10.24.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Red Hat, Servers, SLES/SLED, Ubuntu, Virtualisation, Windows, Xen at 9:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A lesson in buying out one’s competition
NOVELL, Microsoft and Citrix are still working to elevate Windows Server or the Microsoft-taxed GNU/Ballnux [1, 2, 3, 4] (only as a guest machine) while excluding or demoting others. None of this has changed since the last time it was covered, but this article from The Register provides some more evidence.
Part of it says: “Now that Microsoft has Windows Server 2008 and its Hyper-V hypervisor in the field, it won’t be long before Scalent has to deliver support. Hyper-V is running in the labs now, but as a startup, Scalent has to limit its production products to the ones customers will pay for. “Hyper-V support is inevitable,” says Epstein. The Xen hypervisors inside Novell’s SUSE Linux and Red Hat’s Enterprise Linux, which are compatible with V/OE as is the free-standing XenServer hypervisor from Citrix Systems. Thanks to a partnership between XenSource, the original creator of Xen and now part of Citrix, and Microsoft, Hyper-V is Xen-compatible, which means Hyper-V support should not be that big of a deal to deliver.”
In summary, Microsoft needed to capture Xen [1, 2, 3] and Novell only to use them to sell Windows Server and hurt GNU/Linux competitors — a pressuring tactic whose Grand Aim is software patent tax. Red Hat has already escaped this relationship by acquiring the company behind KVM and Ubuntu too has moved to KVM. They can't rely on Citrix, Microsoft’s digital spouse. █
“Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SuSE Linux is appropriately covered.”
–Steve Ballmer
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.17.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, Ubuntu at 2:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No Mo’ Poisonware, Please
MARTI van Lin has some valuable tips to share about creating Mono-free distributions of GNU/Linux. This comes at a fairly important time when Microsoft is hoping to force-feed everyone, including KDE users, a "clone" package called Mono. It’s using the SIlver Lie in order to deceive Web developers and quietly advance Poisonware [1, 2] into people’s Web browsers. The whole argument about Mono being complementary or peripheral to GNU/Linux is therefore becoming pointless and moot.
It was exceptionally hard to ignore the following news article about Microsoft considering Silverlight for Android.
On the other hand, Microsoft will consider developing something for Google’s Android operating system, which is open-source and therefore easier to work with.
Say what?!?!
Android is GNU/Linux. Microsoft says that, being open source, it’s easier to work with. Well, so why didn’t Microsoft port Silverlight to GNU/Linux desktops? As far as we are aware, no person uses Android at the moment. It has only just been fornally announced. The article quotes Microsoft’s Guthrie, who loves to lie about "cross platform" (Silverlight is not cross-platform, despite deception from Microsoft and 'the media').
According to past articles, Microsoft used Novell (and Moonlight) as an excuse to leave GNU/Linux out in the cold, i.e. totally neglected, without Silverlight. Another ‘warm’ thank-you goes out to Novell. It’s more manipulation by Microsoft, thanks to Novell’s assistance. This pair plays the same games and uses the same routine in hypervisors.
“It’s more manipulation by Microsoft, thanks to Novell’s assistance.”Why would anyone expect or actually want Silverlight for GNU/Linux? For starters, Moonlight is not Silverlight. There is no parity and there never will be. Moreover, had Microsoft given GNU/Linux users a binary to run for Silverlight, patent liability would not exist. But by having Novell copy (‘steal’ or reverse-engineer) Silverlight, Microsoft can later whine and complain about violation of software patents or other ludicrous rights. Moonlight is only for Novell. Fedora won't touch it, for legal as opposed to philosophical reasons.
Going back to the Washington Post article, why would Microsoft support an insignificant mobile device platform while ignoring its sworn #1 competitor? In the same vein and also very similarly, why did the Microsoft-captured BBC support almost every platform including phones and gaming consoles when it comes to iPlayer while at the same time ignoring and even shunning a popular Free platform that Microsoft admits is its most fierce rival? We have been through this before. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.16.08
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OLPC, Ubuntu, Windows at 7:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
WHAT IS happening with NComputing, particularly in India?
Days ago it was reported that they were looking into the use of Ubuntu or another variant of GNU/Linux (NComputing offers several options). From IDG: “NComputing is working with the state governments of Assam and Tamil Nadu on pilots for the deployment of its virtual desktop technology on Linux PCs, according to Dukker.”
