people doing a lot of great things for good reasons, but when I read some of these posts, it is often hard not to think the desire to get something for nothing is as much the driving force behind some of these "freedom" discussions as anything truly noble.

So I suppose we're ultimately on the same side here. I however believe you are de-emphasizing the negative implications of terms like "stealing" and "intellectual property". Let that be the only point of our disagreement.

Stealing has a direct implication of physical deprivation. Intellectual property directly implies that intellectual works can be compared to physical property.

Both of this is wrong if you ask me.

The reason the term "intellectual property" is abused is because it was created for the very purpose of being abused. It lumps together laws and concepts which shouldn't be lumped.

And, if you were really considered a troll you wouldn't get a response you did. You would get a warning and/or deletion.

Give yourself more respect then instead of branding your own self lower than you really were branded.

Thank you

Anonymous, would you please make more clear whose posts you are commenting on?

Something to think about: you're the one who introduced the word "troll" into this thread. In the very post I'm quoting from.

Such is copyright law. No need to "believe" it, it's truth. But of course you mean you think if an idea appears in your mind, you own it. I ask you: if you had been locked away without any possibility for communication with other humans, would you be able to come up with ideas that are worth anything? Your ideas are rearrangements of previously existing ideas, which would mean many more people could claim partial ownership of your ideas. Just because you had to take effort to do something doesn't mean you own the result. If you run a mile, does that make you own the road?

Well, I don't know about the others, but I would like you to be more precise so we could have a sensible discussion. As I understand it, stealing implies an object changes owner, and would still be stealing if there was no law against it. Copyright violation is fraud.

Enlighten us and tell us why it should exist. These laws were created a long time after we left the trees, humans can be creative without them just fine.

Would you please quote some bits from posts that make you think so? Your thoughts add little value to a discussion if you don't back up your claims, especially when your "thoughts" are insults and accusations. So far all you've done is throwing mud and trying to wash that same mud off yourself by claiming you support and use GPL and creative commons licenses. You also seem to have tried to get yourself some geek credibility by claiming you created a slackware based linux distribution, although that could have been a different Anonymous, who knows?

PS Before you say it, let me tell you I'm not aggressive against people who think different. However, I do dislike mudslingers and whiners.

Well, not making something very convenient doesn't equal denying them the freedom to pursue this themselves anyway. However the specific examples you mentioned, popular movies and music, there is actually full Free Software support for both mp3 and popular video formats (in the ffmpeg package) so at least in countries where software patents aren't legalized it would be completely OK to ship this with a computer hence making it possible for mp3's and movies like DivX, Xvid, Windows Media, Apple Movies and of course ogg to work out of the box. Even DVDs would be supported in countries where CSS decryption is not illegal, using the free libdvdcss package which is basically Free Software.

That said, Free Software already supports most of the media. The only biggest obstacle here are software patents, but only in countries which have them legalized.

But for example in Croatia and many European countries this is not a problem. If I build a Free Software PC business in Croatia, my PCs will have mp3s and DVDs work out of the box.

So, 100% Free Software isn't necessarily all that inconvenient as many seem to be thinking.

Ok, so we agree on this point. I was under impression that you wanted a complete exclusion of proprietary software, not only when it comes to what is preinstalled.

Apple is not a good example here, we are talking about mass adoption, not obtaining a niche market. But what you described is exactly the problem I am talking about - users can't simply walk to any computer store and take a printer off the shelf. This would annoy people. Would you list, for example, NVIDIA graphic cards in that database but with a notice that says "we don't sell or support this [link to details why], but you can buy it elsewhere and download proprietary drivers [link to info how]"? I think that database you mentioned should include this hardware (at least most common such hardware, and a general notice about all other hardware), otherwise it would hide options from the user. And if user still wants to buy that card, he should be able to install whatever proprietary drivers are needed easily.

Let me clarify my thoughts about proprietary bits a bit more. User should be given choice to install whatever software he wants. Some bits such as various codecs, flash and drivers (software that has somewhat distribution dependent installation) should be made easy to install, if needed (a tutorial on how to add particular repository and install from there would suffice). Other software, such as proprietary applications, should be excluded, unsupported, not mentioned at all etc (this is what I don't like about CNR.com).

Agreed, bottom-up approach is what works. I thought you were suggesting somehow changing the big vendors in a short amount of time.

We might build such business, let me see where that SuperGold credit card is .

