Non FOSS and Fedora

[Adam Kosmin]

Greetings,

I couldn't help but notice Thomas Chung's tutorials up on fedoranews.org
which describe how to install Acrobat Reader, Helix, and Macromedia
Flash. 

In light of The Fedora Project's #2 objective being "Build the operating
system exclusively from open source software.", I must pose this
question to the list:

Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
Fedora?


Best,

Adam Kosmin
WindowsRefund.net


-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:51, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software
> on
>  Fedora? 
Fedora News is a different project from Fedora.

IMO encouraging people to install non-Free software, regardless of what
operating system you are running on, is extremely bad advice.

You should always look suspiciously towards anyone advising you to
install something is bad for you, and generally evil (for instance, with
Sun's JDK you are not allowed to give a copy to a friend of yours, that
could revoke both your copy and his immediately since only Sun and
authorized distributers can give access to its JDK).

It is true that some non-Free software may perform certain tasks better
than their Free Software counterparts, but remember that non-Free
software brings a social cost that is very bad: social division between
those who can and those who can't.

With a proposed European Directive law that turns copyright infringement
a public crime being actively pursued by guys not at all unlike the BSA,
you might even face jail time for having unlicensed copies.

Remember that even though you can download Adobe Acrobat gratis, you
still have to abide to its license (ie, you have to click I Agree) and
doing so, you agree that you will not help your friend by giving him a
copy of a program in case he needs it.

That's one reason why all software should be Free Software, so you never
do something wrong by giving a copy of some program to your friend.

I think it's totally evil to turn the world upside down, into some
society where you can't legitimately help your friends because you're
not allowed to.

rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Adam Kosmin]

Rui,

Your comments are right on the money and I could not agree more. I hope
you don't mind me bringing this to the attention of the list. In fact, I
did not know that fedoranews.org was a separate project. Regardless, I
think the issue is relevant and hope to see support for your point of
view. Also, I sent an email to the author of those tutorials and hope
he'll respond by taking the documents off of the website.

Sincerely,

Adam Kosmin
WindowsRefund.net


Rui Miguel Seabra (rms(a)1407.org) wrote:
" On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:51, Adam Kosmin wrote:
" > Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
" > Fedora?
" 
" Fedora News is a different project from Fedora.
" 
" IMO encouraging people to install non-Free software, regardless of what
" operating system you are running on, is extremely bad advice.
" 
" You should always look suspiciously towards anyone advising you to
" install something is bad for you, and generally evil (for instance, with
" Sun's JDK you are not allowed to give a copy to a friend of yours, that
" could revoke both your copy and his immediately since only Sun and
" authorized distributers can give access to its JDK).
" 
" It is true that some non-Free software may perform certain tasks better
" than their Free Software counterparts, but remember that non-Free
" software brings a social cost that is very bad: social division between
" those who can and those who can't.
" 
" With a proposed European Directive law that turns copyright infringement
" a public crime being actively pursued by guys not at all unlike the BSA,
" you might even face jail time for having unlicensed copies.
" 
" Remember that even though you can download Adobe Acrobat gratis, you
" still have to abide to its license (ie, you have to click I Agree) and
" doing so, you agree that you will not help your friend by giving him a
" copy of a program in case he needs it.
" 
" That's one reason why all software should be Free Software, so you never
" do something wrong by giving a copy of some program to your friend.
" 
" I think it's totally evil to turn the world upside down, into some
" society where you can't legitimately help your friends because you're
" not allowed to.
" 
" rui
" 
" -- 
" + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
" + Whatever you do will be insignificant,
" | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
" + So let's do it...?
" 
" Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
" See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html



-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

[Neil Thompson]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:23:51AM -0500, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  Your comments are right on the money and I could not agree more. I
> hope
>  you don't mind me bringing this to the attention of the list. In fact, I
>  did not know that fedoranews.org was a separate project. Regardless, I
>  think the issue is relevant and hope to see support for your point of
>  view. Also, I sent an email to the author of those tutorials and hope
>  he'll respond by taking the documents off of the website. 
<RANT>
This is absolute rubbish!  I am as much of a Free/OpenSource advocate as
it is practical to be, but I recognise that there are people who need to
interact with the outside world, and these products are necessary to them.

Not to mention the fact that as we get people across from the Other Side (TM),
they are going to be used to using various tools for which there is no/no adequate
replacement, and these people are going to need the tutorials on Fedora News.

We really don't need rabid fanatical so-called freedom advocates making life
difficult for newbies or for people providing a resource (for free) which is useful
to many people.

If you have an issue with the articles, why don't you write tutorials about the free
alternatives to the software you're objecting to, including instructions as to how
to replace the functionality of the proprietary exactly.

In other words...put up or shut up!
</RANT>


Cheers! (Relax...have a homebrew)

Neil

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Hi Neil,

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 11:37, Neil Thompson wrote:
>  We really don't need rabid fanatical so-called freedom advocates
> making life
>  difficult for newbies or for people providing a resource (for free) which is useful
>  to many people. 
We also don't need to make life difficult for people (like actually
going to jail) because they don't have a licensed copy of Sun's JDK or
Adobe Acrobat, simply because they got it from a friend instead of the
official distributors, even though it's gratis.

Yes, this is not a paranoid vision, there's an EU directive proposal
aiming to turn copyright infringement a public crime, I can give you the
pointers for that, a starter could be a version of the proposal:

http://www.europarl.eu.int/meetdocs/committees/juri/20031104/511548EN.pdf

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Andy Green]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Monday 12 January 2004 11:44, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:

>  Yes, this is not a paranoid vision, there's an EU directive
> proposal
>  aiming to turn copyright infringement a public crime, I can give you the
>  pointers for that, a starter could be a version of the proposal: 
Even so, someone must get their wallet out to go after these people before it 
would cause a problem.  Its hard to understand why someone would spend that 
money and time to protect from redistribution something that is given freely 
(and is out of date in the case of Acrobat).  So you're correct but surely 
this isn't the problem.  (Seem to be saying this a lot recently).

Acrobat for example allows cut and pasting of PDF content, something I didn't 
find in the Free viewers.  My choices are (1) use Acrobat, (2) waste time 
uselessly retyping stuff, (3) research some pdf -> text applet I don't know 
about, (4) sit down and learn enough X APIs to add this functionality.  I 
installed Acrobat.  Being a pure white-gowned, effulgent angels singing in 
harmony, floating above the floor FOSS user is counterproductive if I can't 
get my work done or it wastes more time than it saves.  BUT pragmatism is a 
temporary workaround --  I'm not happy with it and as soon as there is an 
alternative I'll switch.  The fact I'm using it and holding my nose reminds 
me I wish I had a FOSS alternative every time I use it, (that and the other 
problems it has that are never going to be fixed because it is closed and 
pretty much orphaned at Adobe.)

Therefore my take is by all means publish such guides for apps where there are 
incomplete FOSS alternatives, hopefully also mentioning whatever FOSS 
alternatives exist.  Otherwise what is the original poster suggesting, 
telling people that they CANNOT describe such procedures on their own 
websites?

