Will Ubuntu Edge commit to using only free software?
fsf.org
fsf.org
Sure, Ubuntu might ship with some binary blobs. You know why? Because Ubuntu is trying to go mainstream, do something other free desktops/phones have not been able to do. There is a HUGE benefit to open source and Linux if Ubuntu succeeds.
But the FSF doesn't see it that way. It seems the FSF would rather see Ubuntu fail rather than succeed on non-FSF terms. Mind boggling.
If Ubuntu succeeds and is 99% open and 1% closed, is that not better than Apples/MS 1% open and 99% closed?
If/when Ubuntu succeeds, the next generation can work at that last 1%.
A reasonable, pragmatic and realistic approach is better than DOA.
Now it seems to be more acceptable.
Unlocking all functionality of a device is extremely difficult while binary blobs are shipped, something I would have thought appealed to _hackers_.
Code is great. Know what else is great? Relevance.
Ubuntu brought that to Linux desktops via audience. Ubuntu made some projects not toil in obscurity. Ubuntu has given life to many an open source project.
If Ubuntu succeeds in either the desktop or phone, all the underlying technology that Ubuntu is built on will get a huge boost. It's that simple.
Ubuntu brought users, but no benefit. Unless posting bugs to the Fedora bug-tracker their own developers are too incompetent to fix counts.
You are delusional. Ubuntu is no more true to open-source ideology than OS X. I would argue that Apple contribute significantly more open and useful code back.
Relevance doesn't count? A reason for being doesn't matter? A project existing in a vacuum is just as good as a project with millions of users?
TBH, you sound more like an Ubuntu hater than someone who wants to reason rationally.
By your reasoning would designers, lawyers, graphics folk, accountants, managers and marketers not be contributing to a software company?
I wasn't only referring to their proprietary work - their own code is often extremely difficult to consume by outsiders.
Besides that I got nothin'.
Personally I don't always agree with them, but I'm glad they exist, just for the reason that by doing so they move the Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window) on the subject. By staking out a position on one extreme end of the spectrum, they create room for others to be seen as "reasonable" and "moderate" just by being willing to make small compromises. Those others can then play for the mass acceptance you're looking for without having to deal with arguments that they're extremists.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.
Because Ubuntu is trying to go mainstream, do something
other free desktops/phones have not been able to do. There is a HUGE benefit to open source and Linux if Ubuntu succeeds.That being said. Since we don't object to ChromeOS or Android, there is no reason to blame Ubuntu. But Canonical is an enterprise with its own goals which definitely is not a truly open-source-community-project.
I work for Canonical so I'm not un-biased. But seriously, what does this even mean? All the people in Canonical, each individual, spends all day trying to spread free software (in the form of Ubuntu) more widely. By definition every bit of Free Software developed has the opportunity to benefit the "community". I think what you mean is that sometimes a person or a company does some things that some other people (perhaps you) disagree with.
It's a total strawman the idea of some singular defined "open-source-community-project" - it's not a tyranny of opinion. Every individual and company has their own goals - the beauty of Free Software is we can collaborate around our own goals but benefit the commons. Free software is about freedom, and the ability to share those freedoms - what I do doesn't impinge on your freedoms.
It is my understanding(perhaps,flawed) that canonical are trying very hard to differentiate themselves from larger linux community,which is fine if it serves well for their business, but they shouldn't act as if they are prophets of free-software.
I clearly stated that each individual and company in Free Software works on areas which meet its individual goals - in other words "scratch your own itch". I do claim that this is one of the biggest benefits of Free Software because it means we can collaborate without having the same goals.
And, I do believe that we are 'good citizens' of free software. We obey the rules of the license, we keep to our responsibilities.
Let me put it this way. Pretend you want to work on an IRC client for Linux. And when you go online everyone screams and shouts at you and says "we've already got an IRC client we don't need more", does this stop you working on one? Of course, not because 1) maybe you have some better ideas, and 2) It's your choice what you work on.
When I first got into Free Software we never had this 'tyranny of opinion' about what people should or should not develop. If I develop a feature it doesn't make you poorer in some way. It's something that's got worse in the last few years - and telling people they "don't collaborate" because you mean "your opinion is different to mine" is a bad social meme in Free Software.
That's my personal opinion.
Nonetheless, you're right that I'm going to say that it's simply a fact that each Linux distribution develops software and puts in resources into areas that it believes fit the needs of its users. This is good, and the point of Free Software is we can all work together and collaborate without having the same goals.
Let me give you some examples of this:
1. RPM - originated in RedHat, developed by SUSE
2. Real time Linux kernel patches - written by SUSE, expanded by Red Hat
3. GNOME - significant early RH (and Ximian) project, used by lots of people
Unity was created by Canonical - it's available for free and any distribution can use it. Please cite an example of where another distribution could not get the code and use it - otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Factually, Canonical has not said 'goodbye' to derivatives. If you're a derivative you get free use of Ubuntu resources (build machines don't run on air by the way) and you follow the community governance model. It's up to each derivative what software it uses - that's the point - it allows each 'sub-community' to work on solutions that it cares about.
KDE, Gnome, XFCE4, LXDE, etc. are available on all distributions but Unity is only available on Ubuntu. There is definitely something fishy here.
> would rather see them fail than succeed on non-FSF terms
I went to a presentation by RMS at a local university a few years ago, and this is almost exactly what he said - even when a questioner applied it to cases like charities and orphanages that might theoretically rely on Windows-only software to do their work. If it's not 100% FSF pure, it's evil, end of discussion, damn the consequences.