In fact I do want complete exclusion of proprietary software as an end goal and I certainly wont be the one offering this easy access to flash. What I was saying is that someone will, regardless of what I think, probably offer this easy access anyway (which can be set up easily enough by a good deal of people), so if they really want this restrictive piece of software, they'll be able to find it and install it easy enough, certainly not harder than hunting down some proprietary freeware for Windows.

What my point was is that this whole thing is totally exaggerated. We shouldn't even be talking about flash as some sort of a big problem here. It was so incredibly overblown. Gosh we're looking at those windows switchers as some sort of gods who need to have everything brought to them on a plate, despite Microsoft's repeated failure so far to do exactly that.

How much friendlier than Microsoft do we have to get, exactly, to please the masses, according to these Open Source hot heads who are advocating this "nothing short of perfect convenience will cut it" concept??? Guys, you're taking it way too far.

Gosh, darn that's it then I guess. They wont be able to just walk out, take it without using their darn heads at all to think about whether it's supported or not and leave to plug it to just work! No world prevalence for us!

Again, you are overblowing the inconvenience. They don't have to have this kind of "perfection". Using GNU/Linux will ultimately still be much easier than using Windows, even if they have to check with that little GUI that came right with their computer where all you have to do is enter a name of the manufacturer of a certain piece of hardware to see whether it's green or red. If it's green, go buy it. If it's red, don't.

More than Microsoft Windows and it's unproductive virus prone, DRM infected telling-me-how-to-live-my-life piece of proprietary fat??? Again, my point is that Windows is MORE annoying that what you describe here! And that's our best selling point!

No I wouldn't list that as long as it doesn't have a working free driver. It's about hardware supported by Free Software, not by proprietary software, so proprietary drivers are off. And why are they off? Because only this way can we send Nvidia and others a loud clear signal.

If a user still wants to get a Nvidia card and use proprietary drivers with it, he'll just have to go to Nvidia directly and ask for support, in which case Nvidia may point them to proprietary drivers, in which case the user chooses for himself whether to go with that restrictive top-secret-code thing or not.

But if we want domination of Free Software, not a domination of yet another OS, then this is not what we should do. Of course, some people who disagree with that will do it, and that's as far as I can go deliberating on that subject. You're missing my point. I actively oppose proprietary software in default installations, but that doesn't mean I condone proprietary software offerings post-installation. I simply choose to be agnostic in that regard, leaving the choice to the user, but not making it an easy choice for them myself. All the while actively advocating the following (again):

1. Only total rejection of all proprietary can send a clear signal to uncooperative corporations..

For some perspective, I'll add summaries to other points that together form a picture I am seeing:

2. Adopting proprietary bits will not lead to world prevalence! No sir it will not, you're deceiving yourself about that.

3. Buidling PCs with hardware fully supported by Free Software will lead to world prevalence.

4. Inconveniences brought by lack of support for other hardware and some bits like flash are much smaller than inconveniences of using BSODastic, DRMtastic, Virusfected Microsofted Windows. Test it! Give your grandma a GNU/Linux PC, and then give her Vista PC. Then ask her what is more convenient..

Sorry for sounding annoyed. You bet I'm annoyed. This is a thick glass I'm trying to break here, a collective illusion by the many in the FOSS community which seems to pose a totally wrong assumption that proprietary software leads to domination of Free Software. I've done my analysis didn't I? I considered the option of compromising, didn't I? I found it flawed! You can't, you can't and you can't establish world domination of Free Software, with help of proprietary software.

And I wont support that! Clear enough?

Thank you.

Clear enough indeed, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on some issues.

While you think that I am overblowing some issues, I think that you are greatly underestimating them. If you take a look at Ubuntu forums, especially at beginners section, you'll see that many questions are dealing with exactly the issues of flash, java, various codecs, running windows apps on Ubuntu, installing proprietary drivers and such. And these are all questions from people that have installed Ubuntu on their systems, so they overcame the installation barrier. My point is that people want certain proprietary bits on their systems, and I think that hiding the options from users (or not making them easier in order to keep them away) is a wrong way to go. The right way is educating them and let them choose.

About hardware, I am just trying to put myself in users' shoes here and point out the obvious advantage that Windows still has over GNU/Linux - the larger choice of working hardware that covers practically all common hardware out there. GNU/Linux is very good in this regard, but still covers less hardware (I am talking about PC components, not other architectures, to be clear).