Then, a day or so later, it was announced that Windows somehow made it in, despite this national interest in GNU/Linux. What happened? Well, fortunately we have been tracking some rather mysterious moves in NComputing as of late, namely an appointment of a former Windows manager [1, 2] (one of the highest ranked ones, alongside Jim Allchin and Brian Valentine, both of whom left as well).
It would not take a genius to merely speculate that Microsoft may be getting its grubby hands on more and more companies that ‘dare’ to distribute GNU/Linux in large numbers. As we pointed out before (see links), schools in entire countries offered GNU/Linux to their students because of NComputing.
Another thing that we pointed out before is that “Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential” is code word for “anti-GNU/Linux budget.” We provided examples that show how reactionary Unlimited Potential really is [1, 2, 3]. It’s chasing GNU/Linux wherever there is ‘danger’ of it being deployed.
In the following new press release, the involvement by Unlimited Potential is made very clear. The press release states: “The computing labs will be used to teach computer skills and office productivity (spreadsheets, word processing) as well as subjects like reading and math. The entire system will run on the Microsoft Windows Server operating system and use Microsoft Office Suite. “India holds a strong position in the knowledge economy today due to the country’s consistent investment in education over the years,” said Javier Arrupea Gitlin, director, Microsoft Unlimited Potential Group. “In India and around the globe, Microsoft is committed to enabling affordable access to computing for education. Through Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential commitment, we are continually looking for innovative and affordable technology solutions that can sustain social and economic progress. Initiatives such as this announced today that leverage the value to educational computing provided by the Windows Server platform represent yet another solution that can help move us towards this goal.”
William Poole used to head Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential program briefly before he left and then joined NComputing. Is Microsoft’s Unlimited Potential sneaking people into actual companies where they can blindly sign deals with Microsoft? Are they doing deal with themselves? Shades of Paul Maritz inside VMware, that’s for sure!
Anyway, the possibility of an ‘inside job’ is fairly reasonable given what was seen before. Over in Portugal, disappointed peoples still wonder about those Magalhães laptops, whose parent company is in court for fraud allegations at the moment.
After the sickening OLPC incidents, it would be naïve to assume that Microsoft plays this one fairly. █
“They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
–Bill Gates
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.23.08
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Mandriva, Red Hat, Site News, SLES/SLED, Ubuntu at 7:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Credit: beranger.org
A quick look at this month’s snapshot reveals that an estimated 41.9% of the page requests come from GNU/Linux users, of which 4.1 % are on Fedora boxes and 3.5 % are on SUSE boxes. The rest of the list is below:
- Debian: 2.8 %
- Ubuntu: 2.7 %
- Mandriva: 2.4 %
- Centos: 0.2 %
- Red Hat: 0.1 %
- GNU Linux (Unknown or unspecified distribution): 25.7 %
That last figure ought to show why it is so difficult — if not altogether impossible — to track proper numbers based on Web statistics. It’s an issue of diversity (HTTP headers), among many other factors.
These statistics must be taken with a grain of salt because, like all statistics, they are bound to be meaningless or deceiving. Interesting to watch nonetheless! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.20.08
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Ubuntu at 6:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Today is Software Freedom Day. It is an excellent opportunity to educate our family, friends. and colleagues about the importance of Free(dom) software. To mark this event, I’m posting an old article of mine, which refers to a distribution that’s now retired. This also coincides with the Ubuntu/Mozilla EULA kerkuffle.
“It has nothing whatsoever to do with Freedom,” argues one of Gobuntu‘s contributors. The contributor, Keith G. Robertson-Turner, is a longtime, passionate advocate of free software advocate. Before joining Gobuntu, he was among the first package maintainers on the Fedora project. Yet recently he opted to leave the Gobuntu project after what he sees as continued disappointment.
“In fact, [Mark] Shuttleworth has just confirmed on-list that his only interest is the kernel (i.e. disable as much of the contentious drivers as possible) … and see what still works,” he continues.
In contrast, Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, disagrees with Robertson-Turner. The developer’s complaints “reflect one person’s recollection of a vigorous discussion on the Gobuntu development mailing lists,” he replied in an email response to Robertson-Turner’s allegations. Indeed, in Shuttleworth’s view, “Gobuntu is about building a platform that expresses freedom in software and in content.” He urges those interested to read key parts of the Gobuntu mailing list (linked to below).
