Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy and World Domination

The GNU/Linux community is facing a great opportunity that it must take advantage of, the turn of the tide of 64bit computing over an increasingly obsolete 32bit computing. The time is ticking away and if we want our operating system to dominate on the desktop we must act now, even if that means making some compromises. This is pretty much the premise behind the paper known as World Domination 201, an elaborate analysis of this opportunity, current status of the operating systems market with regards to GNU/Linux and what needs to be done for GNU/Linux to take advantage of the opportunity and come out as a winner.

Its authors, Eric Raymond and Rob Landley are taking the conclusions they posed in this paper quite seriously. The scene is already being set and the plot for world domination has already begun. And as far as they are concerned, this is the only or the best way forward. What I see as signs of the plan being put in motion are the promised release of Linspire's CNR software installation service to other major distributions through, Eric Raymonds involvement with the Freespire project, Linspire's recent partnership with Ubuntu and ESR's recent adoption of Ubuntu as his distro of choice.

There were also some talks about the "codex" CD mentioned in the paper, a package of legally obtained easily installable proprietary codecs that were to be sold by Linspire.

So let's go over this situation again. We have the most popular and one of the most user friendly and advanced GNU/Linux distributions, Ubuntu, parner with Linspire and adopt their service. We also have Ubuntu talk about including some proprietary drivers and blobs into their default installation. We have Linspire offering to all major distributions and we have the authors of the "World Domination 201" paper working behind the scenes in support of these strategies. Yes, indeed, the plan has been put in motion.

The Plan

The plan indeed does involve a compromise, if not to the Open Source way of thinking then surely to the freedom-emphasizing Free Software philosophy because it calls for adoption of non-free components in order to make GNU/Linux compelling for mass adoption. However, as I originally understood it, this compromise was to be a temporary one. It was to be made because the free replacements of these "essential" non-free parts would not be fully available in time for the 64bit opportunity to be seized, but the opportunity couldn't be missed.

The idea is to do everything we have to do to make GNU/Linux a dominant operating system and then use this prevalent position to influence others to provide us with the rest of what we need, that is, to replace the proprietary components we're using with free ones.

For example, as presenters of the dominant operating system, major GNU/Linux vendors could be able to put an overwhelming pressure on AMD and Nvidia to release the source code of their graphics card drivers as Free Software. While not everyone shares the ethical philosophy behind Free Software, most people, even in the Open Source community, do believe that having a source code and freedom to share and modify it allows for better technical maintainability, adaptability and overall functional efficiency. This would suggest that there would be enough motivation in the community to push for replacements of non-free with free, even after the dominant position has been achieved.

However, in order for this plan to work, it doesn't appear essential to adopt proprietary software for things for which fully capable free alternatives already do exist. Doing this would mean compromising more than we have to and quite probably risking getting too comfortable with running proprietary software on our systems to want to change this later on.

World Domination of what exactly?

In fact, when you look at what will be, there is a possibility of a whole new proprietary software market being created within the GNU/Linux field, thanks to Linspire and alone. When asked about how will Linspire financially benefit from, CEO of Linspire Kevin Carmony responded:

CNR is a free service, but users have the option of purchasing commercial products and services. We share that revenue with the vendors of these products. This is the main source of revenue for Linspire, so expanding the number of users should increase our sales revenue.

And there lies the crux of the problem. First of all, note that when Kevin says "commercial" he most likely refers not only to commercial Free Software, but to a large extent to non-free proprietary software as well. It is worth noting that equating proprietary software with "commercial" software in a way that implies that all Free Software is non-commercial suggests lack of understanding of what Free Software and indeed Open Source is all about. Second of all, if selling proprietary software is the core revenue source of Linspire and if it will be selling proprietary software through service, there is a distinct possibility of a whole market being created around proprietary software by the site.