I am pointing all these inconveniences because the fact is that Windows is in the monopoly position at the moment and that is its biggest advantage. This with the problems it brings for GNU/Linux users, together with (you say minor) problems that users would face on GNU/Linux without proprietary bits is enough to be a turn off for many users unaware (or not caring) of freedom and deeper issues, even with all the technical advantages that GNU/Linux has over Windows.

So, when you ask "How much friendlier than Microsoft do we have to get, exactly, to please the masses ... ?", you are asking a good question. In these circumstances, we have to get a bit friendlier than MS is, and I believe that proprietary bits help here at the moment, but I agree that those bits alone don't provide some kind of magical solution. I am not trying to force some magical rapid expansion of GNU/Linux, I am pretty satisfied with the rate of growth it has at the moment - I am only saying that these proprietary bits are something that most users want (or feel they need) at the moment.

If you want mass adoption to happen only when most people recognize freedom and choose free software because of it (this would be ideal, I agree), then you need to expose people to ideas behind free software. Unfortunately, most people don't care, unless you show them some practical advantages of free software (this is why open source movement was created). The right way is much longer and requires some fundamental changes to the way people think, and I (maybe pessimistically) don't see it happening fast this way. But, I am ready to wait.

"You can't establish world domination of Free Software, with help of proprietary software." isn't in contradiction with "Proprietary software bits lead to faster adoption in current circumstances.", so we might be arguing about nothing here.

To use a drug addict analogy, what you want to do is put people on cold turkey, cut them out completely from proprietary software. While I agree that this is the purest way to convert people, it takes a long time, and I think that it isn't a fast road to mass adoption at the moment. If you were thinking about adoption time span of some 20-50 years, then I have completely misunderstood you, or you weren't clear enough.

Look at windows forums. They have problems of their own, possibly even more, and how much is MS doing at addressing those? They put DRM into the system to create even more problems, that's how much.

Sure we have to get friendlier than Microsoft, but I think we already are, even with proprietary software excluded.

Like most of the participants of online support forums. On windows forums, a lot of the people have installed windows too.

Keep them away? I didn't say that. We don't have to hide those options, but we don't have to make it easier either, but not to keep them away. The time we could spend trying to make it easier for them to install proprietary software would be better spend trying to educate them about the disadvantages of proprietary software, as well as building infrastructure that provides easy access to *free alternatives* to, in this case, flash.

If they still choose to go for flash, that's their choice, but we don't have to go out of our way trying to settle them on proprietary software.

Besides, when you say "hiding" you imply an active measure of concealing something while the only thing I mean is to simply not aid them in discovering it themselves. There is a difference.

Maybe less of the popular hardware, but I wouldn't be so sure that it is less in general. And popular doesn't mean the best. If our easy to use Free Software Hardware Database GUI recommends good alternatives, people may find them quite adequate. This again, indeed, downplays this as such a big issue.

While we're both free to disagree, I simply don't think we've tried enough of other strategies to be so sure that proprietary bits are the only way. Has anyone actually built the Free Software Hardware Database I am talking about, along with a Free Software PC business I am writing about in the next article? No.

I think we're jumping on the "proprietary bits are a must" bandwagon a bit too fast.

Yes that's what we should be doing, while building and selling Free Software PCs that "just work" to prove just how much can be done with Free Software only (practically showing them why is following this ethic better).

Well you know, that analogy is flawed because Free Software experience is not *that* extremely different from the experience they had before to be comparable to the drug addiction. In fact it is probably more pleasant and easier to adapt to.

This has nothing to do with the fact that people want some proprietary software on their systems because they feel they need it. When you take naked Windows and naked GNU/Linux, I agree that we are friendlier, but you are suggesting that we should be less friendly when it comes to installing additional needed (by many users) bits. I disagree if there are no free alternatives to those bits.

We are talking about several codecs, few plugins and non-free drivers here. Making it easier would mean providing a link to a web page that explains how to install codecs, with warnings about possible illegality etc (that web page doesn't have to be written by us, but it should apply to the distro we're distributing), letting firefox do its "install additional plugins" dance (preferably with additional warning). With drivers there should be yellow dots in hardware database, with explanation (one general explanation for all yellow-dotted hardware) that this hardware isn't supported by us, but that it can be made to work using proprietary drivers from the manufacturer. We don't have to fill in the yellow dots ourselves, but can rely on community or manufacturers to do that.

