Tilting at Windows: Don’t Fight for Desktop Linux Adoption

I picked up this article by Caitlyn Martin from Steven Rosenberg’s Click blog. She takes a different tack on some of the issues I’ve addressed when I’ve commented on some of the more exhuberent (and less honest) Linux activism. Her article references one such article, a list of ten points about how Linux has outgrown its geeky past and is appropriate for desktop use.

She writes, “All 10 points in the article are valid. None of them, nor any other efforts at Linux evangelism over the last decade, have worked when it comes to moving the masses towards Linux in the home and office on the desktop. Look, I’m not critical of the article. It may even convince a handful or people to give Linux a look. It, and articles like it, won’t have a major impact.”

This is true and so is her suggestion that it’s preaching to the choir. There have been many activists who’ve attempted to make inroads and get Linux adopted on the desktop. She’s correct that it’s not about cost, it’s not about ease as Linux desktop environments and driver support have improved. Resistance is hard to overcome no matter what price tag you put on or take off.

I think she too easily dismisses a couple things, such as the ease with which devices still work with Windows because their vendors are Windows-centric. If I buy any webcam, I know it will probably work very easily with Windows — plug it in, voila. If I do the same for use on a Linux desktop, I need to first check to see if it’s natively supported in Linux. Failing that, I have to see if anyone else has a driver for it. Then, if there is one, I have to check and see if that driver has enough functionality to be worthwhile. And if I already have the camera and it already works in Windows, why would I want to switch to a “free” operating system that will require me to compile a separate module for my device, run depmod, etc., just to use it? We can argue all we want about closed hardware and software, but these things are reality. We don’t have a magic wand to make it go away.

Substitute scanner, printer, or any other device for webcam. The more stuff a user already has, the more resistance he or she will probably have in switching.

Martin suggests two ways that users may be lured to desktop Linux. One is via well-conceived and well-configured devices like the Asus Eee UMPC that come with Linux. These have been met with more enthusiasm by existing Linux users, though. With these UMPCs increasingly shipping with XP, I don’t see how this bodes well for Linux. (I’m neutral on superiority of Windows or Linux because often it boils down to the same thing: how well things are pre-configured for the less savvy user. The less savvy the user, the worse the perception is if it’s inadequately set up even if the “problems” are very benign.)

The second thing Martin says may help Linux adoption is via concerted effort between Linux developers and hardware vendors — more of a Microsoft approach. There’s a big problem with this: there aren’t many manufacturers of hardware ready to embrace open source, at least not with the kinds of strings that GPLv3 would attach with respect to firmware. While some companies are becoming more lenient when it comes to distributing their firmware (since I just compiled two 2.6.25 kernels, I noticed there’s a lot more of that than in the 2.4 line), they really don’t benefit by pushing Linux on desktops — even a 100% increase in Linux desktop adoption wouldn’t reach the 5% share, so spectacular growth rate keeps you in a marginal market. Hooray, BeOS!

I think where all of this is moot is, we’re moving away from traditional desktop computing. Whether you want to look at mobile computing vis-a-vis laptops, notebooks, and UMPCs or in the direction things appear to be headed with cell/smart phones and PDAs, the real growth is away from desktops. Dittos for other devices popping up in homes all over the world: TiVOs and other DVRs, game consoles, etc. Many of these devices are the real initial contact points people have with Linux.

That’s where hardware vendors are already onboard with Linux. And vice versa. Except for FSF and fringe types who object to the way the real world operates.

My beloved told me she would never use Linux on her laptop. She’s dead serious. She hates my computers. She stopped telling me she’d never use Linux when I pointed out where she was already using it: her cell phone, the router, the server, the DVR, the TV. Things she takes for granted because she turns them on and they work without “eye candy” or code she can audit herself (which would be quite interesting to see!) or lack of command lines. Just like Windows. She’s not in the open source choir and not interested in how many different window managers she can try. She’s just pragmatic.

What Martin argues for is already reality, just not on desktops.