- -Andy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAApSrjKeDCxMJCTIRAu0TAJ9gWgMuE+uSHlCe/sI0dH4pk5WgogCdE9Oc
> 8Hb9q0k64vmVUZYZWuDie+I=
> =Xznx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Geoff Teale]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 12:35, Andy Green wrote:
>  Even so, someone must get their wallet out to go after these people
> before it 
>  would cause a problem.  Its hard to understand why someone would spend that 
>  money and time to protect from redistribution something that is given freely 
>  (and is out of date in the case of Acrobat).  So you're correct but surely 
>  this isn't the problem.  (Seem to be saying this a lot recently). 
The reason they'll get their wallet out is that when you download it (as
the licensed user) you agree to a number of terms that restrict your
usage (like barring reverse engineering and "improper use").  The third
party who is given the software by a friend has not agreed to this terms
of use (and he/she could argue that they were using the software under a
presumed license from their friend) and thus was not bound by the terms
of the agreement between the vendor and the original user.

Now, this is an area in which FOSS has muddied the waters somewhat - in
the old days if a friend gave you copied software you could pretty much
assume that he/she wasn't doing so within the bounds of licensed usage
of that software.  Now we have a situation where some software is
copyrighted and licensed under restricted terms and other software is
copyrighted and licensed under copyleft type terms and the only way to
tell is to read a license properly.  

All of this makes large, slow moving corporations nervous, they don't
like an environment where people routinely make and distribute copies of
copyright material (because even GPL relies on copyright!), they assume
that people who do so will pirate software and music and films without
regard.

Conversely it is my experience that FOSS people are unusually careful
about licenses - a lot of the the reason people use Free Software for is
to work in the way they want to and to do so legally!
-- 
GJT 
gteale(a)cmedltd.com 

She is descended from a long line that her mother listened to.
		-- Gypsy Rose Lee

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 05:44 1/12/2004, Rui wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 11:37, Neil Thompson wrote:
>  > We really don't need rabid fanatical so-called freedom advocates making 
>  life
>  > difficult for newbies or for people providing a resource (for free) 
>  which is useful
>  > to many people.
>
> We also don't need to make life difficult for people (like actually
> going to jail) because they don't have a licensed copy of Sun's JDK or
> Adobe Acrobat, simply because they got it from a friend instead of the
> official distributors, even though it's gratis. 
Irrelevant and pointless. Two wrongs do not make a right.

We are discussing the posting of installation guides for non-FOSS software 
on Fedora News. How is the license for Acrobat or the Sun SDK or some 
stupid law in Europe relevant to this discussion?

FN is perfectly within their right to post such a guide. More to the point: 
anyone who wishes to restrict that right (either freedom of speech or 
freedom of choice or freedom of press, take your pick) in the name of other 
freedoms is sadly missing the point, and actively hurting that which they 
seek to provide.


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 17:42, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
>  FN is perfectly within their right to post such a guide. 
Just as I am in my right of posting my disagreement, and recommending
that such actions are not repeated in the future.

This is no restriction imposed, there is nothing forced.


>   More to the point: 
>  anyone who wishes to restrict that right (either freedom of speech or 
>  freedom of choice or freedom of press, take your pick) in the name of other 
>  freedoms is sadly missing the point, and actively hurting that which they 
>  seek to provide. 
And anyone who confuses critic with force does not no what he speaks of.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 11:48 1/12/2004, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 17:42, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
>  > FN is perfectly within their right to post such a guide.
>
> Just as I am in my right of posting my disagreement, and recommending
> that such actions are not repeated in the future. 
Fine... your opinion has been noted. Glad to know that you accept that 
Fedora News can post whatever they choose, and that as such it /is/ 
appropriate for them to publish these guides. I'm sure the person who runs 
that website will de delighted also to publish additional guides you or 
anyone may create which describe the advantages of equivalent or competing 
FOSS alternatives and how to install them.


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 04:16 1/12/2004, you wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:51, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  > Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
>  > Fedora?
>
> Fedora News is a different project from Fedora. 
And thus not obligated to abide by the same objectives as the Fedora 
Project. In fact, by reporting things about Fedora, you could say that 
FedoraNews /is/ obligated to publish as much material of any sort that may 
be useful or interesting to any subset of the population of Fedora users. 
Thus they /should/ publish those guides.

> IMO encouraging people to install non-Free software, regardless of
> what
> operating system you are running on, is extremely bad advice. 
And you are welcome to that opinion. And Fedora News is welcome to theirs. 
End of story.

The rest of your message wanders off-topic into a general rant about 
Orwellian worlds; I choose to ignore the off-topic part.


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com

[Colin Charles]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 20:46, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:

>  You should always look suspiciously towards anyone advising you to
>  install something is bad for you, and generally evil (for instance, with
>  Sun's JDK you are not allowed to give a copy to a friend of yours, that
>  could revoke both your copy and his immediately since only Sun and
>  authorized distributers can give access to its JDK). 
> From the OpenOffice.org perspective, we will recommend the Sun's
> JRE. 
Why? Because it works, and we've not found something else that works
just as well (at the moment).

So, giving someone instructions as to how to install the JRE for
instance (though not exactly non-free), is OK, imho.
-- 
Colin Charles, byte(a)aeon.com.my
http://www.bytebot.net/

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 09:50, Colin Charles wrote:
>  So, giving someone instructions as to how to install the JRE for
>  instance (though not exactly non-free), is OK, imho. 
When Sun's Java allows the user to:

  0. run the program for any purpose
  1. study the program and adapt it to his needs
  2. distribute copies
  3. distribute improved copies

then Java will be Free Software.

Until then, it's exactly non-Free.

Remember then when I speak of Free Software, I speak of Free as in Free
Speech, not free as in free beer.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Colin Charles]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 21:00, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:

>  Until then, it's exactly non-Free.
>  
>  Remember then when I speak of Free Software, I speak of Free as in Free
>  Speech, not free as in free beer. 
But giving instructions to do non-free installations are kosher. 
-- 
Colin Charles, byte(a)aeon.com.my
http://www.bytebot.net/

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 06:40, Colin Charles wrote:
>  But giving instructions to do non-free installations are kosher. 
Why are you doing the non-Free software distributer's job for free?

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Sturla Holm Hansen]

On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 14:04, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>  On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 06:40, Colin Charles wrote:
>  > But giving instructions to do non-free installations are kosher. 
>  
>  Why are you doing the non-Free software distributer's job for free?
>  
>  Rui 
Because we're not on a crusade to destroy all non-free software, our
goal is to expand the use of Linux and we best do that by helping people
get WHAT THEY WANT to work to work....

Sturla

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 21:20, Sturla Holm Hansen wrote:
>  Because we're not on a crusade to destroy all non-free software,
> our
>  goal is to expand the use of Linux and we best do that by helping people
>  get WHAT THEY WANT to work to work.... 
Neither am I, since there's no religion here.

However, I feel driven to really help people and instruct them on how to
do it with Free Software, so they then can help their friends as well
without fearing 'black helis' ;)

You can teach them to get what they want to work to work without
requiring non-Free Software for almost any task (and viewing PDFs is
certainly not impaired, unless the documents are broken with DRM, which
is Evil[tm] by definition).

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Paul Thomas]

On 12/01/2004 10:16 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>  [snip]
>  than their Free Software counterparts, but remember that non-Free
>  software brings a social cost that is very bad: social division between
>  those who can and those who can't. 
As does non-free hardware, housing, food, clothing, medical costs, 
education. In a world where many millions of people don't have enough food 
to survive, your commentary seems to me to be rather childish.

