maybe i'm running-in open doors here and those issues are already getting adressed, but the following are the unadressed issues of rh9, the ones frequently getting stumbled over by me and people i know using rh9 (or linux in general):
1. not having the possibility in mixed networks of accessing/streaming all kinds of files on windows-pcs without the necessity of having to download them first. ximian xd2 makes it at least possible to open docs, and afaik lindows 4 even allows streaming. also, the log-in-window which pops up every time i want to access a windows-pc even if it has no restriction at all is simply annoying. even in case the win-pc has a password, it should be sufficient to type it in just once, so that it gets stored, logs in automatically and just asks again when and if a password has changed.
2. default integration of xmms (for audio) and an videoplayer (gxine or totem) into browsers (at least mozilla, galeon/epi). gxine is already working with mozilla and galeon, is usable, but is still slow opening streams as well as not being able to play streams from cache, so if you want to view for example a huge trailer twice, it needs to download it again. also, development on gxine seems to have stopped since a few months, maybe in favour of totem?!
3. red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the mp3-plug is understandable, however, would it be technically as well as legally possible to write a script or modify xmms in a way (i'm not a programmer) so that it fetches the mp3-plug automatically when it is started for the first time?
4. rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already installed in browsers, because, if i remember correctly, it's just possible to install those plugs via mozilla when you are logged-on to gnome as root (this might have changed in the last versions, don't know exactly). maybe even j2re installed by default would be a good idea (if legally possible), so no hassles for the newbie anymore (also, it's quite frustrating from a newbie's perspective if one of the first things you're trying-out doesn't work for no apparent reason, it sheds a dark light on linux, leaves a bitter taste, might create frustration).
5. installing programs under linux is still not as easy as it is under windows, and this seems to be one of the steepest hurdles for newbies to overcome (finding the right software for ones purposes under the plethora of os-software with often cryptic names, solving deps manually). i've seen that yum might get included into rh 9.x which would be good (btw, why not apt4rpm?) and that there are thoughts about unifying the various softwarechannels and -reps, but imo rh9 suffers from the lack of an integrated "softwarecenter", which would include installation (automatic solving of dependencies), updating and removing of all rpm-based software under one clear and easy-to-understand gui (similar to ximian's red carpet), as well as a description what the resp. program does. also, from what i understood, mike hearn's autpackage-project seems like a very good idea from a user's perpective, and maybe it should be supported in one way or another, at least included when it's ready?
6. the quality of printing is still not as good as under osx or windows, but i guess this is not in the hands of the distributions, but in those of the printervendors (i also haven't myself made familiar with the advanced options of printing under linux, so i can only talk about default)?
again, all those issues might be already known and worked on, but from outside, it's hard to tell. sometimes one gets the impression that the distributed development of linux (or gnu/linux) shared between various projects favours that people are specialising on their respective fields, and that _functional_(from a user's perspective) integration between the various pieces gets not the attention (or priority) it deserves. at least i (and the people i know) would prefer not having the latest "ingredients" in the next release(s) (except kernel 2.6 which is really a big step forward), but having the issues mentioned above adressed (faster) instead.
especially to prevent companies like lindows (which seems, according to the latest raving reviews, to be very good at adressing these issues, though i don't like it at all) to take over the desktop of the average homeuser (who just wants to use his pc without getting involved in the technical details), it would be nice seeing red hat (and the other big distris) putting (even) more emphasis on exactly that kind of consolidation! one might say that red hat targets a different, more "educated" audience, however, imo it wouldn't be wise to leave (the much bigger) part of the desktopmarket over to lindows etc.which are obviously seeing a valid business targeting it (as far as i understood, red hat has stopped to distribute boxed versions, trying to sell or distribute it included in magazines, over the internet etc. so if someone-while searching for an alternative to microsoft-gets a copy, installs it and finds it to work flawlessly right out-of-the-box, chance is good that he might subscribe to rhn!).
again, those comments are being made from an ordinary users perspective, and are meant in a constructive manner!
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
again, those comments are being made from an ordinary users perspective, and are meant in a constructive manner!
OK.