Before examining Robertson-Turner’s experiences and findings, let’s delve into a little background. Later on, internal problems will be explained and ways to improve Gobuntu’s direction will be suggested.
What Makes a Linux Distribution Truly Free
A truly free GNU/Linux distribution is one which honours the idea that full access to and control over program source code is both valuable and necessary. Such a distribution should avoid software and hardware drivers that cannot be controlled by the user. Moreover, all expressions of creativity, including artwork, should permit derivative work. All in all, this ensures that there is no restriction that ties the user to the software and hardware vendors.
“The main goal of projects that follow this route is to reverse a growing trend where hardware and software turn against their users.”
There are several projects that strive to create such a Linux distribution, e.g. Ututo and gNewSense. The projects make their work widely available, not necessarily for profit. The main goal of projects that follow this route is to reverse a growing trend where hardware and software turn against their users. Examples include compromise of privacy, restriction on access, and forced upgrades, which can be expensive.
Gobuntu is a project whose purpose is to deliver a Linux distribution that is free not only in terms of cost, but also free in that it facilitates user freedom. Gobuntu essentially comprises a reduced set of packages that are used in Ubuntu Linux, with possible replacements for “non free” software packages and drivers.
Drivers versus Applications
A complete operating system can be looked at from several levels of abstractions or operation. Two such levels are the applications and the kernel. In a truly free Linux distribution, source code should be openly available at all levels. But what does this mean in practical terms?
At the level of the kernel, things are relatively simple. All code, including that which operates peripheral devices such as printers and keyboards, as well as internal storage media, should be made available for inspection, modification, and even redistribution. The user is in total charge of the way software interacts with the hardware and can therefore tweak the computer’s behaviour to his/her heart’s content.
When it comes to applications, the notion of “free” becomes more complex. Above the level of source code there tends to exist a graphical user interface with images, sounds, and other forms of art. Applications, unlike kernel code, can be very large and complex.
Dedication to both levels – the kernel and applications that sit on top – is needed when producing a truly free Linux distro. Without the conditions of freedom being satisfied, the computer which runs that software is not entirely under its user’s control. The user is forbidden from doing certain things on the computer that he/she actually owns. The user is sometimes forced to do undesirable things, too. Examples include a scenario where the user is not permitted access to vital personal information or a scenario where very sensitive information is sent over the network without the user’s consent.
Is Gobuntu a Free Linux?
According to recent arguments in Gobuntu’s mailing lists, focus has been shifting toward freeing the kernel. This effort comes at the expense of freedom at a higher level, which still includes popular “non free” applications. At present, the applications layer in Gobuntu resembles those which can be already found in Ubuntu (the less free version).
Mark Shuttleworth defends his stance on such issues by highlighting key parts of a long mailing list thread.
“At present, the applications layer in Gobuntu resembles those which can be already found in Ubuntu (the less free version).”
One vision that some Gobuntu developers have in mind is a free laptop. Free, that is, in the sense that the hardware requires no proprietary code in order to be used with Linux. This admirable goal was set by Mark Shuttleworth himself. In an interview with Robertson-Turner we found out that this goal may have been a distraction that led to the project losing sight of its more important goal. The most important goal should involve no actual product like a laptop, but establishing a generic system that is free in every sense. It leaves room for choice when selecting hardware rather than impose restriction on diversity.
Shuttleworth, though, disputes that Gobuntu’s goal is a free laptop. “A key point is that the idea of the free-software-only laptop and Gobuntu are entirely orthogonal and independent of one another,” Shuttleworth wrote in an email response to us. “I’ve had a number of people say they would like to know if such a laptop existed, so I invited people to register their interest in that idea separately from Gobuntu. I’m not sure what would make Keith think the two ideas are connected, except in the obvious way that both are about demonstrating a commitment to free software.”
Who Controls Gobuntu?
There appears to be a certain fear among the Gobuntu development community when it comes to voicing criticism, especially because the project meets the public eye. It thrives in transparency, but concerns about the project’s direction are sometimes raised off-list instead. We are told by Robertson-Turner that discussions among the contributors tend to be philosophical, but only in the sense that there is a ‘political’ power struggle, not in the sense that free software philosophies are encouraged though free and open expression.