To do all of the above is so easy (writing three warnings, creating one link and modifying the database a bit) and benefits users in need of those features so much that time spent on it is not an issue. I maybe used too strong words there, but you talked about "sending a clear message to hardware manufacturers", so you deliberately choose not to mention information that many users will need, solely because this information points to proprietary software. This is, in my opinion, treating users in the bad way.

I agree that this downplays the issue, especially with yellow dots included.

I agree that we haven't tried other strategies enough. I'll point out again that I don't think that proprietary bits are a must, but they do help very much, especially if you want the adoption to be fast. I am only talking about the bits for which there are no free alternatives.

I think that drug addict analogy isn't flawed, it is only exaggerated to show the point better. After all, not being able to work because you are staying clear of the only proprietary application that can read your data is bad enough to compare it to being without the drug you are addicted to. Or not being able to play your music, watch your movies, surf your favorite web pages etc.

It is still not any less friendly than on Windows even with additional bits. They need to hunt them down themselves or with help of those who think the same and so they will, just as they hunt down various freewares and sharewares on Windows. Just because I wouldn't go out of my way to offer very easy access to a few popular proprietary bits doesn't make the whole thing of getting additional software somehow less friendly than Windows.

I just wont be the one supporting easy access to this stuff. I wont be supporting hard access either. I just don't want anything to do with it, and if I would start a PC business, it wouldn't have much to do with it either, because we would follow a different strategy and a different approach to these "demands" for proprietary software.

It's not really an issue of how easy it is to do this. It is about a strategy of no compromise and no aid in adoption of proprietary software.

It might seem like I'm taking this too far. I do personally sometimes fall to temptation of simply helping someone find even proprietary software, if it's just so easy for me to do this. But if I were Mark Shuttleworth, and following a no-compromise strategy, in order to send hard loud clear signal to proprietary vendors, I wouldn't *officially* aid users in finding proprietary software. It wouldn't be in our Free Software portal. It wouldn't be in a distro itself and it wouldn't be on our repositories. They can get enough help in setting up alternative repositories and helping each other install this stuff this way if they wish, but at least Nvidia and ATI wouldn't be able to say "Ubuntu supports our drivers".

And that is the goal. They have to see us keeping as much distance from their proprietary stuff as possible, or otherwise we'd be able to make no significant meaningful pressure.

Man, I would probably be giving them some hints or even an exact way to get to these bits if they came to me and asked me directly if I would see that they would find their way to it anyway, with or without my help. I do usually opt for being nice. But I still wouldn't do anything that could be construed as support for this proprietary software. It is not about treating users badly. It is about a strategy towards a goal that if achieved will benefit those users much more than the situation we would have if we didn't put pressure on vendors.

These users who I am supposedly treating badly would appreciate having free drivers, free flash and other free equivalents of better quality, stability and maintanability.

Well the line has to be drawn somewhere. Where is to be determined depending on what the strategy is. I am afraid that if we want to be convincing for the proprietary vendors we can't compromise with them at the same time. This requires keeping a distance from everything proprietary.

It is not about distancing users at the same time though, but that's why there are support forums. Noone would be denied to continue asking for how to install proprietary bits if they really want to, and there will always be someone that will help. So instead of doing it on a semi-official level, support for these bits can be simply done within the community, as it has been so far, where individuals can decide for themselves how much will they help with those bits or not, as long as this can't be construed as "this distro supports these proprietary components". It doesn't, but the community gets around anything unsupported they may need.

I am talking about it as something that doesn't have to be given such a big priority because it doesn't. Priority is in building PCs which just work with Free Software, and priority is developing alternatives which don't yet exist. Another priority which compliments this is to pressure vendors to release specs (at the least) or drivers as Free Software.

All of these things are more important than patching people's systems up with proprietary software and calling it a "temporary" activity while at the same time, by that act alone, detributing from the chances to send a clear signal to vendors about what we think of proprietary software.

Anyway... I think I've written enough. We can disagree, that's perfectly fine. Not everyone has to go the same way. We'll get there sooner or later, one way or another, I hope.

A thought that just occured to me is this: Why haven't Apple already dominated "the desktop"?

Reminds me of an idea I had a while ago (but never did anything with).