Linux is widely used on mobile hardware like cell phones and it stands a much better chance of widespread adoption there barring more goofy GPL turf wars by zealots who make up words like “tivoization” for problems that don’t even exist (TiVo plays by the rules; so FSF changes the rules and moves the goalposts). Licensing really matters as much as whether the source is open or not. I’ll even argue that adoption of Linux and its funding from vendors would already be more widespread if its license were less restrictive — much the same way TCP/IP became an adopted standard in both open source and proprietary worlds because there weren’t petty restrictions preventing others from integrating it as they saw fit (it’s important to understand that Microsoft and Apple had every bit as much freedom to use TCP/IP as BSD; otherwise, we’d have closed networking stacks that don’t communicate very effectively with each other).

The real battle in this decade is away from the desktop. Those who want to win market share on the desktop are tilting at Windows.

OpenBSD 4.3 Song Rips RMS

This brings a smile to my face. With the imminent (May 1st) release of OpenBSD 4.3 comes the release of the official song for the release. The target for 4.3: Richard Stallman.

OpenBSD release song lyrics:

We are just plain tired of being lectured to by a man who is a lot like Naomi Campbell.

In 1998 when a United Airlines plane was waiting in the queue at Chicago Airport for take-off to New Orleans (where a Usenix conference was taking place), one man stood up from his seat, demanded that they stop waiting in the queue and be permitted to deplane. Even after orders from the crew and a pilot from the cockpit he refused to sit down. The plane exited the queue and returned to the airport gangway. Security personnel ran onto the plane and removed this man, Richard Stallman, from the plane. After Richard was removed from the plane, everyone else stayed onboard and continued their journey to New Orleans. A few OpenBSD developers were on that same plane, seated very closeby, so we have an accurate story of the events.

This is the man who presumes that he should preach to us about morality, freedom, and what is best for us. He believes it is his God-given role to tell us what is best for us, when he has shown that he takes actions which are not best for everyone. He prefers actions which he thinks are best for him — and him alone — and then lies to the public. Richard Stallman is no Spock.

We release our software in ways that are maximally free. We remove all restrictions on use and distribution, but leave a requirement to be known as the authors. We follow a pattern of free source code distribution that started in the mid-1980’s in Berkeley, from before Richard Stallman had any powerful influence which he could use so falsely.

Among the lyrics:
“And rule two dictates
You must give it to me
So I can give it away properly for free”

“The list goes on of course
But for traders this is all you need”

“This is madness!
He has lost his mind!
This defies the first law of free trade
Rule zero came before this rule one
Freedom means you cannot dictate to anyone”

This is payback for Stallman’s decision to flame OpenBSDers in recent months, objecting to things in the ports tree that are either proprietary or under licenses he finds objectionable. He said this makes OpenBSD non-free. Too bad he doesn’t understand OpenBSD is more ‘free’ than any other OS, including Linux — Theo doesn’t include any binary blobs and OpenBSD has reverse-engineered things which would’ve required binary blobs (such as the Malo driver I used before selling my Marvell Libertas card).

The lyrics page concludes by pointing out that Stallman makes sure GNU/FSF software will compile and run on Windows: “That man is a false leader. He is a hypocrite. There may be some people who listen to him. But we don’t listen to people who do not follow their own stupid rules.”

BSD is really about ‘free’ and really about ‘freedom.’ GPL is about neither.

FSF Watch: SFLC Lawyers Sue Verizon

This is the fourth shakedown lawsuit filed by FSF lawyers on behalf of BusyBox. As is the case in at least one previous case (last week?), the BusyBox (busybox-0.61.pre) source code is already available from the manufacturer of the device.

At what point do the advocates open their eyes and realize the FSF is no less onerous than any company writing proprietary code? The SFLC isn’t about software, it’s about lawsuits. This is how they put bread on their tables: by suing everyone they think has violated a dot or tittle of their precious GPL. They’re no different from lawyers from any other group, including Microsoft, Apple, or RIAA. The main difference is the latter three don’t come across as trigger happy as the FSF does.

BusyBox developers FSF LAWYERS go after SHAKEDOWN Verizon:

NEW YORK, December 7, 2007 — The Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) today announced that it has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon Communications, Inc. on behalf of its clients, two principal developers of BusyBox, alleging violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL). BusyBox is a lightweight set of standard Unix utilities commonly used in embedded systems and is open source software licensed under GPL version 2.