Paraphrasing from memory, Robertson-Turner says that Mark Shuttleworth “comes in and says, stop bickering, this is supposed to be a devel[opment] mailing list, so talk about development stuff, and stop wasting time on trivial matters like Freedom.”
But Matthew East, a member of the Ubuntu Community Council, strongly disagrees with this assessment. “With limited exceptions, no one has yet (or at least until recently) stepped up with any concrete work which actually furthers Gobuntu’s aims of developing a completely free derivative of Ubuntu,” he tells us. He does, however, acknowledge the fact that mistakes were made. He believes that the company failed to give the Gobuntu project more substantial guidance about the scope and methods of the project, until recently. However, “This has been recognised and is being addressed,” he assures us.
There appears to be a mild confrontation between those who are volunteers and those who are associated with Canonical, which is the company behind Gobuntu. Robertson-Turner says: Somebody else pointed out that, if we can’t even establish what is or isn’t Free, then how are we supposed to proceed? This is core to the goals of this project. Where is the advisory board? Where are the mentors? Where is the information necessary to actually get involved? It’s all very well telling us to talk devel stuff, but what is it that we’re supposed to be developing … etc., etc.”
He argues that this was never the case when he participated in Fedora, where it was easier than ever to be a contributor. “They’re tripping over themselves to help volunteers,” he said, referring to Red Hat, which took over Fedora.
Robertson-Turner further complains that, “I suggested various non-Free packages be removed, and the reaction was, to put it mildly, aggressive. There seems to be core of contributors who are blind to the dangers of certain software, such as Mono, and argue vigorously in its defense, despite it having a particularly untrustworthy so-called ‘RAND’ clause from Microsoft. It is poison for the well, but certain Gobuntu contributors just don’t seem to care, and embrace this encumbered Microsoft technology with open arms. It’s deeply unsettling to discover this kind of attitude, especially in, of all places, the Gobuntu project.”
As it stands, other than the supposed changes to the kernel, Robertson-Tuner claims that one is hard pressed to find any difference between Gobuntu and Ubuntu at all, likening it to “little more than a new paint job,” adding that “as for changes in the kernel, even that was done without any consultation to the list, and to this day it remains a mystery as to what, if anything, has actually been changed.” A direct request from Robertson-Turner to Shuttleworth, on the mailing list, for information regarding those changes, went unanswered.
Firefox Divides the Development Team
What broke the camel’s back turns out to be a discussion about the inclusion of Mozilla Firefox in Gobuntu. It was only days beforehand that Mark Pilgrim, an influential technology writer, described this as the reason for failure in Gobuntu.
“What broke the camel’s back turns out to be a discussion about the inclusion of Mozilla Firefox in Gobuntu.”
Firefox is widely-known as an open source success story, but it is does not meet the requirements of free software. A few such issues led to the creation of a sibling project called IceWeasel, which is intended to resolve issues pertaining to artwork. A controversy revolves around the Firefox logo and its effect on derivatives (forks). In the developers’ mailing list, Mark Shuttleworth insisted that maintaining two copies of the codebase of the Firefox browser — one for Ubuntu and one for Gobuntu — will have “such little benefit.” Several volunteers immediately begged to differ in off-list coversations that we saw.
Outraged by this apparent disregard for the significance of the issue, Robertson-Turner responded “It’s time that Gobuntu started living up to the ‘very strict’ policy that motivated it’s inception, otherwise it will be nothing more than a different coloured Ubuntu, with a slightly smaller kernel,” and he concluded that “I don’t know about you, but that isn’t quite the vision that got me excited enough to want to get involved in this project.”
The Gobuntu Laptop
Towards the end of his long affair, which ended just recently, the main concern about the project had a lot to do with goals, maybe even a hidden agenda. “I’ve discovered the truth about Gobuntu. Essentially … it’s a hardware experiment,” Robertson-Turner tells us. He then refers to the idea involving a laptop, as mentioned at the beginning of this article. He likens it to a contest where people run a poll out of sheer curiosity.
Shuttleworth, however, begs to differ. “Contrary to the assertion made by Keith, there are no other private agendas or conversations about Gobuntu,” he states in our correspondence with him.
With the vision of pre-installed Ubuntu laptop that was free of proprietary drivers in mind, he calls this idea a response to Nicholas Negroponte’s One Laptop Per Child. Mark Shuttleworth’s blog post, which spoke about working in collaboration with a laptop manufacturer to produce a system favourable to free software drivers, certainly rang a bell here.