Right now, I happen to have an IBM ThinkPad that I've been provided with for some work I'm doing. (I haven't been given it, just provided with it.) It's got some stickers on it. One says, "Designed for Microsoft Windows XP". Another says, "intel inside celeron". Obviously, these are supposed to be regarded as good things - otherwise why would they put stickers on the case saying these things? That, I think, is a basic but significant part of such marketing exercises.

To the potential customer in the shop, it gives the impression that it's a laptop that has those supposedly good features worth boasting about with those little stickers. It helps promote sales of those laptops. It also gives the impression that those features are good features. That promotes Intel, Intel Celerons, and Microsoft Windows XP. A clever little piece of propaganda.

Now, suppose things in shops had another little sticker on them? Say, a little sticker with Tux on it, saying, "Tux Certified"? Many people might not know who or what Tux is or represents, etc, but, all else seeming equal, if given a choice between a "Tux Certified" laptop and a laptop without that little sticker, which would more shoppers choose? Of course, it doesn't have to be Tux, and the slogan doesn't have to be "Tux Certified", but you get the idea.

It would also make it easier for those who wish to use something other than Microsoft Windows. All they'd need to do is look for the little "Tux Certified" sticker, and know, with confidence, when they see it, that it'll "just work" with major Linux-based distributions.

I'd imagine the Open Source Initiative (OSI) would be the obvious organisation to organise and run such a campaign, so perhaps I should suggest it to them.

Anyway, the basic idea is:

• to offer hardware vendors with something (it doesn't have to be a sticker on the hardware itself) that helps sell their hardware in the shops,
• at the same time as promoting FOSS as good,
• and making it easier for people who want the FOSS option open to them to choose FOSS-friendly hardware.

To quote Del-boy, "Everyone's a winner!"

Indeed, a good question I'd say. Apple really polished the convenience part to the max, even if they had to restrict the OS to their own hardware only to do it. Yet it isn't dominant. Might be because it is pricey, sure, but as Mac fans themselves would say, the prices have been falling a bit too.

So if it's not convenience that plays the biggest role what else could it be, flexibility perhaps? What more flexibility could you have than with a Free Software powered PC?

I like that idea. I am not sure whether I'd agree with putting OSI behind this project, but I like the concept. Even if it would be OSI who would do it, as long as the sticker can be used with PCs which have only Free Software on them it'd sound good to me. Maybe we can have another sticker that says "100% Free Software" or even better "100% non-proprietary". The latter sounds like something closer to what general population would understand.

Oh Del-boy, always an optimist, never giving up. I like it!

Just to clarify, while I mentioned laptops in my previous comment, I was actually thinking of hardware more generally. I really should have been clear on that, but I wasn't. So, for example, if you're looking for a printer, you could just look for the "Tux Certified" (or whatever) sticker (or whatever) when you're in the shop. Same for cameras, scanners, etc. Quick and easy.

Hmmm, talking of printers and Tux, I'm now reminded of when I got a cheap Lexmark printer. I chose it because Linux compatibility/support was advertised, and, apparently, it would work with the version of RedHat I was using at the time. But then, once I'd got it home, and was trying to get it working, it seemed that my particular version of RedHat was not actually supported after all. (I can't remember exactly how the original information had turned out to be unclear, but I think it was something to do with minor version numbers, or "and above" being more general than was actually the case, or something.)

During my struggles to get it working, I called the customer support line (or whatever they called it), and was told that my USB cable was too long! It was not too long, and worked just fine, from what I could see from the kernel messages. I was not too impressed.

Somehow, though, when I tried yet again to get it working by reinstalling the software from scratch, it just happened to work. I don't know how or why, but it worked. That's the only reason I didn't end up taking it back to the shop on the grounds of misadvertised compatibility (which I very nearly did). (I'd already phoned the shop, and, with no trouble at all, they'd said they'd give me a refund, as it was a clear case of incorrect advertising.)

That printer's now gone. After not that long a life, its power supply thing failed. I took the opportunity to get an HP ink jet printer, as I wanted to reward them for their Open Source ink jet driver software stuff. (I found it much easier to upgrade to RedHat 9 to get it working, though, but that was okay as far as I was concerned.)

So, anyway, I think there'd definitely need to be proper controls on the use of such a certification mark, or whatever it would be. Just something to prevent such a certification mark being misused by vendors whose hardware does depend (even in part) on proprietary software.

Yes it does as of this past week thanks to Benjamin Otte and Swfdec 0.4.3. This shows that the Free Software community can work to overcome the problems of proprietary web standards.