-- 
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller 
Business |
| Computer Consultants         | 
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk   |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 17:23, Paul Thomas wrote:
>  On 12/01/2004 10:16 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>  > [snip]
>  > than their Free Software counterparts, but remember that non-Free
>  > software brings a social cost that is very bad: social division between
>  > those who can and those who can't.
>  
>  As does non-free hardware, housing, food, clothing, medical costs, 
>  education. In a world where many millions of people don't have enough food 
>  to survive, your commentary seems to me to be rather childish. 
Please explain, in paper-like detail, how is something that is
replicated at zero cost (digital content, namely software) equal to
something that has real replication costs (hardware, housing, food,
clothing, medical treatment, education, etc...).

When the replication cost is nil and thus the good is technically
accessible to the whole population, isn't it evil to create an
artificial division? What if instead of the digital world it was food we
were talking about... imagine Food Replicators, converting garbage or
Fudge into food, would you be in favor of "Recipe Licenses" or the end
of hunger?

Non-Free software creates social division between those who can and
those who can't solely by an *artificial*monopoly* power granted by the
government.

Remove the artificial monopoly bad effects (ie, using Free Software) and
there is no division that is artificially created.

Hardware, housing, food, clothing, medical treatment, education, etc...
they all have real costs since there are yet no Star Trek replicator
machines, the division between those who can and those who can't is very
real, and not created by artificial means.

Free Software ends the "knowledge hunger" on software.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[David Eduardo Gomez Noguera]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 11:35, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>  On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 17:23, Paul Thomas wrote:
>  > On 12/01/2004 10:16 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>  > > [snip]
>  > > than their Free Software counterparts, but remember that non-Free
>  > > software brings a social cost that is very bad: social division between
>  > > those who can and those who can't.
>  > 
>  > As does non-free hardware, housing, food, clothing, medical costs, 
>  > education. In a world where many millions of people don't have enough food 
>  > to survive, your commentary seems to me to be rather childish.
>  
>  Please explain, in paper-like detail, how is something that is
>  replicated at zero cost (digital content, namely software) equal to
>  something that has real replication costs (hardware, housing, food,
>  clothing, medical treatment, education, etc...).
>   
This is not for me to talk here.
not my discussion, but im just getting tired.
Its not replicated at zero cost. Electricity and the mediums needed to
replicate it (i.e. hardware, cd's, time, internet access, etc) dont pop
out off the air

Im afraid I just stepped into the swamp, and it will swallow me now...
oh well...

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jan 13, 2004, David Eduardo Gómez Noguera <davidgn(a)servidor.unam.mx&gt; wrote:

>  Its not replicated at zero cost. Electricity and the mediums needed
> to
>  replicate it (i.e. hardware, cd's, time, internet access, etc) dont pop
>  out off the air 
The costs you mention are on the person who performs the copy or the
one that gets the copy.  Nothing to do with the losses a copyright
holder claims to have when such a copy is performed by a third party,
which is the argument used to deny the right to copy.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Happy GNU Year!                     oliva(a){lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Red Hat GCC Developer                 aoliva(a){redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

[David Eduardo Gomez Noguera]

On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 11:36, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>  On Jan 13, 2004, David Eduardo Gómez Noguera
> <davidgn(a)servidor.unam.mx&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > Its not replicated at zero cost. Electricity and the mediums needed to
>  > replicate it (i.e. hardware, cd's, time, internet access, etc) dont pop
>  > out off the air
>  
>  The costs you mention are on the person who performs the copy or the
>  one that gets the copy.  Nothing to do with the losses a copyright
>  holder claims to have when such a copy is performed by a third party,
>  which is the argument used to deny the right to copy.
>   
Of course. Who was talking about losses here?
Conveniently left only what I wrote, out of the context of the thread...

Im off this swampy discussion now.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 18:01, David Eduardo Gómez Noguera wrote:
>  Its not replicated at zero cost. Electricity and the mediums needed
> to
>  replicate it (i.e. hardware, cd's, time, internet access, etc) dont pop
>  out off the air 
Yes, of course. But those costs are usually quite minimal in comparison,
and as net access is faster and cheaper the same as storage, it IS
VIRTUALLY ZERO cost.

Besides, neither I or the copyright owner (not equal to content creator
-- this is very important) lost anything with a copy.

AT MOST the profits were smaller because the sales haven't been that
great.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Sam Barnett-Cormack]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Adam Kosmin wrote:

>  Greetings,
>
>  I couldn't help but notice Thomas Chung's tutorials up on fedoranews.org
>  which describe how to install Acrobat Reader, Helix, and Macromedia
>  Flash.
>
>  In light of The Fedora Project's #2 objective being "Build the operating
>  system exclusively from open source software.", I must pose this
>  question to the list:
>
>  Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
>  Fedora? 
If someone is running a seperate project, and giving people the info to
do something they want or need to do, I can't see a problem.

-- 

Sam Barnett-Cormack
Software Developer                           |  Student of Physics & Maths
UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk)  |  Lancaster University

[Adam Kosmin]

Sam,

I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this documentation to exist on
fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use and
install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show you
how!".

Now I'm not going to question your views on or commitment toward FOSS
(not sure I want to know based off your reaction) but will only ask  you
to acknowledge that what I have described above is not in line with the
objectives of The Fedora Project.

http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html

Adam Kosmin


Sam Barnett-Cormack (s.barnett-cormack(a)lancaster.ac.uk) wrote:
" On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Adam Kosmin wrote:
" 
" >
" > Greetings,
" >
" > I couldn't help but notice Thomas Chung's tutorials up on
fedoranews.org
" > which describe how to install Acrobat Reader, Helix, and Macromedia
" > Flash.
" >
" > In light of The Fedora Project's #2 objective being "Build the
operating
" > system exclusively from open source software.", I must pose this
" > question to the list:
" >
" > Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
" > Fedora?
" 
" If someone is running a seperate project, and giving people the info to
" do something they want or need to do, I can't see a problem.
" 
" -- 
" 
" Sam Barnett-Cormack
" Software Developer                           |  Student of Physics & Maths
" UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk)  |  Lancaster University
" 
" 
" -- 
" fedora-list mailing list
" fedora-list(a)redhat.com
" To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
" 

-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

[Benjamin J. Weiss]

From: "Adam Kosmin" <akosmin(a)nyc.rr.com&gt;
>  Sam,
>
>  I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this documentation to exist on
>  fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use and
>  install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show you
>  how!". 
Ah.  I see.  So now you're the thought police?  I thought that one of the
benefits of linux was free thought?  So, if somebody has a need for helix,
well, we're going to try to keep them from using it by using censorship?

I am all in favor of FOSS.  However, your attempt to censor free speech
makes me sick.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 14:09, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote:
>  Ah.  I see.  So now you're the thought police?  I thought that
> one of the
>  benefits of linux was free thought?  So, if somebody has a need for helix,
>  well, we're going to try to keep them from using it by using censorship?
>  
>  I am all in favor of FOSS.  However, your attempt to censor free speech
>  makes me sick. 
*cof*cof* Do you even have an idea of what a thought police is? Or what
censorship is?

No one went there and said:
  I will arrest you if you don't think like me

No one ever said, also:
  If you don't change it do look like this, then I will not publish.


So, it's neither thought police nor censorship.

What it is, is expressing disagreement about an opinion and advising
against maintaining that path.

In effect, it is EXPRESSING THE OPINION THAT what is being advised is,
in our OPINION, bad for the users on the long run, AND that we think
that that shouldn't be published.