“It’s an experiment to produce a laptop independent of proprietary drivers (GPU, Wi-Fi, etc.), presumably so he can then capitalise on the idea,” we are told by Robertson-Turner. This ambitious statement did not escape a solid counter argument from Shuttleworth, who stepped in to clarify:
“A key point, though, is that the idea of the free-software-only laptop and Gobuntu are entirely orthogonal and independent of one another. I’ve had a number of people say they would like to know if such a laptop existed, so I invited people to register their interest in that idea separately from Gobuntu,” says Shuttleworth. He clarifies that the two ideas are not by any means connected “except in the obvious way that both are about demonstrating a commitment to free software.”
Ways Forwards
Gobuntu can hopefully be improved by reminding Canonical that the project should stick to things it was intended to achieve. As promised, it should also be driven by a community, as opposed to becoming a project that — at least in part — absorbs criticism against inclusion of proprietary components in Ubuntu. At worst, this is maybe a case of capitalization. The project can — and probably should — be built to provide what free software enthusiasts sought in the first place. Only then can it make a big impact and draw a community large enough to help it grow and thrive.
Shuttleworth asserts that “Gobuntu is about building a platform that expresses freedom in software and in content. Debating what constitutes freedom is essential to the process of building it.” The latter part — the past which is all about debating freedom — seems to contradict the experience of at least two Gobuntu developers whom we heard from (one prefers to remain unnamed). The project may be suffering from a disconnect, or simply a case of miscommunication. Canonical is already responding to these issues. “I’m personally quite positive that the project will soon be pointed in the right direction,” adds Matthew East, so it is encouraging to know that the problems are already taken into consideration and addressed. █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.18.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, KDE, Novell, Ubuntu at 8:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
From the company that brought Mono and patent threats to GNU/Linux also comes Greg Kroah-Hartman, who neglects to mention his affiliation when he disses Ubuntu.
Greg is, of course, a well respected contributor to the Linux kernel, having sustained a significant level of contribution over a period of several years. I’m grateful to him for his technical contributions, which of course benefit Ubuntu as a consumer of the Linux kernel. However, his contribution to the public dialog about the Linux ecosystem leaves much to be desired.
We all have bias, and the best that we can do is to disclose it so that others can take it into account when hearing our ideas. Unlike the presentations given by other Novell employees at this and other conferences, Greg’s slides omitted the Novell logo.
Since he works for a company that created the notion [1, 2] of GNU/Linux users without “intellectual property peace of mind,” he should really be more humble. He gets his paycheck from Microsoft (second hand), which feeds Novell. █
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”
–Andre Gide
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.16.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Standard, Ubuntu at 8:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Buy Ubuntu, pay Microsoft
This was probably inevitable. I first brought it up here and Mark Shuttleworth soon replied, refusing the refute the speculation. So, Canonical will be paying Microsoft indirectly (for codecs). We’ll explain the source of this problem in a moment.
It was Shuttleworth himself who said that it’s important to keep the price of GNU/Linux low (preferably zero), so it’s ironic that he permits it to change now. Ubuntu PCs from Dell still have Microsoft paid and there’s no choice to opt out. Claims of this have been somewhat fuzzy , but the latest claim is based on this report from IDG.
Inexpensive add-on applications that will provide audio codecs and a DVD player to expand the multimedia capabilities of the four-year-old Linux operating system are now available for purchase in the Ubuntu online store.
[...]
Canonical Ltd., the commercial sponsor of Ubuntu Linux, said today that it has reached deals with two software vendors, Cyberlink and Fluendo, to sell their DVD player and audio codec applications directly to consumers through the online store. The products are already installed under previous licensing agreements for many laptop and desktop computers that are sold preloaded with Ubuntu Linux from hardware vendors, according to Ubuntu.
Just to clarify, we have written literally hundreds of posts denouncing software patents and we continue to do so. We don’t write this to provoke and it’s important that to understand where GNU/Linux is moving. Payments to Microsoft for codecs is perhaps only a beginning and, either way, it elevates the price of Free software and legitimises software patents. These don’t belong in industry and especially not inside data formats which were made prevalent using the Web.
