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

Agreeing with World Domination 201 plot

22 replies [Last post]
User offline. Last seen 12 years 23 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-09-07
I must admit, I had to read

I must admit, I had to read this document several times over. At first (and it's my own fault for reading it at 12 midnight!) I agreed with a lot of it. Afer re-reading several times and doing some googling and research, I'm less inclined to agree with all of it.

The author is correct in some places. Certianly it shouldn't be hard to add an "expert" button into the installer program of a GNU/Linux distro. And it would be good if more hardware manufacturers could install GNU/Linux rather than windows.

Some things though I completely disagree with. I certianly will not and do not want to have propietary binary-only programs inside my distro. Why should we have to have these? And if we did, could this be just a slippery slope? You add a little bit of propierary stuff here, a bit there and then one day you wake up and the whole thing's propietary. Sad .

Also who's to say moore's law is even correct? Is moore's law even scientific? Maybe moore's law only applies to some people; it certianly dosen't seem to be applying to me right now. According to WD201, and as I have 64-bit (AMD) PC I should have ~1GB of memory. But I don't -- I have 512MB.

The author also states that 16 bit CPUs can only address 1MB. Not so -- what about the intel 80286, wasn't that capable of addressing up to 16MB? And don't some 32-bit CPUs today go above the 4GB RAM barrier?

As for the 64-bit question and which OS will dominate the author has it largely correct - to a point. Apple makes their money by controlling the hardware strictly, so no Mac OS X on generic x86 hardware. 64-Bit windows (which works badly) does have a big problem with 32-bit drivers. But then again I remember windows comes with lots of drivers (think back to Win9x) -- how much code does microsoft have for those drivers - did they force hardware manufacturers to give them code?

IHMO Asking also about linux being ready for the desktop is the wrong question to ask. The answer to that one is yes -- indeed, I have linux on all my desktops - from the best PC I own (a 64 bit PC) right down to an old battered second hand 386 Laptop. Linux is already on the desktop.

Maybe a better question to ask might be something like "Why haven't the masses (i.e. the public) moved over to GNU/Linux yet?".

IHMO I don't see any changeover or deadline coming in 2008 in the end. Not everyone moves at the same speed; some people will upgrade rapidly, others will keep their hardware for years. If all goes well Smiling , propietary stuff like windows will vanish but it;s not going to happen in a flash in 2008. It'll take longer and be much more gradual.


memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 1 day ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
I easily agree with pretty

I easily agree with pretty much everything you said. Today, I consider WD201 practically obsolete. There was that time (when I opened this thread) that I considered it significant enough. We spent a few articles talking about it and analyzing it cause it prompted reconsideration of some rather strictly held opinions regarding the way forward for Free Software.

In the end, while my position today is slightly more pragmatic than before it in no way goes in line with inclusion of non-free things by default for the sake of producing the kind of convenience that will supposedly get the masses adopting, because this alone just wont do it and this alone is no breaking point so much as WD201 authors seem to have thought.

And today when we are soon to get Free Software ATI drivers and Nvidia reverse engineering project is well under way, even that formerly sensitive and very controversial field of graphics drivers is becoming less and less of an issue. It's interesting that it may be exactly non-compromising pressure or pressure nontheless that got ATI down that road. While Ubuntu shipped non-free drivers in repositories it never got to a point of actually including them by default, but I think what had a significant influence on this is RedHat and its Fedora distribution which did refuse to include proprietary stuff. And note that Fedora is among the 3 or 4 most used GNU/Linux distributions. I think there might be evidence to suggest that the non-compromising way (which WD201 does not suggest) actually does work.

Another indication that I see of the obsoleteness of this WD201 doc is the recent happenings in relation to the Open Source brand, it's diffusion, Microsoft's attempt at getting under it etc. This might be a bold thing to say, but it's not a good day to be an honest Open Source supporter. Many people are calling themselves that, but to really support what Open Source represents, the "compromise for short term benefits" philosophy, the "let's hide the weary freedom ideology from businesses" philosophy - it is failing.

So, as far as I'm concerned, I learned what I had to learn from WD201 - but.. good bye WD201. World Domination of Free Software doesn't come by betraying it a little and certainly not by writing papers with sensationalist titles. I hope I don't see WD301.


Daniel Memenode signature

Comment viewing options

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