Markey’s Bill Won’t Fix Comcast/BitTorrent

Net neutrality may not resolve Comcast vs. BitTorrent:

…[E]ven some supporters of new laws–which would enact antidiscrimination regulations aimed at broadband providers–are now reluctantly conceding that the proposals that have been circulating in Congress for more than a year may not do much to stop Comcast…. When asked whether Comcast’s conduct toward BitTorrent would be prohibited under [Congressman Ed Markey's] original bill, the [unnamed staff] aide said the clearest answer is “maybe.” In any case, the bill’s authors want to leave it up to an “expert agency,” presumably the FCC, to decide whether a company’s conduct in a particular situation was both “reasonable” and “nondiscriminatory,” the aide said.

The FCC presently allows providers to manage their networks with “reasonable and non-discriminatory measures,” which is what Comcast says they’re doing. “Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise,” spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice told CNET News.com. “We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy.”

FSF Tries Another Shakedown, One Victim Company Already Offers Source Code

The Free Software Foundation’s Software Freedom Law Center has struck again, suing two more companies on behalf of Busybox. The SFLC reached a settlement with Monsoon Multimedia at the end of last month in which Monsoon paid an undisclosed sum to Busybox developers (and, presumably, their lawyers at the SFLC/FSF).

Free Software Group Files Copyright Lawsuits:

Richard Bruckner, CEO of High-Gain Antennas, said the SFLC is mistaken about the GPL violation. The company, which makes wireless broadband antennas and related products, uses firmware from a company called Edimax, not BusyBox, and makes the source code available, at the request of customers, he said.Bruckner said he tried to explain the situation in a conference call with SFLC officials but was hung up on. During that first conversation SFLC was “already asking for money,” he said. “What they need to do is get their act together and read the source code.” If the SFLC doesn’t end its threats, High-Gain Antennas may file a countersuit, Bruckner added.

Here’s a screenshot showing that High-Gain Antennas offers source both as a download as well as on CD-ROM for those with connections that forbid them from downloading 100 MB.

Survey Shows GPLv3 Adoption Not Widespread

This is good news. I’d like to see more open source and “free” projects abandon GPL in favor of unrestricted licenses.

Open Source Developers Staying Away From GPLv3:

Only 6% of developers working on Open Source software have adopted GPLv3, according to Evans Data Corp’s recently released Open Source Software Development Survey. Two-thirds say they will not be adopting GPLv3 anytime in the next year, and 43% say they will never implement the new license. In addition, almost twice as many would be less likely to join a project that implements GPLv3 than would be more likely to join.

Transition to BSD: Why It Matters

I’ve been using OpenBSD for servers for several years, and I’ve flirted around with it, FreeBSD, and NetBSD on desktops. I settled instead on Linux for desktop use because Linux development was (and still is) much more dynamic. What mattered when I settled on Linux applies less to me now because I’m not living on the bleeding edge and the dynamism of Linux distros and what they include appeals less and less to me.

Most Linux distros compete without regard for hardware requirements: they presume users will treat hardware as disposable commodities (the frequent argument made against tech-dinosaurs at this point is Moore’s Law, which addresses costs as they relate to rates of technological change but not the issue of continued utility of older technologies). Accordingly, they pile on features that are beautiful to the eye but impossible to run without the latest hardware or major upgrades. That’s why I took exception to the FSF’s anti-Vista campaign this past week. They’re sanctimonious hypocrites for not blasting Linux distros like Mepis and Ubuntu for their system requirements right along with Microsoft’s requirements for Vista. The FSF’s silence over distros like Mint and PCLOS that include proprietary code (drivers, Flash, etc.) by default is also pretty suspect. Maybe they should clean their own house first and let the market decide if Vista is acceptable.

The way so many distros required me to upgrade my hardware to upgrade their releases led me to use two Linux distros: Slackware and Damn Small Linux. You don’t need certain video cards or massive amounts of RAM to run DSL: it will run on a 486 with 16 MB RAM. Each new release of DSL hasn’t rendered older hardware obsolete, it’s made it more useful. Slackware’s base install (which probably isn’t what most Linux advocates recommend to Windows converts) is also very lean and doesn’t require system upgrades; it’s the full install or what you add on top of a base install that affects Slackware’s hardware requirements.