It is QUITE DIFFERENT from forcing or censoring.

This is the essence of Free Speech. Some people have different ideas,
many of them come with good intentions but nevertheless might make
mistakes when they're not aware of certain issues.

Please stop making such a huge and mistaken comparison, the aggression
it makes and the automagical bias such a comparison causes to someone
less aware has a pernicious effect of scaring into silence opinions
different from yours.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Sam Barnett-Cormack]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Adam Kosmin wrote:

>  Sam,
>
>  I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this documentation to exist on
>  fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use and
>  install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show you
>  how!".
>
>  Now I'm not going to question your views on or commitment toward FOSS
>  (not sure I want to know based off your reaction) but will only ask  you
>  to acknowledge that what I have described above is not in line with the
>  objectives of The Fedora Project.
>
>  http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html 
But, IIUC, fedoranews isn't run by the Fedora Project?

>  Sam Barnett-Cormack (s.barnett-cormack(a)lancaster.ac.uk) wrote:
>  " On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  "
>  " >
>  " > Greetings,
>  " >
>  " > I couldn't help but notice Thomas Chung's tutorials up on
> fedoranews.org
>  " > which describe how to install Acrobat Reader, Helix, and Macromedia
>  " > Flash.
>  " >
>  " > In light of The Fedora Project's #2 objective being "Build the
> operating
>  " > system exclusively from open source software.", I must pose this
>  " > question to the list:
>  " >
>  " > Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
>  " > Fedora?
>  "
>  " If someone is running a seperate project, and giving people the info to
>  " do something they want or need to do, I can't see a problem.
>  "
>  " --
>  "
>  " Sam Barnett-Cormack
>  " Software Developer                           |  Student of Physics & Maths
>  " UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk)  |  Lancaster University
>  "
>  "
>  " --
>  " fedora-list mailing list
>  " fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>  " To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>  "
>
>  
-- 

Sam Barnett-Cormack
Software Developer                           |  Student of Physics & Maths
UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk)  |  Lancaster University

[Colin Charles]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 21:35, Adam Kosmin wrote:

>  I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this documentation to
> exist on
>  fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use and
>  install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show you
>  how!". 
Think about it this way. If you used absolutely "free" software, you
can't even play MP3's. Fedora by itself doesn't include the mp3 stuff.
Why? Because its non-FOSS.

I know linux geeks love their .ogg, but stuff you get out of Kazaa and
the rest of the world (90% of pirated stuff?) would be an mp3.

Let's be practical about it.
-- 
Colin Charles, byte(a)aeon.com.my
http://www.bytebot.net/

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 09:50, Colin Charles wrote:
>  Think about it this way. If you used absolutely "free"
> software, you
>  can't even play MP3's. Fedora by itself doesn't include the mp3 stuff.
>  Why? Because its non-FOSS. 
It is non-Free Software because of software patents and not because of
the wish of the author of such programs.

USA, UK and Japanese based distributions suffer from that problem and
have to stop distributing MP3, even though the players are Free
Software, software patents make them unauthorized copies.

The best solution is to fight software patents.

For the rest of the Free World, mpg123 and many others remain Free
Software.

>  I know linux geeks love their .ogg, but stuff you get out of Kazaa
> and
>  the rest of the world (90% of pirated stuff?) would be an mp3. 
100% of pirated stuff is: real physical goods (effective property) and
people getting killed and maimed.

With unauthorized copies there's none of that, so it is not piracy.
That's a term abusively applied since the 80's to unauthorized copies in
order to make people perceive that it is a matter of their actions
instead of perceiving that it is a matter of the owners of copyright not
authorizing their copies.

If people thought about this in a generalized form, a massive revolt
against RIAA, MPAA and alike would happen (oh wait... they can't really
stop people who are rebelling right now by sharing their copies without
imposing a fascist police-state).

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Fritz Whittington]

On or about 2004-01-13 03:50, Colin Charles whipped out a trusty #2 
pencil and scribbled:

> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 21:35, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>   
>
> >I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this documentation to exist on
> >fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use and
> >install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show you
> >how!".
> >    
> > 
Perhaps I'm just a bit dense, but I would think all of us have the right 
to install whatever software we wish on our *personal* computers, 
whether it's FOSS, non-FOSS, or dental FLOSS, it's our decision.  (The 
question of whether the software was obtained legally or not is an 
*entirely* different question, although it might be an important 
question.)  Secondly, since this is an individual right, and since 
people probably have varying opinions on the details of this, I don't 
think trying to convince others to think the same way you think is 
apropriate in a *technical* help mailing list.  There are plenty of 
*-advocacy lists, probably one for FOSS.

So if someone asks how to obtain/install an mp3 codec for mplayer, 
that's a technical question that should get a technical answer.  An 
additional note that in some jurisdictions, a royalty is due to patent 
holders is OK, but a sermon on FOSS is not on topic for this list, IMHO.

Sorry to be so blunt, but if it's a pig, you just have to call it a 
pig.  :-)

-- 
Fritz Whittington
Force without wisdom falls of its own weight. (Horace, Odes)

[Sturla Holm Hansen]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 18:16, Fritz Whittington wrote:
>  On or about 2004-01-13 03:50, Colin Charles whipped out a trusty #2 
>  pencil and scribbled:
>  
>  >On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 21:35, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  >  
>  >
>  >>I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this documentation to exist on
>  >>fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use and
>  >>install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show you
>  >>how!".
>  >>    
>  >>
>  Perhaps I'm just a bit dense, but I would think all of us have the right 
>  to install whatever software we wish on our *personal* computers, 
>  whether it's FOSS, non-FOSS, or dental FLOSS, it's our decision.  (The 
>  question of whether the software was obtained legally or not is an 
>  *entirely* different question, although it might be an important 
>  question.)  Secondly, since this is an individual right, and since 
>  people probably have varying opinions on the details of this, I don't 
>  think trying to convince others to think the same way you think is 
>  apropriate in a *technical* help mailing list.  There are plenty of 
>  *-advocacy lists, probably one for FOSS.
>  
>  So if someone asks how to obtain/install an mp3 codec for mplayer, 
>  that's a technical question that should get a technical answer.  An 
>  additional note that in some jurisdictions, a royalty is due to patent 
>  holders is OK, but a sermon on FOSS is not on topic for this list, IMHO.
>  
>  Sorry to be so blunt, but if it's a pig, you just have to call it a 
>  pig.  :-) 
I agree, but I just wanted to add one more thing.
I personally am a great FOSS-fan, and if I can avoid using non-FOSS
software I do, but not to the degree of really loosing functionality.
When a friend of mine started to try out Linux and found it wouldn't
play his mp3-collection that was enough to make him give up on Linux,
because that's one of the things he uses his pc for a lot.
Of course I helped him solve the problem, anyone thinking I shouldn't
have done so because mp3 is a non-FOSS format is in my
not-at-all-humble-oppinion completely off track!
Of course we should advocate using FOSS-software where it's possible and
advisable, but come on!