Can you give me an example of this? I wasn't aware there was something easy, but that's just pure ignorance. Let's say Debian.
Now, the only problem with that is that the Linux kernel itself has some binary blobs, pre-compiled code where the original source code is unknown, so that makes any Linux distro using the standard kernel less than free by the FSF's standards. There is a Linux-libre kernel which replaces all the binary blobs, but so far only a few distros use it.
Much of it is also an amalgamation of licensed software. They can't release what they don't own. And remember, we're not talking $15/year startup prices here, we're talking $0.50/unit or $2 million/year licenses -- you want to bring open source to hardware, you need to deal with changing that industry. And that industry charges so much because they get "certifications". And certification costs.
And for the big guys, a few hundred thousand phones is a good customer, but nothing worth changing your business over. Not when the DoD just ordered a batch of 15 million.
The FAEs I've worked with from most hardware manufacturers have been pro open-source.... but their software departments always seem powerless and anemic, despite being the front-line for making sales, and unable to really push for it.
Ubuntu Edge or not, at the end we will have a free open source solution for mobiles running Linux or any other operating system. I am not "blaming" Ubuntu/Mark for the late start, I am blaming GNU for not pushing hard enough. While they were discussing and criticizing Microsoft's push of a newer boot system the main vendors in the mobile space were closing our freedom to install what we like in our devices. For example, with the slow update cycles of Android on fully capable mobile devices I would rather prefer to install a good Linux distribution there.
> reasonable, pragmatic and realistic approach is better than DOA.
The FSF is not unique in skipping the "reasonable, pragmatic and realistic approach". For example, the NRA and ACLU also follow this strategy. The reason is fairly simple, any giving in will be immediately greeted by trying to force you to be "more reasonable". The strategy is to push until people move your way instead of towards your opponents. There are risks, but it works.
To put it more simply, the first compromise will not be the last.
But they shouldn't compromise their position. One way to put it into perspective might be to shift it into an freedom issue that has already been decided in popular opinion, like slavery. Imagine this kind of opinion after the first census in 1790 while the USA was building its economy with slavery, under the agenda of promoting freedom:
I'll never understand the stance that the abolitionists take in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Sure, America might have some slavery. You know why? Because America is trying to offer freedom and opportunity to the world, do something other free nations have not been able to do. There is a HUGE benefit to freedom and democracy if America succeeds.
But the abolitionists don't see it that way. It seems the abolitionists would rather see America fail rather than succeed with some slavery. Mind boggling.
If America succeeds and is 82% free and 18% enslaved, is that not better than other nations where 18% are free and 82% enslaved?
If/when America succeeds, the next generation can work at that last 18%.
A reasonable, pragmatic and realistic approach is better than DOA.
I think John Sullivan is grossly underestimating how much it costs to develop a phone, let alone one that is totally open. Convincing companies to completely open source their drivers requires tons of effort, and there has to be a benefit to the vendor beyond just what you believe to be "right". In some cases that benefit is money, or purchases ("we'll only use your product if..."), but I don't think this fundraiser has near enough leverage via either of those means to both build a high quality device and manage to make it totally free.
Hardware costs a ludicrous amount of money to design. It costs a ludicrous mount of money for each prototype run, of which there will be several. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to have PCBs fabbed. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to design a nice case that everything fits into and that doesn't destroy the radio signal. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to hire RF engineers for anything. It costs an above-average amount of money (for HN) to develop software and firmware for hardware. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to package for consumers, to store, and to ship. It cost a ludicrous amount of money to convince stores to carry your product. It costs a ludicrous amount of money to support the product and the customer after it has shipped to market.
I would be shocked if $32 million covered the development and first run of product (assuming first run >100,000 units).
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Furthermore, Mark Shuttleworth is doing an AMA on reddit right now and someone asked about binary blob drivers (rather than full-source drivers), and this was his response:
> There may be blobs in the first generation device. The way to a blob-free future is to show demand from folks who care about that, not to be ideological about it.
Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut...
Suffice to say that the Edge's OS will not be composed of only free software.
Other people want to use the airwaves, too. In fact some people have come to rely on the availability of voice calls such that it would be a Very Bad Thing if an amateur's typo took out voice and data for several city blocks. Also the carriers will never in a million years authorize people to transmit as they wish on cellular networks.
The radio firmware, at the very least, has to be closed source.
Essentially, whenever you connect to a cellular network, you are not a "licensee" of the "station" rather, mobile carriers are. (Basically you are the remote controlled station -- as mobile carrier is a control operator for your RF interface)
So like you said, radio firmware and opensource doesn't mix...
I'm mostly referring to the smaller support chips here. Things like I2C->I2S bridges and ADCs and other crummy little parts that every board needs, and that need small drivers. The big ones, though, would be WiFi, Bluetooth, and cell radio chips. They can be very strict.
Even if Ubuntu had the time and money, they might not have the rights.
Next? Oh, all the other questions are equally rhetorical? I think we can safely answer no to them as well, since Canonical is emphatically not the FSF and doesn't share many of its goals. It aims to be commercially viable and yet as open as possible, which precludes being fundamentalist.
I'm not really interested in Android or replicant (the real reason for this press release it seems), and am really keen to see what canonical come up with in this space. It's high time we saw some innovation in hardware and phone software again, as we've settled into a comfortable duopoly.
https://crm.fsf.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1...
Replicant webpage
Download page