I've been at OSCON all week and it's been great. Nat and Tim both praised Firefox in their keynote remarks and lots of people here are wearing Firefox shirts :-)
I've attended a couple of tuturials and a handful of regular sessions covering everything from AJAX to Zen (and several Mozilla talks.)
My talk on the Mozilla Communities went pretty well yesterday (special thanks to Rafael for helping out with the slides) and tonight I'm putting the finishing touches on my keynote tomorrow: Linux in Search of the Desktop.
Connections at the Oregon Convention Center are pretty flakey given the thousands of us with wireless and my hotel charges for wireless so I've gotten a bit behind on the blog and email and other stuff. Tomorrow is the final day of OSCON so after that things should get better for connectivity and I'll get caught up again with email and blogging.
Posted by asa at August 4, 2005 07:23 PM | TrackBackGood luck on the keynote, Asa. I'd wear a raincoat in case of rotten tomatoes. ;)
-Kovu
Posted by: James "Kovu" Russell on August 4, 2005 08:25 PMalPACa!
Posted by: Beth on August 4, 2005 09:39 PMGood Luck! Go get those open source hippies ;)
Posted by: Joël Kuiper on August 5, 2005 01:30 AMAsa,
I feel that your work will end up harming GNU/Linux and more importantly, the Free Software movement since you appear to be hell-bent on achieving the following:
1. Improving "Linux" marketshare at any cost.
2. Avoiding the issues of freedom as it relates to software.
3. Reducing the number of options and choices that users of GNU/Linux enjoy in order to streamline the adoption of this platform by mainstream users.
I am offended and outraged that someone with such a pointless agenda is given so much time to babble publicly and urge you to take a step back in order to investigate why GNU/Linux is important and why the issues of freedom need to be provided as incentive for people to embrace rather than "cool and simple features".
I don't have time right now to list everything but would make myself available for discussion if you're interested.
Best,
Adam Kosmin
The issue of freedom as it relates to software is of critical importance. I agree with Adam on this. Unfortunately, the pro-business crowd tends be a little apprehensive any time the issue of liberty comes up, unless it's the liberty to do business that is being discussed.
I find this strange, because as I see it, business will thrive in an environment where as many people as possible enjoy as great a personal liberty as possible.
Being able to inspect, modify and redistribute modified software is an awesome liberty that should not be dismissed or lightly glossed over.
--Leo
Thanks for your comments, Adam Kosmin
Posted by: Larry Page on August 5, 2005 11:47 AMAdam and Leo,
For simplicity sake, lets assume that what Asa has really been attempting to communicate is that by learning from the things that have made Firefox a “mass-market” success and applying them to GNU/Linux, we can grow the visibility and 3rd party support for the product.
I am not going to address whether increasing mass-market adoption is a “good thing”. Isn’t that kind of the point of open source software – if some people want to take the bits and figure out how to distribute them to a wider audience, more power to them I say. Those that don’t like it can do what they want with the code, right?
What I am really failing to see how the issues of options, choices and software freedom are negatively affected by this “mass-market” success.
Firefox is still open source, there are still plenty of people doing their own custom builds and making them available. One can easily pull the code at any time, whether it is the Gecko core or the whole package and do with it what they want. It seems to me all the options, choices, and software freedom is just as available as it was before.
From my standpoint, I think Firefox will grow to be a better product b/c of it’s success, but I don’t think that’s the issue, the issue is how has choice or freedom been compromised?
Is there an underlying concern with Mozilla going more “corporate”. I would guess many of us have that question in the back of our minds, but let’s face it, these are uncharted waters. An open source product with highly visible, large “Regular People” appeal is new territory for everyone, I don’t think any of us have all the answers or vision to see what the end of the journey looks like!
"For simplicity sake, lets assume that what Asa has really been attempting to communicate is that by learning from the things that have made Firefox a “mass-market” success and applying them to GNU/Linux, we can grow the visibility and 3rd party support for the product."
Is Firefox a "mass-market" success? By what criteria? Even if it is, so what? Does that make it an overall success? If so, I guess we'd be correct in describing Windows as a success.
My point is, Asa and I are CLEARLY out to achieve very different things. As a member and supporter of the Free Software community, I am interested in the idea of using my computer in freedom. I have learned that in order to do that, I will need to help others learn how to learn their computers in freedom since if they do not, they would only serve to help shape and grow the very monoculture that would deny me these freedoms.