Sturla

[Colin Charles]

On Wed, 2004-01-14 at 07:13, Sturla Holm Hansen wrote:

>  > >>I'll spell it out for you. By allowing this
> documentation to exist on
>  > >>fedoranews.org, readers are basically being told "It's ok to use
> and
>  > >>install non-FOSS software on your computer. In fact, we'll even show
> you
>  > >>how!".
>  > >>    
>  > >>
>  > Perhaps I'm just a bit dense, but I would think all of us have the right 
>  > to install whatever software we wish on our *personal* computers, 
>  > whether it's FOSS, non-FOSS, or dental FLOSS, it's our decision.  (The 
>  > question of whether the software was obtained legally or not is an 
>  > *entirely* different question, although it might be an important 
>  > question.)  Secondly, since this is an individual right, and since 
>  > people probably have varying opinions on the details of this, I don't 
>  > think trying to convince others to think the same way you think is 
>  > apropriate in a *technical* help mailing list.  There are plenty of 
>  > *-advocacy lists, probably one for FOSS. 
(ok, I've been evil and have two replies in one)

But well said, everyone should be able to install what they want, free
or non-free software. And a website out there can provide as much
information as need be to get non-free software on there.

In fact, if someone wrote a Bitkeeper installation howto for FedoraNEWS,
I think it should be hosted without any issue. 
 
>  > So if someone asks how to obtain/install an mp3 codec for
> mplayer, 
>  > that's a technical question that should get a technical answer.  An 
>  > additional note that in some jurisdictions, a royalty is due to patent 
>  > holders is OK, but a sermon on FOSS is not on topic for this list, IMHO.
>  > 
>  > Sorry to be so blunt, but if it's a pig, you just have to call it a 
>  > pig.  :-)
>  
>  I agree, but I just wanted to add one more thing.
>  I personally am a great FOSS-fan, and if I can avoid using non-FOSS
>  software I do, but not to the degree of really loosing functionality.
>  When a friend of mine started to try out Linux and found it wouldn't
>  play his mp3-collection that was enough to make him give up on Linux,
>  because that's one of the things he uses his pc for a lot.
>  Of course I helped him solve the problem, anyone thinking I shouldn't
>  have done so because mp3 is a non-FOSS format is in my
>  not-at-all-humble-oppinion completely off track!
>  Of course we should advocate using FOSS-software where it's possible and
>  advisable, but come on! 
Exactly. rms @1407 should not invoke his thoughts on non-FOSS software
on all our machines.

-- 
Colin Charles, byte(a)aeon.com.my
http://www.bytebot.net/

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 06:40, Colin Charles wrote:
>  Exactly. rms @1407 should not invoke his thoughts on non-FOSS
> software
>  on all our machines. 
*cof*cof* I said it is not good advice to point to non-Free Software.

Stop mixing things and putting words on my mouth, please.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 04:51:18 -0500, Adam Kosmin wrote:

>  I couldn't help but notice Thomas Chung's tutorials up on
> fedoranews.org
>  which describe how to install Acrobat Reader, Helix, and Macromedia
>  Flash. 
>  
>  In light of The Fedora Project's #2 objective being "Build the operating
>  system exclusively from open source software.", I must pose this
>  question to the list:
>  
>  Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
>  Fedora? 
Yes. For Joe User it is appropriate to choose the solution of least
resistance. And which works satisfactory or better than any half-baked
open-source versions of their proprietary counter-parts.

Fedoranews.org is a website made by users for users. It is not an offical
Fedora Project website.

If you don't like the proprietary software that is recommended there,
contribute a well-written article about alternative solutions which are
competitive with regard to feature set, maturity and easy of installation.
In addition to that, discuss with users to find out the possible reasons
why e.g. they don't use xpdf (as example).

--

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:11:23 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

>  If you don't like the proprietary software that is recommended
> there,
>  contribute a well-written article about alternative solutions which are
>  competitive with regard to feature set, maturity and easy of installation. 
        
                                              ^^^^
typo: ...ease of installation...

--

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

At 03:51 1/12/2004, you wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice Thomas Chung's tutorials up on
> fedoranews.org
> which describe how to install Acrobat Reader, Helix, and Macromedia
> Flash.
>
> In light of The Fedora Project's #2 objective being "Build the operating
> system exclusively from open source software.", I must pose this
> question to the list:
>
> Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
> Fedora? 
Yes. Unqualified yes, with no limitations whatsoever. Fedora is a Free 
operating system, and it is appropriate for anyone to recommend any 
software to any user, so long as that software suits the user's needs and 
is licensed in a manner acceptable to that user.

It would /not/ be appropriate, given Objective #2, to attempt to bundle 
such software /with/ Fedora or to make it a part of the Fedora Project. But 
if such software is out there, and one or more users need it, and those 
users have chosen it over equivalent FOSS solutions or those solutions do 
not yet exist, then by helping the user install it what we have gained is 
another happy Fedora user. That's the user's right to freedom of choice, 
and one more convert for Fedora... win-win for all involved.

Simple.


-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz
rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
http://www.simpaticus.com

[Adam Kosmin]

This seems to make alot of sense. While I'm still not thrilled about
the existance of those docs, your comments sound very reasonable and
have helped me put things in perspective.

Thank you,

Adam Kosmin

" 
" It would /not/ be appropriate, given Objective #2, to attempt to bundle 
" such software /with/ Fedora or to make it a part of the Fedora Project. But 
" if such software is out there, and one or more users need it, and those 
" users have chosen it over equivalent FOSS solutions or those solutions do 
" not yet exist, then by helping the user install it what we have gained is 
" another happy Fedora user. That's the user's right to freedom of choice, 
" and one more convert for Fedora... win-win for all involved.
" 
" Simple.
" 
" 
" -- 
" Rodolfo J. Paiz
" rpaiz(a)simpaticus.com
" http://www.simpaticus.com
" 
" 
" -- 
" fedora-list mailing list
" fedora-list(a)redhat.com
" To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
" 

-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

[Matt H]

On Monday 12 January 2004 02:51 am, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software
> on
>  Fedora? 
Does your view apply to installation of closed source drivers as well? I ask 
because I use an NVIDIA video card and the only "realistic" option is to 
install the proprietary NVIDIA drivers. It would seem short-sited to not 
inform users of how to install these drivers just to maintain the "Only Free 
Software" philosophy.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 17:45, Matt H wrote:
>  On Monday 12 January 2004 02:51 am, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  > Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
>  > Fedora?
>  
>  Does your view apply to installation of closed source drivers as well? I ask 
>  because I use an NVIDIA video card and the only "realistic" option is to 
>  install the proprietary NVIDIA drivers. It would seem short-sited to not 
>  inform users of how to install these drivers just to maintain the "Only Free 
>  Software" philosophy. 
What I've recommended in the past was of ALSO informing users of what
that choosing those drivers imply.

It seems some proponents only wish to inform of the problems of the Free
Software drivers, caring absolutely nothing about informing of the
non-Free Software drivers' problems.

So they apply a two measures and two weights philosophy, in order to
justify their bad choice of hardware.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:51:43PM +0000, Rui Miguel Seabra penned with great insight:
<above missing purposely>
 
>  It seems some proponents only wish to inform of the problems of the
> Free
>  Software drivers, caring absolutely nothing about informing of the
>  non-Free Software drivers' problems. 
 
Agreed.

Just a quick question to those following this thread, did I miss the part where Rui (you,
if you're reading this Rui), told others that they could not do something? I've
seen this mentioned across a few posts (not just in relation to this thread either), that
stated you and others of like mind such as myself make a habit of telling others what they
can and can not do.

OTOH, it's been my experience that Rui (you) have attempted to point out what would be
a better way of handling said situation. Is this my misinterpretation of what's been
said thus far in the thread and others? I was under the impression that the advice given
was simply a matter of what -should- be done. As opposed to what must happen.