How could that happen? Well think about it. will likely be quite popular among people who switch from Windows to GNU/Linux because it will allow basically one-click installation of software in a friendly way. This popularity will then be one of the selling points of Linspire when they offer to sell proprietary software of proprietary vendors through As this leads GNU/Linux popularity to grow more and more, the larger amount of proprietary software vendors will want to sell their software to the GNU/Linux crowd and will appear to be the best platform through which they could do that.

Before we know it, this would lead to an increasing number of proprietary applications being sold and advertised through to the GNU/Linux users. Rest assured that these proprietary programs will include programs for which perfectly functional Free Software equivalents exist.

So how can a freedom loving Free Software user support this ongoing strategy by this new Linspire led "conglomerate" for world domination if Linspire would actively promote the use of proprietary software among the GNU/Linux users (because it is their core business)? How can we trust that once we do achieve the dominance of GNU/Linux, that this OS which was supposed to be completely Free wont be just another hybrid of free and proprietary?

The more I think about it, the more I am concerned that the "World Domination 201" plan at work here is more about the domination of a yet another mixed operating system and not the world domination of software freedom. And is that even worth having? If this is really what we are fighting for then why not just save us the effort and support Mac OS X for they have already made an incredible operating system which is a hybrid of non-free on top and free on the bottom.

It really comes down to a simple choice for everyone of us. Either we care about software freedom and prevalence of *that*, or we care about a yet another OS, "Linux", and the domination of merely *that*. If we care about the former, we will examine critically what Linspire and will be offering and if it turns out to be a efficient pipe of delivering proprietary software to the GNU/Linux land, in addition to being a yet another nice way of installing Free Software, maybe it would be better to just stick to our existing installation tools, apt-get, pacman, yum etc.

Or maybe the freedom loving community should forget about Linspire and set up an equivalent service to which won't be pushing proprietary software on us. GNewSense guys, any ideas? Eye

For those who may now be asking, "But how do we then achieve world domination and take advantage of the opportunity without or even without a compromise?" Well, stay tuned to Libervis. In our next article we may just answer that question. Smiling

Thank you

More information:


"closed software" engineering apps

Anonymous wrote:

Having commercial closed software running in Linux is a good thing, there are hundreds of engineering apps that will never make as open source and will benefit the linux community if they where available for Linux.

I don't know of any really good "closed software" engineering apps. Most are very limited in scope and application. The really good engineering apps are all open source, for example, GCC. I challenge you to site specific engineering apps that are closed source and are indeed very good.

But if you speak English only


Your thinking is backwards. The reason English became a wildly spoken and popular language is because it was free and open, not because you could profit from marketing.
Continue to speak your "proprietary language" and you will eventually not be able to talk with the larger community. I recommend that you consider why the Internet has become what it is today in light of earlier better and more profitable proprietary networks such as Prodigy and CompuServe.

Your blind


“(1) The enemy ... is Microsoft. If they continue to dominate, they will expunge the free software movement.”

Not a chance in hell. OSS software has grown significantly and shows no signs of waning. Particularly in countries outside the US. The only danger is strategies such as “CNR”.

”OSX is in no way remotely like the CNR plan”

I disagree. There are both very similar to Microsoft's “embrace and extend” philosophy that they have used so successfully to block open standards, except the target is OSS.



The enemy (and I use that word adviedly, as they hate us and try to destroy us) is Microsoft.

No, the target is nonfree software.

Good Closed Source Engineering Apps


Solidworks 3D design tools
Protel (the old versions were decent, but I've never used Altium Designer, Protel's successor)
Mentor Graphics VLSI tools

There's more to the world than just the software industry, and it's in the vertically integrated niche software markets that there is room for closed source software (basically because the combination of relevant domain knowledge and software engineering expertise is sufficiently rare that there is little benefit to be gained in opening up the development to a wider community). Contrast this with the successful open source projects (OS, generic servers, office applications, programming languages, other software development tools) which are either within the software development domain, or else have broad applicability across many industries, leading to a large pool of potential developers with both the interest and the necessary skills to assist in development.

benefit the Linux community?