Trying to get people to convert to GNU/Linux without discussing the issue of software freedom is unethical and short-sighted. It would be like issuing citizenship to foreigners without asking them to learn and understand our culture and history. Of course, I'm not saying that they need to agree, but they should have access to the information.
"What I am really failing to see how the issues of options, choices and software freedom are negatively affected by this “mass-market” success."
It's simple. The "market" that is being created is no better off from the perspective of values and knowledge. This Open Source propaganda machine is selling better security, enhanced functionality, and lower cost. As a result, people are creating the following bullet list of items that need to be provided in order for them to consider a particular piece of software
[] Improved Functionality
[] More Secure
[] Little or No Cost
Well guess what boys and girls? Thanks to the Open Source agenda, our new users of the GNU/Linux platform will have no problem using Microsoft's next version of ActiveFoo 2006 because Microsoft will be able to meet each and every criteria. Don't believe me? Here's how it goes:
Improved Functionality - No problem here. Microsoft has enough cash at hand and a large enough pool of talent to produce this.
More Secure - Completely relative. As long as Microsoft is able to CONVINCE users that the software is more secure, this bullet point is covered.
Little or No Cost - Easy, just bundle.
Now, if we had been doing our job correctly and spent our time discussing the issues of software freedom, our new allies would have a better chance at resisting the marketing power of these proprietary companies. They would understand that Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple could never provide them with the ability to study, enhance, redistribute, and use the software for any purpose.
The truth is, the kind of language used by people like Asa does not create allies. It creates a dangerous illusion of alliance. If Asa had his way, everyone in the world would be using Open Source software and yet, noone would know what freedoms 0 through 3 meant. Ironic to say the least.
Adam Kosmin
The average user doesn't care about "freedom" - they care about what works. What Asa's recommending is ways to make Linux "just work" for the average Windows user who hasn't ever known anything different and lacks the technical expertise to even program their VCR.
What scares me is the seeming sense of arrogance from some Linux users that their OS is above the average man and they see no reason to try and make it more usable for the masses (yet they'll continue to whine about how much better Linux is and use such intelligent terms like Winblows and Micro$oft). The vast majority of people have little desire to try something that's "better" if they have to learn something new. I just discovered that recently myself with someone who switched to GMail after using Yahoo for over 5 years.
Posted by: Ryan VanderMeulen on August 5, 2005 02:53 PMI frankly don't think it's too important whether I have too much "Freedom" in the GNU sense, because this is mainly the ability to change programs as I see fit, and the ability to install the software that I want. This means that I have greater control over my computer.
It wouldn't prevent me, however, from installing software that isn't "Free", such as the Sun JRE. The open source implementations of Java aren't as good as Sun's (IMO), and so for me it fits best to have it installed.
So what?
Linux experts who don't want a "desktop OS" can easily switch to a Distro that isn't Ubuntu/Red Hat/whatever to a distro that caters to their needs. Just because there is now Freedom and Choice for those who want a desktop OS, who is anyone to tell them that that Choice is wrong?
"- the kind of language used by people like Asa does not create allies -"
The kind of language used by people like Asa discusses how the desktop OS might better cater to its target group - the group that chooses not to enter the realm of extreme Choice, but still wanting to enjoy the other benefits of Open Source.
PS: Asa, it's tutorial, not tuturial. ;-)
Posted by: Foxtrot on August 5, 2005 04:47 PMRyan,
Exactly what I am supposed to learn from your response that I have already covered? It appears to me that you are one of the victims of the Open Source retoric and have no understanding of why this platform is so vital. Noone, especially me, is saying that usability is not a good thing to strive for. What I've explained in very clear language is that nothing is more important than the freedoms and protections provided by FSF approved licenses.
The difference between people like Asa and I is that he would see news of converting 50,000 people to GNU/Linux as a victory regardless of the motivation that inspired the switch. It only matters if people are adopting it for the right reason. If we're not explaining the benefit of freedom, they're not hearing the message and they commit to nothing. Today they'll switch to GNU/Linux and tomorrow they'll switch to Longhorn.