Alex
 
-- 
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just
as they are. --Spoken in Zen

[Adam Kosmin]

Alex,

I do not believe that Rui ever said that users should not be allowed to
do something and believe he is being misquoted. Unfortunatley, this
tends to happen often when discussions like this occur. People tend to
confuse "should not" with "can not".

To simplify, of course users CAN install non-free software onto their
Fedora platforms. However, the question has come up as to whether the
Fedora community SHOULD advocate this practice.

Should != Can

Adam Kosmin



" Just a quick question to those following this thread, did I miss the part where Rui
(you, if you're reading this Rui), told others that they could not do something?
I've seen this mentioned across a few posts (not just in relation to this thread
either), that stated you and others of like mind such as myself make a habit of telling
others what they can and can not do.
" 
" OTOH, it's been my experience that Rui (you) have attempted to point out what
would be a better way of handling said situation. Is this my misinterpretation of
what's been said thus far in the thread and others? I was under the impression that
the advice given was simply a matter of what -should- be done. As opposed to what must
happen.
" 
" Alex
"  
" -- 
" If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things
are just as they are. --Spoken in Zen



-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

[Adam Kosmin]

That's an easy one to answer. I have no plans to buy NVIDIA hardware because of this
very issue.

Best,

Adam Kosmin


Matt H (mrh2k2(a)cox.net) wrote:
" On Monday 12 January 2004 02:51 am, Adam Kosmin wrote:
" > Is it appropriate to encourage people to install non-FOSS software on
" > Fedora?
" 
" Does your view apply to installation of closed source drivers as well? I ask 
" because I use an NVIDIA video card and the only "realistic" option is to

" install the proprietary NVIDIA drivers. It would seem short-sited to not 
" inform users of how to install these drivers just to maintain the "Only Free 
" Software" philosophy.
" 
" 
" -- 
" fedora-list mailing list
" fedora-list(a)redhat.com
" To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
" 

-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

[Matt H]

On Monday 12 January 2004 05:04 pm, Adam Kosmin wrote:
>  That's an easy one to answer. I have no plans to buy NVIDIA
> hardware
>  because of this very issue. 
That's nice to hear. But, you're avoiding the point... Someone installs 
Fedora, they /already/ own an NVIDIA card. This person wants 3D acceleration, 
which makes sense. Now, do you tell them, "NVIDIA sucks, go buy a different 
card." Or, do you tell them how to install the driver?

-- 
 22:15:11  up 4 days, 21:30,  2 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.10, 0.39

[Adam Kosmin]

Sounds like we would end up telling them different things. I can accept
that.

Adam Kosmin



Matt H (mrh2k2(a)cox.net) wrote:
" On Monday 12 January 2004 05:04 pm, Adam Kosmin wrote:
" > That's an easy one to answer. I have no plans to buy NVIDIA hardware
" > because of this very issue.
" 
" That's nice to hear. But, you're avoiding the point... Someone installs 
" Fedora, they /already/ own an NVIDIA card. This person wants 3D acceleration, 
" which makes sense. Now, do you tell them, "NVIDIA sucks, go buy a different 
" card." Or, do you tell them how to install the driver?
" 
" -- 
"  22:15:11  up 4 days, 21:30,  2 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.10, 0.39
" 
" 
" -- 
" fedora-list mailing list
" fedora-list(a)redhat.com
" To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
" 

-- 

"Yes, Your Honor. Now, where we are so far, in at least my
line of reasoning, is I want to walk the Court through enough of our
complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a
lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what
it is." 

-- Kevin McBride SCO vs. IBM 12/05/03

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Matt H wrote:
>  That's nice to hear. But, you're avoiding the point...
> Someone installs 
>  Fedora, they /already/ own an NVIDIA card. This person wants 3D acceleration, 
>  which makes sense. Now, do you tell them, "NVIDIA sucks, go buy a different 
>  card." Or, do you tell them how to install the driver? 
I can tell you what I've already done: I pointed a local man to an
inexpensive card (just under $60) that does 3-D graphics well and works with
the latest XFree86 out of the box, then I explained to him why software
freedom is important (and thus why I'm recommending he steers clear of any
hardware, no matter who the manufacturer is, that can't be operated with
non-free software).  He took my advice, bought a suitable video card and is
now enjoying playing 3D games like Armagetron, Tux Racer, and 2D games
including Frozen Bubble.

My experience is that a lack of software freedom is quite impractical.

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Don Levey]

J. B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>  Matt H wrote:
> > That's nice to hear. But, you're avoiding the point... Someone
> > installs Fedora, they /already/ own an NVIDIA card. This person
> > wants 3D acceleration, which makes sense. Now, do you tell them,
> > "NVIDIA sucks, go buy a different card." Or, do you tell them how to
> > install the driver?
>
>  I can tell you what I've already done: I pointed a local man to an
>  inexpensive card (just under $60) that does 3-D graphics well and
>  works with the latest XFree86 out of the box, then I explained to him
>  why software freedom is important (and thus why I'm recommending he
>  steers clear of any hardware, no matter who the manufacturer is, that
>  can't be operated with non-free software).  He took my advice, bought
>  a suitable video card and is now enjoying playing 3D games like
>  Armagetron, Tux Racer, and 2D games including Frozen Bubble.
>
>  My experience is that a lack of software freedom is quite impractical. 
Two questions:
1) Which card would this be?
2) How does this help the person who already has the NVIDIA card, apart from
getting them to spend another $60?

 -Don

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Robin Laing]

Don Levey wrote:
>  J. B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>  
> >Matt H wrote:
> >
> >>That's nice to hear. But, you're avoiding the point... Someone
> >>installs Fedora, they /already/ own an NVIDIA card. This person
> >>wants 3D acceleration, which makes sense. Now, do you tell them,
> >>"NVIDIA sucks, go buy a different card." Or, do you tell them how to
> >>install the driver?
> >
> >I can tell you what I've already done: I pointed a local man to an
> >inexpensive card (just under $60) that does 3-D graphics well and
> >works with the latest XFree86 out of the box, then I explained to him
> >why software freedom is important (and thus why I'm recommending he
> >steers clear of any hardware, no matter who the manufacturer is, that
> >can't be operated with non-free software).  He took my advice, bought
> >a suitable video card and is now enjoying playing 3D games like
> >Armagetron, Tux Racer, and 2D games including Frozen Bubble.
> >
> >My experience is that a lack of software freedom is quite impractical.
>  
>  
>  Two questions:
>  1) Which card would this be?
>  2) How does this help the person who already has the NVIDIA card, apart from
>  getting them to spend another $60?
>  
>   -Don 
To answer your question, download the drivers from Nvidia and follow 
the instructions.

It would be nice if manufacturers would support Linux with Open 
Software but we have to understand that any support is better than 
nothing.

On this note, I have found no problems with Nvidia in comparison to 
ATI.  ATI says they support Linux and even provide drivers.  The 
problem is that until you start having problems do you find out that 
their drivers don't really support Linux by using all the features of 
the card or even basic features like 3D on many of their cards with 
their drivers.  I know from experience with a new 9600.  Nvidia up and 
running in less than 2 hours from time of paying for the card.  To 
answer your question, download the drivers from Nvidia and follow the 
instructions.  Nvidia FX5600

Now the Nvidia drivers are closed source but they are free.