Three things caused me to reassess my choice of operating systems. Individually, they weren’t enough to move me to do anything (especially anything that requires me to burn more ISOs, back up all my data, etc.). Taken together, though, I decided it was time to change.

First, I find the BSD-unit concept more appealing than the cowboy bits-and-pieces approach of Linux. In a nutshell, Linux is just a kernel and not an operating system. The distros pile an ad hoc assembly of tools (usually GNU utilities) on top of it to make a useful OS out of it. From there, it’s a battle between the distros with respect to application versions, system configurations, and package management systems.

In fairness, it usually works and works quite well. But there can be serious problems if one piece of the system doesn’t work right with the rest. This has affected me to various degrees with different distros, from living with little quirks to not being able to upgrade things or even to install certain software because it would break a system. Or actually breaking a system and having to reinstall.

In comparison, a BSD is a complete OS: kernel plus utilities. That’s a unit, one thing. It’s not ad hoc, it’s planned so that it’s integrated and (in theory!) less likely to break. It can recompile itself as a unit. Everything on top of the unit is optional and doesn’t affect the unit. This is why some people (I’m one of them) think BSDs are ultimately more stable than Linux-based systems. You can look up the benchmarking studies and accounts of uptime to satisfy whichever side you’re on.

Second, I want continued legacy hardware support. I’m not going to stop using, much less throw out, a working computer. I practice what FSF preaches (see above). I have functional computers over 12 years old, including some old Macs and early Pentiums. My “newest” computer is a 1300mhz Athlon-based XP box I use mostly for work. I found out last night I may have a new computer in my possession shortly, but it’ll be a donation and not something I’d ever rush out to buy (certainly not so I could run Vista or something that uses Beryl).

Naturally, I’ve had some issues getting certain bloated distros to work on my older hardware. Ironically, that includes ones usually lauded for their auto-detection and ease of use. I’ve been content, as noted above, with Slackware and DSL. Both are relatively user-friendly for users who bother to read the documentation.

I think the BSDs are better for older hardware than Linux — and that they will be better going forward. The Linux kernel has gotten bigger while deprecating support for certain older hardware. I’m unaware of any similar compromises in the BSDs to reduce legacy support; BSD shortcomings seem to be related to supporting bleeding edge hardware even though their wireless support is better than that in Linux (see below for Atheros relicensing issue controversy). Moreover, I know there are ports of all three BSDs available for all my hardware.

Third, and the straw that broke the camel’s back, I have very serious concerns about the restrictions imposed in GPLv3. I have major philosophical differences with FSF zealots over the changes — new restrictions — in the GPL. I’ve addressed those elsewhere in this blog (see category FSF Sucks). In a nutshell, GPLv3 moves the FSF’s goalposts from software to hardware (”anti-tivoization”) and data (DRM).

I think the “free as in speech” kind of freedom shouldn’t be restricted; free should mean “free.” Period. FSF disagrees with me and they’ve changed their license so that free means “less and less free.” They haven’t addressed new areas of technology (as they claim), they’ve only moved their goalposts to places Linus Torvalds isn’t prepared to go because he doesn’t share their peculiar ideological extremism.

The GPL activists also appear to think everyone else’s rules don’t apply to them. The debate over the licensing of the Atheros driver has me wondering if the GPL side thinks they’re above the law. It’s not about whether the code is still open, it’s whether it’s still free.

I’m sure Torvalds isn’t likely to change the kernel’s licensing to GPLv3. I also acknowledge much of the software I use, and will continue to use, is licensed under GPL. I use it because it’s good software and suits my needs, but I use it DESPITE its restrictive licensing.

It would be easier to be complacent and not make changes. Then again, it would’ve been even easier to use Windows or get a new Mac. At least I have options and I’m free to choose between them. That’s the best part of any decision.

FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter: Justin Gibbs on GPLv3

Justin Gibbs, founder and vice president of the FreeBSD Foundation, writes in the FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter about the GPLv3 issue. He points out that there’s a very unfortunate assumption in the general population (and among authors of some projects) that open source and GPL mean the same thing. He also mentions a chief concern of enterprise users and vendors that the GPL’s restrictions prevent them from using open source software (including Linux).