What's really scary is watching you point a finger toward the "arrogant" GNU/Linux user right after you get done painting a picture of an "average" computer user who is too stupid to program their VCR. Stop spreading this kind of FUD. I am an average computer user and so are you. If I can understand this issue, anyone can. Whether or not some of us care to admit it, this has always been, and will always be, a question of ethics and values. Some of us actually understand what is at stake here and will continue to fight for your freedoms while you stand on the sidelines tinkering with Firefox on your Windoze machine.
Adam Kosmin
Posted by: Adam Kosmin on August 5, 2005 05:35 PM"have" should be "haven't" in the first sentence.
Posted by: Adam Kosmin on August 5, 2005 05:37 PM"The average user doesn't care about "freedom" - they care about what works. What Asa's recommending is ways to make Linux "just work" for the average Windows user who hasn't ever known anything different and lacks the technical expertise to even program their VCR."
I agree. Bare with me, as for MS's view, people over at microsoft have literally called Richard Stallman paranoid, and a rambler. Here's a few choice quotes from Microsoft's Charles Torré
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=38567#38567
"I won't waste their time with the paranoid ramblings of Stallman"
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=38039#38039
"Stallman has reached a new level of paranoia"
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=38024#38024
"it's the same old song and dance from Mr. Stallman. With all due respect, the ideas presented in the document Beer28 pointed us to are, in my assessment, generated by an unusally paranoid mind"
I've read other MS people rag on Stallman FOSS and FSF on other boards. Here he was mainly responding to RMS's paper on trusted computing, but in general, I find that Microsoft thinks very little of FSF, anti-patent movements, and the whole GPL thing.
They even go as far as to call GPL a virus and "a cancer"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,958031,00.html
"Steve Ballmer (himself an intriguing case of hypermania) denounced Linux's licensing system as 'a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches'."
Mozilla is GPL too, so Firefox is no less of a cancer to Mr. Steve Ballmer apparently. Maybe he'll lay the smack down on Mozilla/GoogleFox when he gets done yelling "developers"???
I dunno.
OK, that was an entertaining look Microsoft's general view. As for normal people and GPL/FOSS, and anti-patenting.
I find that most of them don't care. They just want a system or machine that will do what they want with the least resistance, and they want it to look cool. I feel Novell has made great strides in providing this. They are funding XGL, gnome, they have Robert Love, Miguel de Icaza, they have the whole mono project.
They are doing the most right now to push linux into the future.
I think SuSE93 is good for newbies right now. I would still like to see it have compositing on by default in xorg.conf when you install the NVidia or ATI drivers, but I guess you can't have everything.
I think that Asa has not started to see some of the grand improvements going on right now to linux. The clipboard support and menu editing support in Gnome 2.12, the integrated xcompositing in the newer gnome builds. nrpms.net has one for FC4, but it sucks right now.
He mentioned seeing Zen, but I and alot of other users have been aware/using zen for months now. I think Asa may be a little behind on what's actually happening on the platform.
actually, I got zen mucked up with xen, I've been using xen for months.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/
It's standard on SuSE93 in YaST. I dunno if he meant xen or zen the live cd.
At any rate, who cares.
Maybe Somebody should force Microsoft to bring Back Microsoft "Bob", for all the newbie users that can't figure out outlook and office.
Had Microsoft "Bob" been a big hit, ease of use for zero day computer users fresh out of the Sahara would be up 10,000%
Posted by: Beer on August 5, 2005 09:27 PMLinux was created to be open, and that means open to commercial firms as well as long as they are willing to abide by the open license. Linux does not belong only to the geeks who read this blog, it belongs to everyone, and that includes Asa.
Posted by: James "Kovu" Russell on August 6, 2005 07:42 AMI am frankly shocked and discusted at the sheer rudeness and arrogance of Adam Kosmin. You are dicatating and that is not constructive to any debate, or welcomed. Asa has simply written a few articles on how he feels Linux could be used by many more people, benefits both for those people, and Linux. What on earth is wrong with that?
Do you have an alterior motive of making Linux the most hard to use Operating System, so the few people like you can go on whining about how much better Linux is than Windows, but how average users should not be using it?