Like I said, ... these apps are very limited in scope and application. I agree, "vertically integrated niche software" has little need for open source. However, CNR isn't any help here, as you can't even download most of these vertical niche Windows apps directly from the manufacturer

I fail to understand your point of how these “will benefit the Linux community if they where available for Linux”. The only benefit I see is that some CAD operator may use Linux instead of Windows as his underling OS.

Instead the focus needs be on improving generalized OSS apps. This is the only means by which Linux will continue becoming more widely used. Availability of closed source “vertically integrated niche software” for Linux has grown significantly over the last few years, but, this is only the result of Linux maturation and wider use.

Free Steps to Heaven


I've been trying to predict the impact of the CNR/linspire strategy on the vast majority of fully non-free users, ignoring irrelevant niche proprietary oddities.

Like it or not, for any change *most* users will want a yes answer to these three questions;
- can I perform the tasks I need to as easily as or better than I do now?
- can I keep/migrate my existing data?
- is the cost/benefit analysis of the change positive?

While I don't agree 64bit means a now or never situation, it does in fairness present a once-off opportunity to lay down another scenic route to freedom that can get more people on the march.

In the CNR scenario, non-free software users can choose different roads (from slavery to freedom as we see it). Each road requires one or more steps, and I list the roads in (debateable) order of increasing step size, ie how far each step on the road requires you to move from the comfort zone of the previous position:

Road A (CNR option 1)
Step 1. Change to some free apps and codecs on your existing non-free OS
Step 2. Change to a free OS with a mix of free and non-free Apps, Codecs, and Drivers
Step 3. Change to all free Apps, Codecs, and Drivers when available

Road B
Step 1. Change to all free apps and codecs on your existing non-free OS
Step 2. Change to a free OS and drivers

Road C (CNR option 2)
Step 1. Change to a free OS with a mix of free and non-free Apps, Codecs, and Drivers
Step 2. Change to free Apps, Codecs, and Drivers when available

Road D
Step 1. Change apps, codecs, os and drivers from non-free to free

I don't have the stats to extrapolate but I'm guessing the roads will also be in decreasing order of the number of travelers on them.

Free Apps and codecs can happen even with a majority on non-free os's, and if many could stick with that indefinitely, we'd be left with the old catch-22, drivers are delayed until sufficient free os user numbers compel device mnfr's to respond, but people resist an os-switch because the drivers aren't there. The CNR scenic route out of the swamp could help crack that nut by delivering more os defections.

Libervisco is not alone in being concerned that the CNR strategy as is will mean the financial motivation is there to take users part of the way, but never all of the way. The shadow cnr proposal might be required.

But what if the cnr used retained profits to fund free driver development? The more proprietary take-up the more free drivers, the more a free os with broad hardware support becomes a reality, catch-22 solved.

Maybe I'm on Gullible's Travels assuming device mnfrs just want to sell devices and have no issue with free drivers, but in any event the Achilles heel of this may be that the suppliers of proprietary apps and codecs may not want too much freedom to happen, and so may not support a cnr with such a goal.


It's what you are used to - not what works


Convenience is in the eye of the beholder and more often means doing things the way one is used to doing them or having your specific (rather than general) computing needs being met. Could you be more specific as to your particular list of inconveniences ?

codec freedom

democrates wrote:

Free Apps and codecs can happen even with a majority on non-free os's,

No, free codecs for many formats can't. By supporting a nonfree OS, it's supporting a company that supports patents and DMCA(-ish) laws, which make those free codecs illegal.

Btw nice handle Smiling

my bad


Cheers a thing, I get many compliments on my handle...(sorry, reared on benny hill and a 10-96 ever since)

What I should have said was free codecs for non-proprietary formats, eg for odf, ogg etc. Still, for the formats you're talking about I guess that still leaves the problem of having no legal way to convert old files to a free format. God it's annoying, your own data effectively encrypted by someone else. Could ESR's crew or someone offer an online bulk conversion service I wonder? Hope springs eternal here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.