Microsoft actively encourages (through default file formats) the proliferation of such digital poison, which has already come under antitrust probes. Licensing this technology as Canonical does is a step backwards because it’s a sign of acceptance, not rejection. Here is another new example of patents inside standards. [via Digital Majority]
InterDigital develops advanced mobile broadband technologies and products, is a leading contributor to the global wireless standards, and has patent license agreements with many leading mobile device manufacturers.
Free software simply cannot play this game. It ceases to be Free under such an ecosystem.
More people have begun questioning patents in general, not just software patents. It’s important to support these people, as opposed to supporting WMV and WMA.
In the last Venture Capital Journal, Thomas Klein from Wilson Sonsini wrote a great article (Actually link doesn’t work – this article requires subscription) about the diminishing value of patents for early stage technology companies. In the short article he quoted 5 recent court decisions that have created limited the value of patents. I will not repeat all the 5 cases that he quotes, but his overall verdict is clear: Leveraging patents in the courtroom is becoming harder and harder.
Patents are typically about selfishness (personal gain) and the key problem is that once they are widely accepted, other people’s selfishness saturates and floods the industrial atmosphere. It stifles development. It’s like advocating the possession of a gun by everyone as means of enhancing security. It’s only the ruthless loose cannons (trolls) and graveyards/funeral services (lawyers) who win the most. They thrive in increased ‘business’. █
Image from Wikimedia
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.15.08
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, GPL, Hardware, Ubuntu at 3:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Note: some of the arguments here are out of date]
As GNU/Linux becomes more popular, the motives behind its inceptions are often forgotten. Linux is a free operating system, but its broadening userbase perceives this freedom as one that pertains to cost, not rights and liberty. It is therefore important to step back and remind ourselves of the purpose and importance of distributions which try to make a difference, sometimes at the cost of ease of installation and use.
gNewSense (pronounced nuisance) quickly caught the spotlight last year. It was the latest among several Linux distributions which adhered to the mantra of Free software [sic] (capitalisation in “Free” indicates that it refers not to price but to freedom). This mantra had been defined in line with the principles of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation. gNewSense is a version of Linux which is derived from Ubuntu Linux. It essentially strips off every bit of code that is not Free, i.e. all elements that are closed and proprietary.
gNewSense is an intriguing name that has been neglected for a while because Canonical, the founder and parent company of Ubuntu Linux, introduced Gobuntu, which maintained its roots and relationship with gNewSense. At present, because of the popularity and ubiquity of Ubuntu Linux, Gobuntu is often seen as the de facto Free distribution of Linux.
“…deficiencies should often be associated with the manufacturers of various bits of hardware.”To an average user, Gobuntu can be daunting. It would not work trivially with the average laptop. Its support for certain hardware components, for example, would be limited or nonexistent. The fault lies not in Linux. Rather, such deficiencies should often be associated with the manufacturers of various bits of hardware.
If drivers are provided for Linux, they often come only in binary form (i.e. no source code), which is forbidden from inclusion in Free Linux distributions. In fact, some hardware is not supported by Linux at all, albeit the situation is improving as more manufacturers recognise and respond to growth and rising demand for Linux in the marketplace.
The goals of Free Linux distributions and particularly the means for achieving these goals are not a case of prejudice, let alone what sometimes gets attributed to zeal. The assumptions made here and the theory behind this have deep roots in scientific thinking. Free Linux distributions offer several benefits, which will be discussed in turn.
Security
It is not only believed, but it was also shown by studies that open source drivers make the software more secure, predictable, and therefore robust as a whole. A Linux distribution that contains ‘black boxes’ from various vendors is generally misunderstood. It is therefore unsurprising that the next Linux kernel, whose version number will be 2.6.24, has already taken steps that discriminate against binary drivers.
It must be remembered that software cannot be tested properly if some of its internal parts are developed in complete isolation. There is no room for independent inspection and comprehensive audits of the software in its entirety — from the bottom layer which is the kernel up to more abstract and user-fundamental layers, such as the graphical user interface.
As an example of this issue, consider a number of critical security holes in the binary drivers delivered to Linux by NVidia. These drivers, which sit deep in the ‘belly’ of the operating system, have on several occasions exposed the entire system to intrusion, essentially leaving it open for full compromise. Not only could this be prevented at an early stage had more eyes been watching the code, but independent parties could also patch the flaw promptly rather than wait for NVidia to finally unleash a solution. As long as the development is closed-source, NVidia is the only company that controls its drivers, which are the only ones available. This leads to the next point.
