Hacker News Reader

Comment by fingerprinter | Hacker News Reader

I'll never understand the stance that the FSF takes in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

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.

View on HN

They are standing on a principle. Principle is not about figuring out how to gain mass acceptance, it's about drawing a line in the sand.

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.

The problem I generally have with the FSF can be summed up with the Emo Phillips joke (I think it's called "Heretic Scum"?):

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.

Nice joke! But I think the current "state of the union" regarding open source and mobile is depressing. I am not a fundamentalist but I want to be able to modify my mobile operating system like I did with my PC twenty years ago. Twenty years later I use many different devices and operating systems but I am "frustrated" by the mobile world.

I only buy devices with unlockable bootloaders for this reason. The Nexus family is great for that, and my tf700 has cyanogenmod.

Many principles are not about "drawing a line in the sand" because they are focused on consequences.

I specifically don't understand it when it comes to Linux distros. You can be labelled as "non-free" simply for having non-free packages available to download, even if they're clearly marked as such and it's easy to put an installation in free-only mode.

> 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.

> it's easy to put an installation in free-only mode

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.

Debian and related distros, such as Ubuntu, usually separate open source and proprietary packages into different repositories. If you only want open-source licensed software, just deselect the proprietary repositories.

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.

Cool, thanks. I'm currently on Crunchbang, been thinking about switching to stock Debian for exactly this reason. It's been a while since I used it straight-up, and didn't remember it being two sources.

Wait, does Crunchbang not separate free and non-free? I've never used it, but I was under the impression that Crunchbang used mostly packages from the upstream Debian repos. You should just be able to select or deselect sources by editing the /etc/apt/sources.list file.

    Because Ubuntu is trying to go mainstream, do something 
    other free desktops/phones have not been able to do.

No, other distributions have either resisted proprietary code, read Fedora, or have decided to let user choose, lets say Arch Linux.

    There is a HUGE benefit to open source and Linux if Ubuntu succeeds.

Ubuntu rarely develops for larger community.

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.

"Ubuntu rarely develops for larger community"

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.

please develop in upstream, push your code more upstream, be compatible with other distros when you can. co-operate with others on upstream projects like wayland, instead of going for your own way. It is your privilege to do whatever with your resources, but if you want to claim that you develop anything for "larger" community you must do the things mentioned.

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.

Hold on, I didn't claim I was developing for a "larger" community - you need to read the comment above. Nor did I claim that I'm a "prophet of free-software" - I did say that all the people care about Free Software, perhaps you think that's fake - I can only tell you it's not.

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.

Unity is primarily available on Ubuntu. Now Canonical has said goodbye to all derivatives to welcome Mir. You are obviously going to make an argument that it's available for free do what you want to do with it - we don't support it, we don't break your work. This is a little dishonest. You have to do what you have to do, I am not judging.

I seem not to need an argument since you're making one for me - though you do seem to questioning my honesty which is a bit mean :-(

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.

Irrespective of what we both think, I didn't call you, or intended for that matter, dishonest.

KDE, Gnome, XFCE4, LXDE, etc. are available on all distributions but Unity is only available on Ubuntu. There is definitely something fishy here.

According to Shuttleworth, http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut... the best way to get hardware manufacturers to open their code is to show that there's demand. It's not that Ubuntu is putting the "last 1%" off until later, but they are putting pressure on those closed systems by succeeding now!

The issue of binary drivers and the general mix of proprietary software has come up previously. Mark has consistently stated that he believes that relevance drives change in the industry.

Hardware vendors have the absolute worst, lowest quality software I have ever worked with. It's ubiquitous across the industry. The best players in manufacturing silicon ship software that's unworthy of a student in a high school student in an intro to CS class. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them don't want to release it because they know how bad it is.

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.

First, I think FSF is right to ask for clarifications since nowadays the "open source mark" is confusing and companies are using it in ambiguous ways. And I copy a comment I did today in another thread:

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.

The FSF is an organization focused on freedom, not pragmatism. They leave the pragmatism to other people who are doing quite a good job at it. We need at least one organization to be hardliners. They do make the exception for running non-free software in order to make a free version of it, which in some ways is what Ubuntu is aiming at.

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 am failing to see the advantage to open source if Ubuntu succeeds. It will just be another Android, but with an uglier UI. Canonical contribute virtually no useful code back to the wider community. Their own projects are difficult to consume (if they're not already poorly duplicating functionality).

Unlocking all functionality of a device is extremely difficult while binary blobs are shipped, something I would have thought appealed to _hackers_.

Can't tell if trolling or .... (5 minute old account).

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.

There are now millions of users of "Linux" because of Android. Where is the huge boost to the underlying technology?

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.

I really don't see a point comparing apples and oranges. Ubuntu and Android both have their contributions. I am not qualified enough to comment on the OS X part though.

Again, so the only measure you would count is lines of code? That is it, pure and simple?

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.

I'm a programmer, yes, I use LOC to quantify their worth. Especially when they are touted as a hero of Open Source, when so far their actions are of a typical corporate leech.

Do you use the same metric for everyone else?

By your reasoning would designers, lawyers, graphics folk, accountants, managers and marketers not be contributing to a software company?

Which is the closed source code that Canonical is failing to contribute back to the community?

Ubuntu One server software is closed source. The code which integrates with Amazon ads is closed source. Launchpad was closed source for some time. The Ubuntu sign-on service is closed source.

I wasn't only referring to their proprietary work - their own code is often extremely difficult to consume by outsiders.

Hey, ufw is a nice iptables front end that is portable, and by Canonical.

Besides that I got nothin'.

It's funny. Android essentially took the brunt of being raked over the coals by everyone in the open source community for calling itself open source when it had closed firmware/etc. (yes there are other issues, i'm referring specifically to having closed blobs for some firmware)

Now it seems to be more acceptable.

Not to mention binary blobs are at least slightly more free than having the firmware built in to the device, which the FSF doesn't object to.

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20100614#feature

> I'll never understand the stance that the FSF takes in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com