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!). despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely won't! maybe red hat should think about cancelling free rhn-access to earn the necessary money paying the licenses. otherwise, if red hat won't or can't make an desktop targeting the enduser (which mandrake and especially lindows seems to be doing successfully), suited to the enduser's needs, it has already lost this race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel! it would be sad if the biggest commercial vendor of linux would not be able to compete in this market, being outmanoeuvered by the other vendors, and from a longterm business perspective, it might even not be wise. however this might be, i've made also some other comments-if this issue isn't feasable, the other things are (because others are doing them, or because they are already partly done)!
again, those comments are being made from an ordinary users
perspective,
and are meant in a constructive manner!
OK.
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:46, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
It might be different in Germany as it is the German company Fraunhofer Institute that owns the patent. More than likely SuSE has some sort of license with Fraunhofer or hasnt been given a cease and desist. Either way, Red Hat Linux is a 'Free' product in payment and source so Red Hat the company isnt going to make money so paying would be a big money loss.
despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
It is debatable depending on the country and the 'anti-piracy/patent' laws. Some have even said it might be prosecutable on possibly knowing about a crime and not doing anything about it.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
Nope. In the past, Sun charges a fee for companies to ship Java. It is part of controlling the standard.
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new
Well Red Hat Linux (Community not Enterprise) will be a 'Free' OS both in price and rights.
magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely
The number of people who would pay for RHN for getting the ability to play mp3's would be the same number who only rip CD's that they own and dont trade them to other people.. Lets just say its not a lot.
race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel!
the number of people who buy boxed sets through retail are 1/10,000 of the people who run linux. I doubt very much that any Linux vendor has made enough off of box sets in the last years to pay for the bandwidth that the FTP servers use. I think Mandrake made 10x more money off of their online club than they did through retail. Remember that if a box set were to cost 40 Euro, the shipping company sees about 8 Euro of that through the various sales channels, and the cost of manufacturing is about 7 Euros.
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 04.06 schrieb Stephen Smoogen:
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:46, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
It might be different in Germany as it is the German company Fraunhofer Institute that owns the patent. More than likely SuSE has some sort of license with Fraunhofer or hasnt been given a cease and desist. Either way, Red Hat Linux is a 'Free' product in payment and source so Red Hat the company isnt going to make money so paying would be a big money loss.
sorry to be so stubborn, but i would really be interested why red hat seems to have given up making money with non-corporate endusers while other distros seems to see a market there, ahving first successes?
despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
It is debatable depending on the country and the 'anti-piracy/patent' laws. Some have even said it might be prosecutable on possibly knowing about a crime and not doing anything about it.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
Nope. In the past, Sun charges a fee for companies to ship Java. It is part of controlling the standard.
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new
Well Red Hat Linux (Community not Enterprise) will be a 'Free' OS both in price and rights.
see above and below
magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely
The number of people who would pay for RHN for getting the ability to play mp3's would be the same number who only rip CD's that they own and dont trade them to other people.. Lets just say its not a lot.
that's not what i meant. i meant that in order to get people buying support (rhn) from red hat, they need to see that it's worth it, means those plugs (as well as the other points i mentioned) should get adressed and should be already installed. no fully functional product, no customers, no market.
race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel!
the number of people who buy boxed sets through retail are 1/10,000 of the people who run linux. I doubt very much that any Linux vendor has made enough off of box sets in the last years to pay for the bandwidth that the FTP servers use. I think Mandrake made 10x more money off of their online club than they did through retail. Remember that if a box set were to cost 40 Euro, the shipping company sees about 8 Euro of that through the various sales channels, and the cost of manufacturing is about 7 Euros.
ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 20:49, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 04.06 schrieb Stephen Smoogen:
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:46, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
sorry to be so stubborn, but i would really be interested why red hat seems to have given up making money with non-corporate endusers while other distros seems to see a market there, ahving first successes?
Lets see Mandrake is still in Bankruptcy and the last letter didnt seem to indicate it was doing much better. Lindows hasnt shown it makes any money.. it is funded by a guy who made a lot of money during the stock boom who has been paying manufacturers to put its os on them.
race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel!
the number of people who buy boxed sets through retail are 1/10,000 of the people who run linux. I doubt very much that any Linux vendor has made enough off of box sets in the last years to pay for the bandwidth that the FTP servers use. I think Mandrake made 10x more money off of their online club than they did through retail. Remember that if a box set were to cost 40 Euro, the shipping company sees about 8 Euro of that through the various sales channels, and the cost of manufacturing is about 7 Euros.
ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
If you are sure it is so easy.. why not take the Red Hat distro without the logos and try it yourself? Set up a current server to emulate RHN and see how many people you convince to pay for it.
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 05.07 schrieb Stephen Smoogen:
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 20:49, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 04.06 schrieb Stephen Smoogen:
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:46, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
sorry to be so stubborn, but i would really be interested why red hat seems to have given up making money with non-corporate endusers while other distros seems to see a market there, ahving first successes?
Lets see Mandrake is still in Bankruptcy and the last letter didnt seem to indicate it was doing much better.
mandrake did the mistake imo to not agressivly pursuing the corporate market with high-priced software where _currently_ the most money is made by the linux-vendors
Lindows hasnt shown it makes any money..
if you mean that lindows hasn't published any numbers, that might get interpreted in them earning money or loosing money. in either case, if they currently don't earn much or maybe even loose money is not that important because...
it is funded by a guy who made a lot of money during the stock boom who has been paying manufacturers to put its os on them.
i think that mr. robertson, whatever one might think about him, sees certainly a business here _in the mid- to longterm_, means even if he currently needs to put more money in lindows than he gets out, he seems to be quite sure that this is necessary. i don't think this guy's is nuts and throwing his money out of the window.
race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel!
the number of people who buy boxed sets through retail are 1/10,000 of the people who run linux. I doubt very much that any Linux vendor has made enough off of box sets in the last years to pay for the bandwidth that the FTP servers use. I think Mandrake made 10x more money off of their online club than they did through retail. Remember that if a box set were to cost 40 Euro, the shipping company sees about 8 Euro of that through the various sales channels, and the cost of manufacturing is about 7 Euros.
ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
If you are sure it is so easy.. why not take the Red Hat distro without the logos and try it yourself? Set up a current server to emulate RHN and see how many people you convince to pay for it.
uh, you know, if red hat would give me some of their cash as well as access to their technology (installer etc.) i might exactly do that. but seriously, it is totally secondary if they (or me) could earn money on endusers _right now_, but if it isn't necessary for the biggest commercial vendor of linux to pursue a mid-to longtermstrategy here, because the costs they need to pay for some licenses as well as ironing out the remaining edges in order to stay competative with lindows etc. stands just imo and afaik in no relation to the result which is having a foot in the door if the enduser market picks up. but anyway, it seems they're disagreeing, therefore i rest my case.
ps: i apologize for the double posts, but i've troubles with evolution. trying my best to avoid them!
On 2 Aug 2003, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 05.07 schrieb Stephen Smoogen:
uh, you know, if red hat would give me some of their cash as well as access to their technology (installer etc.) i might exactly do that.
You have access to the technology. Its the anaconda package. Getting the money is another problem, but hey lots of distros have started with nothing and gotten somewhere over time.
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 04.06 schrieb Stephen Smoogen:
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:46, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
It might be different in Germany as it is the German company Fraunhofer Institute that owns the patent. More than likely SuSE has some sort of license with Fraunhofer or hasnt been given a cease and desist. Either way, Red Hat Linux is a 'Free' product in payment and source so Red Hat the company isnt going to make money so paying would be a big money loss.
sorry to be so stubborn, but i would really be interested why red hat seems to have given up making money with non-corporate endusers while other distros seems to see a market there, ahving first successes?
despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
It is debatable depending on the country and the 'anti-piracy/patent' laws. Some have even said it might be prosecutable on possibly knowing about a crime and not doing anything about it.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
Nope. In the past, Sun charges a fee for companies to ship Java. It is part of controlling the standard.
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new
Well Red Hat Linux (Community not Enterprise) will be a 'Free' OS both in price and rights.
see above and below
magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely
The number of people who would pay for RHN for getting the ability to play mp3's would be the same number who only rip CD's that they own and dont trade them to other people.. Lets just say its not a lot.
that's not what i meant. i meant that in order to get people buying support (rhn) from red hat, they need to see that it's worth it, means those plugs (as well as the other points i mentioned) should get adressed and should be already installed. no fully functional product, no customers, no market.
race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel!
the number of people who buy boxed sets through retail are 1/10,000 of the people who run linux. I doubt very much that any Linux vendor has made enough off of box sets in the last years to pay for the bandwidth that the FTP servers use. I think Mandrake made 10x more money off of their online club than they did through retail. Remember that if a box set were to cost 40 Euro, the shipping company sees about 8 Euro of that through the various sales channels, and the cost of manufacturing is about 7 Euros.
ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
Tim Kossack wrote:
ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
I'm guessing you're just ignoring everyone here, but the release of Red Hat Linux we are discussing here is free as in Free Software Foundation free. Packages that have patent issues, or are binary only aren't going to be included.
Red Hat has decided that the consumer biz is not for them. You obviously think there's plenty of money there, so go for it. Thats where Mandrake got their start, I'm sure Red Hat won't mind.
Peace.
john
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 07.00 schrieb John Beimler:
Tim Kossack wrote:
ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
I'm guessing you're just ignoring everyone here, but the release of Red Hat Linux we are discussing here is free as in Free Software Foundation free. Packages that have patent issues, or are binary only aren't going to be included.
Red Hat has decided that the consumer biz is not for them. You obviously think there's plenty of money there, so go for it. Thats where Mandrake got their start, I'm sure Red Hat won't mind.
if they would give me some $$ as well as the right to use their technology (installer etc.) to open up a subsidary focused on consumer desktop, i'm definitly in:-)!
Peace.
john
-- Rhl-list mailing list Rhl-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list
Tim Kossack wrote:
[John Beimler wrote:]
Red Hat has decided that the consumer biz is not for them. You obviously think there's plenty of money there, so go for it. Thats where Mandrake got their start, I'm sure Red Hat won't mind.
if they would give me some $$ as well as the right to use their technology (installer etc.) to open up a subsidary focused on consumer desktop, i'm definitly in:-)!
Here's the installer: http://rhlinux.redhat.com/anaconda/ . All of RHL is GPL'ed you don't need Red Hat to give you the right to use it, the GPL does that for you.
The only thing you need to be careful about is not using Red Hat's trademarks. Information here: https://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/index.html
I don't understand. Red Hat gives you an entire tested Operating System, and you make further demands. You are given the opportunity to fork that, and do exactly what you want to do and you want them to *pay* *you* to do it? Even when it is obvious that Red Hat had decided that is not what they want to do.
To repeat myself, if you think there is money in it, get some investors and hop to it. Otherwise, let Red Hat do what they think they need to create revenue and support free software. The GPL gives you the right to take it all and go your own way, feel free to do so.
Peace.
john
On 02 Aug 2003 03:46:37 +0200, you wrote:
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless
Patent laws vary from country to country, and the tolerance for risk can also vary from company to company.
However, as has been discussed previously on various Red Hat lists the problem with the mp3 decoders is that they are incorrectly licensed.
Basically what it comes down to is that while the mp3 decoders for Linux have been released under the GPL, the restrictions the patent holder has placed on mp3 violate the GPL, hence the mp3 decoders are in a legally questionable position. The patent holder has stated that they are not interested in collecting royalties from software decoders distributed with an OS like Linux or Windows (so in theory a legal open source mp3 decoder could be created). However, if that software decoder is then used within a hardware product royalties would be payable, and it is this further restriction that violates the GPL.
suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
I doubt Suse has payed for it, but instead they have chosen to ignore the fact that the software licence is a problem.
despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
Perhaps if there was a decoder under a valid licence Red Hat could look at it again, but until then it won't happen.
Suse and Mandrake may be willing to look the other way, but Red Hat has (rightfully) chosen to take the high road and not include software that does not have a valid licence.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
It can vary. The big problem from Red Hat's perspective though is that they are not open source and Red Hat's postition is that anything included in Red Hat Linux must be open source (which is good both from a purity point of view as well as the fact that Red Hat can then if necessary fix any bugs themselves). Java, Flash, NVIDIA drivers, etc are binary only and so cannot be included with Red Hat Linux.
Gerald Henriksen writes:
On 02 Aug 2003 03:46:37 +0200, you wrote:
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless
Patent laws vary from country to country, and the tolerance for risk can also vary from company to company.
If we want to be strict: Patent violations can surely be managed by French courts, I'm sure. What is less clear is WHERE there are patents for WHAT. If there IS a patent on MP3 valid in France, for example.
("Enforcing a patent violation" isn't correct, is it? I would have thought it is the patent which is enforced, not the violation. But English is a strange language, so one never knows.)