It is unfortunate that to work with Linux it may mean purchasing a new 
piece of hardware.  At least Linux will still work on a P90, try that 
with Windows XP.

-- 
Robin Laing

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Don Levey]

fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com wrote:
>  Don Levey wrote:
> > J. B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> >
> >> Matt H wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's nice to hear. But, you're avoiding the point... Someone
> >>> installs Fedora, they /already/ own an NVIDIA card. This person
> >>> wants 3D acceleration, which makes sense. Now, do you tell them,
> >>> "NVIDIA sucks, go buy a different card." Or, do you tell them how
> >>> to install the driver?
> >>
> >> I can tell you what I've already done: I pointed a local man to an
> >> inexpensive card (just under $60) that does 3-D graphics well and
> >> works with the latest XFree86 out of the box, then I explained to
> >> him why software freedom is important (and thus why I'm
> >> recommending he steers clear of any hardware, no matter who the
> >> manufacturer is, that can't be operated with non-free software).
> >> He took my advice, bought a suitable video card and is now enjoying
> >> playing 3D games like Armagetron, Tux Racer, and 2D games including
> >> Frozen Bubble.
> >>
> >> My experience is that a lack of software freedom is quite
> >> impractical.
> >
> >
> > Two questions:
> > 1) Which card would this be?
> > 2) How does this help the person who already has the NVIDIA card,
> > apart from getting them to spend another $60?
> >
> >  -Don
>
>  To answer your question, download the drivers from Nvidia and follow
>  the instructions.
>  
Well, that doesn't actually answer the questions.  I want to know how
recommending that someone go out and buy a new video card helps someone who
already HAS a card and wants to get it to work.

>  It would be nice if manufacturers would support Linux with Open
>  Software but we have to understand that any support is better than
>  nothing.
>  
True.  I think that the vendors won't bother untin such time as Linux
becomes a significant portion of the market, and moves beyond the realm of
geekdom.  Somewhere beyond Macs, for example.

>  On this note, I have found no problems with Nvidia in comparison to
>  ATI.  ATI says they support Linux and even provide drivers.  The
>  problem is that until you start having problems do you find out that
>  their drivers don't really support Linux by using all the features of
>  the card or even basic features like 3D on many of their cards with
>  their drivers.  I know from experience with a new 9600.  Nvidia up and
>  running in less than 2 hours from time of paying for the card.  To
>  answer your question, download the drivers from Nvidia and follow the
>  instructions.  Nvidia FX5600
>  
I know the experience.  I have the 9600 from ATI, and have not gotten
anything like 3D from it.  The glxgears program gives me an average of
100fps.  Feh.

>  Now the Nvidia drivers are closed source but they are free.
>  
To avoid confusion amongst some, it might be better to call them
"no-cost."
But had I known the difficulties I would have had, I'd have opted for
something else (even an Nvidia).  I checked for linux drivers on the ATI
website before I bought the thing...

>  It is unfortunate that to work with Linux it may mean purchasing a
> new
>  piece of hardware.  At least Linux will still work on a P90, try that
>  with Windows XP.
>  
And that was the thrust of my comment.  While it may be useful in the long
run, advising someone to buy something else doesn't help the perception of
linux or open software one iota.

--
 -Don

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Don Levey wrote:
>  1) Which card would this be? 
ATI Radeon 9000 AGP in this case.

>  2) How does this help the person who already has the NVIDIA card,
> apart from
>  getting them to spend another $60? 
It shows them that they have to be careful about buying hardware to work
with XFree86.  $50 or $60 is not a big deal in computers but losing software
freedom is.  I can't convey the value of software freedom by telling people
to adopt non-free software.  A more easily used database of hardware (and a
simple database lookup program to run on Microsoft Windows and various free
software OSes) would help people not fall into the trap of obtaining
hardware they can't use on a particular free software system.

What you're doing is purposefully constructing a narrow situation and
rejecting any response that doesn't match your response.  You do this to
make people believe that your way is the only way to play these 3D games.  I
refuse to work within those silly boundaries.  I demonstrated that for a
rather low fee one can purchase a great deal of functionality without giving
up software freedom.

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Joel Jaeggli]

http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/dri_driver_features.phtml

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:

>  Don Levey wrote:
>  > 1) Which card would this be?
>  
>  ATI Radeon 9000 AGP in this case.
>  
>  > 2) How does this help the person who already has the NVIDIA card, apart from
>  > getting them to spend another $60?
>  
>  It shows them that they have to be careful about buying hardware to work
>  with XFree86.  $50 or $60 is not a big deal in computers but losing software
>  freedom is.  I can't convey the value of software freedom by telling people
>  to adopt non-free software.  A more easily used database of hardware (and a
>  simple database lookup program to run on Microsoft Windows and various free
>  software OSes) would help people not fall into the trap of obtaining
>  hardware they can't use on a particular free software system.
>  
>  What you're doing is purposefully constructing a narrow situation and
>  rejecting any response that doesn't match your response.  You do this to
>  make people believe that your way is the only way to play these 3D games.  I
>  refuse to work within those silly boundaries.  I demonstrated that for a
>  rather low fee one can purchase a great deal of functionality without giving
>  up software freedom.
>  
>  
>   
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       joelja(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu    
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Joel Jaeggli]

I should qualify what I was thinking a bit more.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

>  http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/dri_driver_features.phtml
>  
>  On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote: 
<SNIP>
 
>  > What you're doing is purposefully constructing a narrow
> situation and
>  > rejecting any response that doesn't match your response.  You do this to
>  > make people believe that your way is the only way to play these 3D games.  I
>  > refuse to work within those silly boundaries.  I demonstrated that for a
>  > rather low fee one can purchase a great deal of functionality without giving
>  > up software freedom. 
Part of the problem we face at this point is the development model that 
got most of of the open source drm drivers created was capital and labor 
intensive and required a careful balancing act between the percieved needs 
of the of the graphics chipset vendors and the needs of the open source 
community. The capital that was expended before, will never be recovered 
(I'm speaking as a VA Linux and redhat shareholder here). 

At this point, the graphics chipset manufacturers would be the logical
supporters of this sort of effort, and by in large they were supportive
when it was done on their terms, but the competetive edge they retain over
each other (ati and nvidia) is so narrow, that their isn't room for the
sort of friendly collaboration with a cummunity rather than individual
group/single of developer(s) that would produce high-performance open
source drivers that support that absolute latest chipsets. Personally I
resent the fact that that the two fastest cards are I have in linux boxes
are both ati r2xx chipset boards, a radeon 8500 and a 9000pro, but I
appreciate the substantial efforts of tungsten graphics and the the
weather channel that made even that possible.

I would just conclude by saying to ati, and any other hardware vendors 
that are listening. If there were and open-source driver for the r360 or 
r350 or nv35/38 I would buy one tomorrow.