Gibbs writes that “the members of our community must engage on this issue, understand the importance of our licensing philosophy, and promote that philosophy to others.” That’s especially apropos given the current Atheros driver discussion I mentioned in a previous post.

FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter, August 29, 2007:

On June 29th, the Free Software Foundation unveiled version 3 of the GNU General Public license (GPL). Even though the majority of software included in the FreeBSD distribution is not covered by any version of the GPL, our community cannot ignore this very popular license or its most recent incarnation. Through extremely successful evangelization, and the popularity of Linux, the misconception that OpenSource and the GPL are synonymous has become pervasive.

This misconception isn’t new, so why write about it now? Version 3 has further “refined” the GPL’s concept of “free” software. Some use models that were possible under “loopholes” in GPLv2 are now explicitly forbidden in GPLv3. Appliance vendors in particular have the most to lose if the large body of software currently licensed under GPLv2 today migrates to the new license. They will no longer have the freedom to use GPLv3 software and restrict modification of the software installed on their hardware. High support costs (”I modified the web server on my Widget 2000 and it stopped running…”) and being unable to guarantee adherence to specifications in order to gain licensing (e.g. FCC spectrum use, Cable TV and media DRM requirements) are only two of a growing list of issues for these users. In short, there is a large base of OpenSource consumers that are suddenly very interested in understanding alternatives to GPL licensed software….

A GPL proponent might argue that a license for free software must be upgraded periodically since we cannot anticipate what new use models for free software might be developed that restrict freedom. The BSD license is as permissive as possible exactly because we cannot predict the future or to what beneficial purpose (commercial or otherwise) our software will be used.

As a community, this is the perfect time to clarify these differences. Toward that end, the FreeBSD Foundation has started to engage with large current and potential users of OpenSource software to understand their use models and how the GPLv3 might impact them. What is clear from the early results of this initiative is that the GPLv3 is a critical concern for many current commercial users of OpenSource software. As these companies devise strategies for dealing with GPLv3, so must the FreeBSD community - strategies that capitalize on this opportunity to increase adoption of FreeBSD.

Theo Addresses Appropriation of BSD Atheros Code

This kind of situation is becoming too common: guy takes BSD code, makes a few changes, removes BSD license and copyright information, inserts GPL license information. In this case, it’s over a submitted but not yet included slightly modified OpenBSD Atheros driver for the Linux kernel. The problem isn’t the modification but the way the submitter stripped out the BSD license information and inserted GPL.

What’s wrong if both are “free licenses”? That presumes GPL is free. It isn’t. It’s a very restrictive software license.

Theo de Raadt Responds to License Modification:

GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope — the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL’d, we cannot get it back.

Ironic.

I hope some people in the GPL community will give that some thought. Your license may benefit you, but you could lose friends you need. The GPL users have an opportunity to ‘develop community’, to keep an ethic of sharing alive. If the Linux developers wrap GPL’s around things we worked very hard on, it will definately not be viewed as community development.

FSF = Pots Calling Kettles Black

The FSF’s environmental press release:

The statement highlights the disposable-computer mentality embodied in the excessive hardware requirements of Microsoft Windows Vista. Often new hardware is necessary to support new software features, but the coalition says in this case, Vista’s requirements are to enable the operating system to more effectively restrict the user at the request of media companies seeking to prevent copying of music and video files.

That’s pretty rich. Check out the hardware requirements to run most Linux distros sometime, you nutjobs. Many popular Linux distros now include Beryl in their default installs. The hardware requirements are very similar to what’s needed to run Vista.

Suse and Open Suse would require me to make upgrades to my hardware (if not dispose of what I have since it would be almost cheaper to buy a new system than to add RAM, video cards, and other recommended hardware I don’t use). Dittos for Ubuntu’s recommended minimums. These are distros where the most Windows refugees will feel comfortable — they probably won’t be inclined to do base installs of Debian or Slackware, let alone any of the source-based distros.

FSF should have meetings with distribution development teams and get them to practice what FSF preaches. And that’s exactly what it is: preaching. Preaching that reeks of sanctimony and a phony piety.