You go on about software freedom, again as Darin points out, the average computer consumer is not bothered about this. What about human freedom Adam? People should be allowed to easily install and use a new Operating System, just as they can with software. If your saying you don't think the same, then that's your opinion, but its an arrogant dicating one, you don't own Linux, do who are you to dicate what Linux should do, or how people get and use Linux?
Linux has many distro's for many people. They come in novice to advanced kinds, and the basic level of your whining is that I don't want the novice distro's of Linux to succeed in winning over Windows users, because Linux is different to Windows. For christ sake, the point of software/OS is to serve the user. Who are you to say otherwise, it's not a damn religion. Sensible points have been made as to how certain aspects of Linux and some of it's distro's can be more novice user friendly, particularly for those coming from Windows. Windows is obviously the most widely used therefore understood OS, to try and be a million miles from that just to look different, would immediately mean no people consider moving from Windows to Linux, and that is not wanted.
Stop being so damn rude to Asa, other people, and ranting on about your arrogant views of what Linux is, and what it should or shouldnt do. It's OPEN source remember.
Posted by: Kris Silver on August 6, 2005 09:45 AMKris,
Wake up and pull your head out of the sand. As I've already stated very clearly, I have no objection to making GNU/Linux easier to use. Stop trying to confuse the important issues I've raised and replace them with trivial fluff.
So you think it is ethical to sweep the issues of freedom under the rug when talking about this platform just because most people don't care? Uh... that's how we ended up here in the first place. Over the last 2 decades, our market has been built on this notion and as a result, most of the population is running a broken operating system called Windows on their personal computers. As long as I have anything to say about it, I will not stand by and watch us make the same mistake with GNU/Linux. Now more than ever, we need to discuss these issues and stop spreading the "average users don't care" FUD like you've done in your comment. Personally, I'm so tired of listening to Open Source people bash computer users by repeatedly suggesting that they are either stupid, lazy, and/or apethetic.
Why are you so offended by my convictions? Is it because you yourself don't care about these freedoms? If that's the case, speak for yourself and just admit that you don't care about these issues and you don't care about being a good neighbor in this Internet society.
Oh and one more thing, GNU/Linux is not (despite the power of the Open Source marketing machine) Open Source. It is, and always has been, Free Software. Please take a moment to investigate the differences that exist between the two movements.
Back on topic....
I will attempt to ignore the ignorance I see on this blog and reach out to those of you who have the awareness and intelligence to grasp what I am offering. While it is important to make strides in areas like functionality, ease of use, and security, these are NOT valid reasons to give people in order to sell them on this platform. Granted, in most cases these reasons would serve as the easiest approach since it does not require the listener to "take a stand". The problem with the approach is that you're selling the icing without the cake. The only reason GNU/Linux has functionality, ease of use, and security, is because of the freedoms that are granted and protected via the GPL license.
It is these freedoms that must be communicated, marketed, and protected. That is the only valid way to build a real community. Anything else is nothing more than a cheap illusion of success that will not stand the test of time.
Now back to the Open Source guys...
This is really a very simple message. If you're going to reply with useless bashing, please don't. We, the supporters of the Free Software movement have heard every possible twist of the Open Source community's diluted message and it would be foolish of you to think that you're going to add some unique perspective. You'd be better off reading the works of RMS or Lessig.
All the best,
Adam Kosmin
Posted by: Adam Kosmin on August 6, 2005 01:08 PM"Now more than ever, we need to discuss these issues and stop spreading the "average users don't care" FUD like you've done in your comment."
Go out and talk to average users, they really don't care. They just want to log on and check out the hot babes on myspace and play some games. They don't give a darn about RMS, Perens, or any of the other ideas behind the free software foundation.
Alot of people like linux because of how it looks and works and not because of the ideals behind the GPL license that governs the kernel.
GPL is fine for some, it's not fine for others, and Linux is an all inclusive platform. If you link dynamically to an LGPL library like GTK+ or GTKmm does your app have to be open source? Of course not, it can be binary only, just like nero linux, just like loki games, and just like every app you can now make with Real Basic Linux from realbasic.com
If you like free software, and I know I do, and you want to develop it, then stick to your guns and do it, but don't force other people that like to develop on linux to pick up and do what you want them to. You don't own linux, and niether does RMS. Linus Torvalds is just about the only person on earth that could lay a claim to linux, and he's already stated he's not too crazy about "GNU/Linux" or other stuff related to FSF. He started linux as a learning platform, and from what I read in his book, he's rather pleased with where it's ended up.
I say live and let live. If Asa wants to incorporate and take major google.com bling to try to make a Mozilla Corp./Google.com linux, then so be it. Make it better than windows I say. DO IT.
I just want to see Asa and Mozilla put their google money where their mouth is. Put up or shut up type deal with all due respect.
Posted by: Beer on August 6, 2005 03:32 PMAdam, your response really does a fine job on itself showing what utter cynical arrogance you have on this matter, lashing out at people as if you own Linux. You've backed yourself into such a corner of negative whining and attacking at Asa and others, that it's not even clear what your on about - it's merely negative, pessimistic, whining.
You've laid into Asa on this, so if your gona give it, expect to get it back, especially when you done so, so damn rudely. Clearly you think your exempt from this, because Asa is wrong, your right, thats it black and white, and that my friend, is arrogance.
It really as amusing how to describe people, me, Asa, others here, and average users. It just shows serious prejudices, and assumptions of what people are, what works for them, what they think, you simply think you know exactly what Linux is and should be, what it should do, that Asa is the devil turning Linux into Windows or something, based on no actual words from Asa or anyones mouth, merely wild assumptions on your part, that your trying to sell off as facts.
If you have no problem with making some Linux distro's easier to use, then what the hell is your problem and reason for being so damn attacking as if someone has just said I want to buy Linux, and turn it into Windows. That's clearly not being suggested, or anything of the sort. The area's pointed out for improvement are logical ones, some area's in making an OS user friendly, of course involved making an OS user friendly for users coming from another OS, and that of course it most likely Windows. So what the hell is your problem, and why all the attitude?
"So you think it is ethical to sweep the issues of freedom under the rug when talking about this platform just because most people don't care?"
What are you on about, I said to you, freedom of people, because your attitude is one of I'm right, Asa's wrong, these posts are wrong, Linux is this, should be that, and thats that. Thats not allowing freedom, or accepting other peoples views. Your simply dismissive of anything that is not in-line with your wildly negative view on this area.
"Uh... that's how we ended up here in the first place. Over the last 2 decades, our market has been built on this notion and as a result, most of the population is running a broken operating system called Windows on their personal computers."
That says it all really. You clearly have serious hatred for Windows, to say something as ridiclous as, everyone has a broken OS - Windows. How ridiculous, Windows is far from broken, it clearly works for most of the world, most users happy with it (perhaps some could be happier with Linux) and thats that. This quote is very telling of your wildly arrogant stance and view Adam.
Posted by: Kris Silver on August 7, 2005 09:46 AMDarin,
I do not disagree with you per se. What I notice though, is that often the issue of freedom is brushed aside as a kind of "impolite" thing to mention. It is almost as if a person is farting during a conversation when they mention it, especially when addressing the wider audience. I think that's very unfortunate.
Why should liberty-loving people be ashamed that software liberties are important? Why should they be labeled as "idealists", when software liberty is pragmatic and has nothing to do with idealism? While I can appreciate that at times RMS and GNU/FSF may sound a little strident, their message, ultimately, is lucid and pragmatic. Software liberty is pragmatic not because it results in better software! It is pragmatic because it fosters better morals in communities. Sharing is a virtue and software libre promotes sharing.
When software licensing prohibits sharing, it actually corrupts the moral fabric of our society and the damage this corrupting process causes is tangible.
When everyone in the community shares, the person feels surrounded by good will. Being surrounded by good will they feel no threat. Feeling no threat they do not worry about protecting anything. Having no worries about protecting anything the person relaxed. Being relaxed a person enjoys great wellbeing that cannot be measured in dollars or in technical excellence. And isn't this what life is about? How is this not pragmatic? How is being relaxed and at ease the domain of an idealist? Have we become so dull that now only a romantic idealist can be expected to be relaxed?
I believe that people should not think of the libre issues as a kind of ugly idiot cousin that is locked up in the basement, not to be shown to strangers at dinner time.
Mass market acceptance is a great thing! I am all for it. But it should never, ever, ever come at the cost of muffling or smothering the message of software liberty. I feel it's wrong to brush this issue aside when discussing the quality of free software widgets (user interfaces, etc.).