As an aside this paper is highly informative even if it is 6 years old:

http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/vendor_relationships_paper.html

>  > 
>  > 
>  
>   
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Joel Jaeggli  	       Unix Consulting 	       joelja(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu    
GPG Key Fingerprint:     5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[M.Hockings]

Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> I should qualify what I was thinking a bit more.
>
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>   
>
> >http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/dri_driver_features.phtml
> >
> >On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> >    
> >
>
> <SNIP>
>  
>   
>
> >>What you're doing is purposefully constructing a narrow situation and
> >>rejecting any response that doesn't match your response.  You do this to
> >>make people believe that your way is the only way to play these 3D games.  I
> >>refuse to work within those silly boundaries.  I demonstrated that for a
> >>rather low fee one can purchase a great deal of functionality without giving
> >>up software freedom.
> >>      
> >>
>
> Part of the problem we face at this point is the development model that 
> got most of of the open source drm drivers created was capital and labor 
> intensive and required a careful balancing act between the percieved needs 
> of the of the graphics chipset vendors and the needs of the open source 
> community. The capital that was expended before, will never be recovered 
> (I'm speaking as a VA Linux and redhat shareholder here). 
>
> At this point, the graphics chipset manufacturers would be the logical
> supporters of this sort of effort, and by in large they were supportive
> when it was done on their terms, but the competetive edge they retain over
> each other (ati and nvidia) is so narrow, that their isn't room for the
> sort of friendly collaboration with a cummunity rather than individual
> group/single of developer(s) that would produce high-performance open
> source drivers that support that absolute latest chipsets. Personally I
> resent the fact that that the two fastest cards are I have in linux boxes
> are both ati r2xx chipset boards, a radeon 8500 and a 9000pro, but I
> appreciate the substantial efforts of tungsten graphics and the the
> weather channel that made even that possible.
>
> I would just conclude by saying to ati, and any other hardware vendors 
> that are listening. If there were and open-source driver for the r360 or 
> r350 or nv35/38 I would buy one tomorrow.
>   
>  
I have a SiS 3D card for which an open-source driver exists for Linux.  
The open source driver even gives better performance than the SiS 
version but the hardware performance is pitiful.  (BTW, I even had this 
card in a friend's oc'd AMD2800+ Windows machine and it still worked poorly)

I also have Nvidia card, closed-source driver available for no-cost from 
Nvidia.  It works GREAT.  Out with theSiS, in with Nvidia, set 
happiness=true;

What I think would be best is choice.  If the chip and board 
manufacturers would document things so that open-source drivers could be 
written then I would have choice.  I could then choose between the 
vendors proprietary driver or an open-source driver.  If I had to pay 
for either of them that would just be input to the choice. I'd likely 
still go with the video driver that gives the best performance.   For 
other components, where I may be inclined to twiddle, my choice may be 
different (I have no desire to debug video drivers).

Just my CAD$0.02

Mike

> As an aside this paper is highly informative even if it is 6 years
> old:
>
> http://dri.sourceforge.net/doc/vendor_relationships_paper.html
>   
>

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Don Levey]

J. B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>  Don Levey wrote:
> > 1) Which card would this be?
>
>  ATI Radeon 9000 AGP in this case.
>  
Interesting... I have the 9600Pro, which I must assume is a different
chipset.  I haven't yet been successful in getting it to work under anything
but the most basic 2D modes.  I also can't find the 9600 AGP for anything
less than about $110-120, but I'm probably not looking in  the correct
places.

> > 2) How does this help the person who already has the NVIDIA
> card,
> > apart from getting them to spend another $60?
>
>  It shows them that they have to be careful about buying hardware to
>  work with XFree86.  $50 or $60 is not a big deal in computers but
>  losing software freedom is. 
To people who haven't had it in the first place, the cost/benefit ratio may
be different.  What happens here, though, is that in their minds they lose
the word "free" once they see "buy something else."

>  I can't convey the value of software
>  freedom by telling people to adopt non-free software.  A more easily
>  used database of hardware (and a simple database lookup program to
>  run on Microsoft Windows and various free software OSes) would help
>  people not fall into the trap of obtaining hardware they can't use on
>  a particular free software system.
>  
True.  It needs to be easily used, and commonly used.  By common, I mean
more than the under-3% that now seem to use linux for desktop apps.  At that
point, major vendors can start to pay attention.

But you're not telling people to "adopt" non-free software.  You'd be
helping people to get what they already have to work with free software.
Sometimes that may require some non-free parts.  That's life.  The
alternative is to say "tough luck, folks - the hardware you have won't work
in this pure and unsullied environment, so your hardware must go."

>  What you're doing is purposefully constructing a narrow situation
> and
>  rejecting any response that doesn't match your response.  You do this
>  to make people believe that your way is the only way to play these 3D
>  games. 
No, that's not what *I'm* doing.  What I'm doing is going back to the
original scenario that was posted.  Someone already has certain hardware,
and is trying to get it to run properly.  I'm sorry you feel that the answer
is "buy something else."  Perhaps it's that technical support is what I do
for a living, but that is NOT the way to help people.  You help them by
helping them with the fire first, and then fire prevention.  You help them
with the hardware they've got, and then say "when you're ready to get new
hardware, here's what to look for."  They get a working system, they know
what to do next time, and there's an amount of goodwill that's been built up
both for you and for free software.

Why should someone who's got a working MS system even bother?  Part of the
attraction of Linux is that there is a significantly lower total cost of
ownership.  That gets erased when someone needs to purchase replacement
hardware for pieces that are perfectly functional but do not fit into a
purist view of what it "should" be.

>  I refuse to work within those silly boundaries.  I
>  demonstrated that for a rather low fee one can purchase a great deal
>  of functionality without giving up software freedom. 
...And instead they give up more money.  It is your right not to work within
those "silly boundaries."  Of course, you're setting up "silly
boundaries"
of your own, but again that is your right.  The individual with whom you
spoke may have been unique in that most people would take away from this the
lesson that free software costs more, and doesn't work as well.  The price
of zealotry is isolation; what you've also done for free software is to
paint the picture that the rest of us advocates are zealots as well.  Thanks
a lot...

 -Don

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Markku Kolkka]

Don Levey kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika perjantai, 6. 
helmikuuta 2004 17:13):
>  J. B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
>  > ATI Radeon 9000 AGP in this case.
>
>  Interesting... I have the 9600Pro, which I must assume is a
>  different chipset.  
Radeon 9000 uses RV250 chipset, 9600Pro is RV350. R/RV3x0 parts 
don't have 3D support in the open-source XFree86 drivers.
Radeon naming scheme and driver support: http://tinyurl.com/2zzzs

-- 
	Markku Kolkka
	markku.kolkka(a)iki.fi

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Don Levey]

fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com wrote:
>  Don Levey kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika perjantai, 6.
>  helmikuuta 2004 17:13):
> > J. B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> >> ATI Radeon 9000 AGP in this case.
> >
> > Interesting... I have the 9600Pro, which I must assume is a
> > different chipset.
>
>  Radeon 9000 uses RV250 chipset, 9600Pro is RV350. R/RV3x0 parts
>  don't have 3D support in the open-source XFree86 drivers.
>  Radeon naming scheme and driver support: http://tinyurl.com/2zzzs 
Ah, my apologies.  My eyes saw '9000' and read '9600.'
 -Don

What I recently did regarding software freedom.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 10:13 -0500, Don Levey wrote:
>  But you're not telling people to "adopt" non-free
> software.  You'd be
>  helping people to get what they already have to work with free software.
>  Sometimes that may require some non-free parts. 
This is incoherent.

>    That's life.  The
>  alternative is to say "tough luck, folks - the hardware you have won't work
>  in this pure and unsullied environment, so your hardware must go." 
When a friend has made a bad buy, why won't you advise him to make a
better buy? I've been told that at least in the US it's quite easy to
return the card, and a perfectly reasonable reason is that there's no
support for Free Software from that vendor and that you weren't
knowledgeable of that in the first place.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html