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 12.47 schrieb Göran Uddeborg:
Gerald Henriksen writes:
On 02 Aug 2003 03:46:37 +0200, you wrote:
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless
Patent laws vary from country to country, and the tolerance for risk can also vary from company to company.
If we want to be strict: Patent violations can surely be managed by French courts, I'm sure. What is less clear is WHERE there are patents for WHAT. If there IS a patent on MP3 valid in France, for example.
i thought that patents can be enforced everywhere in the (western) world and i'm also quite sure that fraunhofer has filed patents for mp3 wherever possible (just my guess), but as someone pointed out, there might be a silent agreement between fraunhofer (or whoever owns the mp3-patents) and at least suse (and/or mandrake) so that both distros might distribute it without paying royalties (i guess fraunhofer might concentrate on collection royalties on hardware as well as softwareencoders which they can only do when there's a huge userbase). red hat seems to be shy of that unclear situation.
("Enforcing a patent violation" isn't correct, is it? I would have thought it is the patent which is enforced, not the violation. But English is a strange language, so one never knows.)
i guess you're correct, at least that's what i meant (but i was already tired!). sorry for may being confusing!
-- Rhl-list mailing list Rhl-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list
Tim Kossack writes:
i thought that patents can be enforced everywhere in the (western) world
Yes, I'm sure.
i'm also quite sure that fraunhofer has filed patents for mp3 wherever possible (just my guess),
I can imagine.
My point was that a thing like the MP3 algorithm might not be PATENTABLE very widely. There are differences on what kind of things have been considered appropriate for patents in various regions. And the US have used patents more broadly than most other parts of the world. Software algorithms is one example which have not been seen patentable in most places, but is in the US (and under debate in EU). I believe "business models" is something else which is not patentable in most contries, but is in the US. Contracts is something else which could conceivably be patentable, but is not not even in the US, AFAIK.
I believe there is no patent for MP3 in France. But I'm not an expert, just trying to read and understand what some experts say. I might be wrong, and I might not be up to date. FFII (http://ffii.org/) is a place where you could learn more, and from more authorative sources than me.
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:47:52PM +0200, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
Gerald Henriksen writes:
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless
Patent laws vary from country to country, and the tolerance for risk can also vary from company to company.
If we want to be strict: Patent violations can surely be managed by French courts, I'm sure. What is less clear is WHERE there are patents for WHAT. If there IS a patent on MP3 valid in France, for example.
I think people are drawing far too wide conclusions. France, and most of europe do not consider patent about software as valid. They definitely allow to deposit patents and to process patent violations in court, just that this might be harder to do if applied to software. Now the problem about the MP3 encoding is that it is patented and as such is a big problem w.r.t. free software implementations. I think Red Hat is just playing safe. In general if you want to add MP3 support it is really simple, and raising awareness about the danger of patents applying to software is anyway a good thing in my opinion. Nothing is worse than uneducated users or customers, if there is a problem, it's better to point at it and educate them if needed than hide the problem under the carpet and hope that a disaster won't occur. Users are not lemmings and I honnestly dislike the trend to consider them as such, even more when it is about open-soure and free software !
Daniel , speaking strictly for himself.
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 05.54 schrieb Gerald Henriksen:
On 02 Aug 2003 03:46:37 +0200, you wrote:
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless
Patent laws vary from country to country, and the tolerance for risk can also vary from company to company.
However, as has been discussed previously on various Red Hat lists the problem with the mp3 decoders is that they are incorrectly licensed.
Basically what it comes down to is that while the mp3 decoders for Linux have been released under the GPL, the restrictions the patent holder has placed on mp3 violate the GPL, hence the mp3 decoders are in a legally questionable position. The patent holder has stated that they are not interested in collecting royalties from software decoders distributed with an OS like Linux or Windows (so in theory a legal open source mp3 decoder could be created). However, if that software decoder is then used within a hardware product royalties would be payable, and it is this further restriction that violates the GPL.
suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
I doubt Suse has payed for it, but instead they have chosen to ignore the fact that the software licence is a problem.
despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
Perhaps if there was a decoder under a valid licence Red Hat could look at it again, but until then it won't happen.
Suse and Mandrake may be willing to look the other way, but Red Hat has (rightfully) chosen to take the high road and not include software that does not have a valid licence.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
It can vary. The big problem from Red Hat's perspective though is that they are not open source and Red Hat's postition is that anything included in Red Hat Linux must be open source (which is good both from a purity point of view as well as the fact that Red Hat can then if necessary fix any bugs themselves). Java, Flash, NVIDIA drivers, etc are binary only and so cannot be included with Red Hat Linux.
but certainly not from a business point of view, because it gives other vendors (who are not that strict) a competative advantage, and in the long run, it likely will hurt their business! again, i find this position shortsighted and unnecessarily selfrestricted, but it seems that the only viable option is to accept it.
-- Rhl-list mailing list Rhl-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list
On 2 Aug 2003, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 05.54 schrieb Gerald Henriksen:
It can vary. The big problem from Red Hat's perspective though is that they are not open source and Red Hat's postition is that anything included in Red Hat Linux must be open source
but certainly not from a business point of view,
You'd be surprised. Many people like the fact that Red Hat has the ability to fix bugs in all software it claims is supported. Big corporations are very happy when their suppliers can fix the software problems that inevitably crop up on the really high end servers.
Nothing worse than investing $200,000 in a machine and then finding out that the hardware/software combination wasn't supported after all. This is a scenario that has to be prevented at all cost.
Am Mon, 2003-08-11 um 17.53 schrieb Rik van Riel:
On 2 Aug 2003, Tim Kossack wrote:
Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 05.54 schrieb Gerald Henriksen:
It can vary. The big problem from Red Hat's perspective though is that they are not open source and Red Hat's postition is that anything included in Red Hat Linux must be open source
but certainly not from a business point of view,
You'd be surprised. Many people like the fact that Red Hat has the ability to fix bugs in all software it claims is supported. Big corporations are very happy when their suppliers can fix the software problems that inevitably crop up on the really high end servers.
thanks for replying-however, you might be surprised that i'm not surprised at all;-). you're talking about the corporate customers, about your (red hats) products dedicated to the corporate market. it's totally clear to me that those users - want very good support, because they rely on 24/7 reliability, so that therefore - non-open-source-software might pose a risk achieving that goal, not to speak of the fact that flash, javaplugins etc. for browsers are certainly not needed for a server-os. but - in case they decide that they are needing those, they have admins to handle the task to install those afterwards!
as far as i understood, the "normal" red hat-distribution (which this list is all about) is targeting a different kind of audience, means the non-corporate user, so the demands here are obviously different. instead of achieving ~100% reliability, the home- or enduser is (according to my experience) interested in a maximum of functionality, means he (or she) just wants to use linux as easy (and powerfull) as windows. so all i wanted was or is bringing the people at red hat (or generally at this list) to look at linux (on desktop) from the ordinary user's perspective, who is not familiar to linux' internals, and who is just interested in a ready-to-use alternative to windows (because he's interested to get independent from microsoft, or because he's heard about linux+ openoffice.org being an alternative etc.). therefore, i still think that, in case red hat basically hasn't ruled out targeting the homeuser-market, it needs to provide a product which is (even more) functional and easy-to-use, means it likely has to include non-free drivers and software.
in my first post, i pointed out the flaws or hurdles i currently see in red hat 9 (or some other distributions) for those non-tech-savvy-users (compared to lindows), the browsers (and mp3)-plugins just being some of a bunch. unfortunately (maybe also because of my fault), the discussion focused at the plug-ins, and sadly, the rest of the flaws i mentioned didn't even get discussed. i can only say (again) that those points are the ones that were repeatedly brought to my attention from "normal" users of red hat 9, some of those affecting myself, too.
Nothing worse than investing $200,000 in a machine and then finding out that the hardware/software combination wasn't supported after all. This is a scenario that has to be prevented at all cost.
s.a.
Am Mit, 2003-08-13 um 02.42 schrieb Tim Kossack:
as far as i understood, the "normal" red hat-distribution (which this list is all about) is targeting a different kind of audience, means the non-corporate user, so the demands here are obviously different. instead of achieving ~100% reliability, the home- or enduser is (according to my experience) interested in a maximum of functionality, means he (or she) just wants to use linux as easy (and powerfull) as windows. so all i wanted was or is bringing the people at red hat (or generally at this list) to look at linux (on desktop) from the ordinary user's perspective, who is not familiar to linux' internals, and who is just interested in a ready-to-use alternative to windows (because he's interested to get independent from microsoft, or because he's heard about linux+ openoffice.org being an alternative etc.). therefore, i still think that, in case red hat basically hasn't ruled out targeting the homeuser-market, it needs to provide a product which is (even more) functional and easy-to-use, means it likely has to include non-free drivers and software.
Wouldn't it be possible to ad another CD to the distribution labeled "non free" (there was something like that in the past, wasn't it?). There you could put things like the nVidia drivers and other stuff that's not free but that you are free to distribute. Then add an option in the installer whether one wants to use non free stuff or not. depending on that, the additional CD would be used or not.
Le sam 02/08/2003 à 03:46, Tim Kossack a écrit :
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!).
*Today* there are no software patent in Europe : http://swpat.ffii.org/index.en.html
despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
In Europe Yes. In USA and some other countries => http://www.mp3licensing.com There is also a conflict between patent and GPL : http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_80mm.html - "Red Hat did not ship MP3 and DVD players in our 8.0 release. If you thought we were just checking to see if you were paying attention, you're wrong. Due to patent licensing and conflicts between such patent licenses and the licenses of application source code, (MP3) support has been removed from applications in Red Hat Linux."
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin?
It's not only about money : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - "``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''"
because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely won't!
http://counter.li.org/reports/machines.php conectiva 1.29% debian 19.44% diy 1.23% gentoo 2.09% mandrake 16.28% red hat 28.53% s.u.s.e 11.30% slackware 11.37% Others 9.88% <= Lindows/Lycoris is somewhere here.
maybe red hat should think about cancelling free rhn-access to earn the necessary money paying the licenses. otherwise, if red hat won't or can't make an desktop targeting the enduser (which mandrake and especially lindows seems to be doing successfully), suited to the enduser's needs, it has already lost this race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel! it would be sad if the biggest commercial vendor of linux would not be able to compete in this market, being outmanoeuvered by the other vendors, and from a longterm business perspective, it might even not be wise. however this might be, i've made also some other comments-if this issue isn't feasable, the other things are (because others are doing them, or because they are already partly done)!
again, those comments are being made from an ordinary users
perspective,
and are meant in a constructive manner!
OK.
GNU/Linux is a community effort to build a FREE operating system (`free' as in `free speech,' not as in `free beer.').
RedHat provide RHL free : - free as 'free beer' and 'free speech' RedHat provide RHE free : - free as 'free speech' except for the IBM jre ( http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html )
And RHN (RedHat Network (http://rhn.redhat.com/)) is not free at all.
PS: Sorry for my poor English (I am French).
Le sam 02/08/2003 à 08:50, Féliciano Matias a écrit :
RedHat provide RHL free :
- free as 'free beer' and 'free speech'
RedHat provide RHE free :
- free as 'free speech' except for the IBM jre (
To learn more about RHE : http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/ People are ready to pay up to $2500 for services that come with RHE ( http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/as/ ). Even if they can freely (legally) copy RHE from a friend and source code is available : http://rawhide.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/i386/SRPMS...
Think about that.
Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb Féliciano Matias:
Le ven 01/08/2003 à 17:53, Tim Kossack a écrit :
- red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the
mp3-plug is understandable,
Mandrake license : http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent may be applicable to you, check your local laws.
Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't apply in France.
so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!). despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the net after rhl is installed on the users pc.
- rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already
installed in browsers
Check the license of RHL : http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA
It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download java, flash...).
so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be the same for vendors.
especially to prevent companies like lindows
Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ?
no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely won't! maybe red hat should think about cancelling free rhn-access to earn the necessary money paying the licenses. otherwise, if red hat won't or can't make an desktop targeting the enduser (which mandrake and especially lindows seems to be doing successfully), suited to the enduser's needs, it has already lost this race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the classic boxed retailchannel! it would be sad if the biggest commercial vendor of linux would not be able to compete in this market, being outmanoeuvered by the other vendors, and from a longterm business perspective, it might even not be wise. however this might be, i've made also some other comments-if this issue isn't feasable, the other things are (because others are doing them, or because they are already partly done)!
again, those comments are being made from an ordinary users
perspective,
and are meant in a constructive manner!
OK.
-
Daniel Veillard -
Féliciano Matias -
Gerald Henriksen -
Göran Uddeborg -
John Beimler -
Niels Weber -
Rik van Riel -
Stephen Smoogen -
Tim Kossack