Control
Over time, due to questionably-welcomed sophistication, there is an increasing loss of control over one’s own software. To use an example, many of us have heard about digital rights management (DRM). In the Free software world, a great deal of notoriety was earned by DRM. Its harms are believed to have outweighed the claimed benefit, which is reduction in copyrights infringement (and to content producers — the reselling of content, which is essentially being rented, not sold). At the end of the day, data can be lost repeatedly, which costs the consumer.
In this struggle for control, the user strives to control access to personal data and manage his/her expenses. With proprietary software, one usually buys a license to use the software rather than truly own the software. It is firmly believed by some luminaries that only Free software can change these worrisome rules completely. It would stop discrimination against the user of software and the consumer of information.
With Linux, ideally, the user should be in full control of the software. The user gains full ownership too. However, binary drivers in Linux change this. When it comes to behaviour of a driver, one relies on the vendor of that driver. It’s all or nothing at all. If the user is not happy with the behaviour of the driver and rejects it, then corresponding hardware is rendered unusable. Likewise, if the user dislikes the behaviour of closed-source software (application), then the only other option is to choose alternative software which is open and Free, rather than reshape and tailor the existing software for personal needs.
Choice
Binary drivers and software reduce choice. They narrow down and impose limits on choice of hardware. Additionally, they often restrict the user in terms of platforms and pertinent packages that are supported. Once again, the rigid nature of such drivers (or software) means that it remains the choice of the hardware (or software) maker what is supported and what is not. Decisions get tied to considerations such as a budget, business relationships, business objectives, and neglect of legacy. These factors are not customer-centric, so rights can be abused.
On the other hand, with free drivers, whose acceptance is facilitated by projects like Gobuntu, all code is independent from the iron fist of its original creator and maintainer. The benefits are many; they include more control over cost, reuse of old PCs, improved digital preservation, and diversity, which can be important in a plethora of situations. For instance, diversity is sometimes vital for security. It is through obscurity and inconsistency, which are separate from but not opposites of transparency.
Cost
The issue of choice can be broken down further to discuss cost separately. Many of us have at some stage faced the unfortunate phenomenon (and usually a deliberate business strategy) known as “forced upgrades”. The argument which underlines the danger of this — from the user’s point of view — is that vendors are able to control the way that drivers, much like the hardware that they operate, evolve over the years. Hardware can become unsupported at any stage and assuming bug fixes are needed, the only choice is then to purchase new hardware. This is where the high price of upgrades comes into play.
If an entire operating system is maintained and controlled by a group of so-called ‘benevolent dictators’ who have full access to all the code, then responsible action will be taken to ensure legacy hardware is supported and bug fixes are delivered without the conflicting interests of hardware makers (profits versus obligations towards the customer). Even if the code is not maintained by this group, which could, for example, be core BSD or Linux kernel developers, a company large enough can hire a professional — if none is already available in house — in order to mend driver code, which is both openly available and free to modify.
“The inconveniences encountered initially, whilst getting accustomed to a simplified and stripped-down version of Linux, are short-lived.”To sum up, betting one’s business on a Linux distribution that is truly Free is a case of controlling one’s own destination, direction- and expense-wise. The inconveniences encountered initially, whilst getting accustomed to a simplified and stripped-down version of Linux, are short-lived. That is because when correct hardware configurations and combinations are chosen (e.g. in the next hardware refresh cycle), there is no trouble ahead. Au Conraire — trouble is only caused when hardware is picked with long-lasting dependency on the company from which it was bought.
Next time someone enthusiastically says “you should try Gobuntu,” ponder this: rather than dismiss this as ‘religious’ madness, as some people do, you ought to understand that a larger proportion of the industry that surrounds us finally takes a step in the right direction. AMD, for example, proved that the impossible can become a reality. They took the Free route with their highly-valued ATI drivers.
Never shall we say never. If you demand open source drivers and dismiss those which shift control towards the vendor (i.e. themselves) rather than yourself, then change will follow. Remind yourself that the customer is always in charge and demand drive sales distribution. A good start would be to attempt installing a distribution of Linux which is free in every [gNew]sense of the word. It might prove to be a nuisance at first, but if you do not stand up for a needed change, who will? █
Originally published in Datamation in 2007
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA