Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What People Are Saying About GNOME [Part 1]

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    While I agree that it is the individual software projects and not the distros that deserve the most credit, you seem to misunderstand what a distro is. A distro is simply a collection of software and components bundled together for the convenience of its creators or a specific target group. Nothing is stopping you from making your own except the knowledge how to do so (which is fully available) or the will to put in the effort. If you do not like how your distro is going, you can just roll your own. It is not a loss of freedom to not have these things pre-built for you, it is not a freedom to force other people to make things easy for you.
    That's like someone saying, "Freedom? Pfff, you are free, just program your own software, you can program whatever you want!" Yeah, like your grandma can do that. You missed the point. The point is we shouldn't all be on totally isolated software islands by ourselves. We should be working together. That's how you get good software and good communities and spread real freedom. Isolating everyone onto their own island based on the rolled-together software bundles called distros that they happen to be using because their ability to share software among each other is limited is not working together and is not propelling a software ecosystem which provides freedom. In other to provide real freedom and choice, you need to all be working off of standards so that there can be direct competition and cooperation. Keeping Linux fragmented and not using standards is what the enemies of free software ecosystems want.

    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I have used plenty of older software on Linux, and have even built some from really ancient code. There is nothing stopping anyone with some technical knowledge from doing this (and being ignorant of the process does not mean your freedoms are abused) with older code or indeed any third-pary code the distro does not ship. Most users are "stuck" with their distro versions mostly because they have not put the effort in to roll their own (such as Slackware users have been doing for twenty years) or are simply willing choose the distro maintained versions out of convenience.
    So everyone who wants to use Linux or wants to see progress on the front of standards and interoperability to ensure that community operating systems are the best they can be needs to know how to compile? Fail. Computers have the ability to do a lot of work for everyone without extensive knowledge required by the user, which is the entire point of the computer: to do work for you so you don't have to. Calling me lazy is laughable just because I want more interoperability between distros by having a common program installation framework so that sharing both binaries and source packages becomes cake.

    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    Because they give you the freedom of doing that for yourself? Again, freedom does not mean the right to have other people do your work for you. If you want a complied binary for your platform, it is generally expected that you put the effort in. And in some cases, people have actually done it for you, such as in the case of the Trinity KDE desktop. And if you utilize these services (either distros or some other form of binary maintenance), you should be thankful to the people behind them doing this effort to make your lives easier, especially in the case of community volunteer projects. It is not your right to have the computer made easy for you.
    I don't want that effort, that actually hinders progress in solving the real problem. I want effort in making a unified packaging system like Zero Install so that that effort isn't needed. The effort to compile packages for the Linux ABI should be done ONCE by the developer for the different arch types, and that's it. No distro-specific packages should ever be needed.

    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    While I agree in principle that such a solution would be of benefit, and indeed there should be more standards in this regard, unless you go for the universal binary approach like Ryan Gordon suggested and bundle every single library needed with the application, I think you fail to realize just how complicated this would be. Programs with any sort of library dependence are complicated things, which is the main reason why we just let distributions handle all of this for us. It would be very difficult to get one install method for all distros, let alone for all desktop operating systems. The only way would be making the system so rigid that you could barley operate in it, and then were would our freedom be?
    You fail to realize how easy it is. Zero Install exists. It's not a figment of my imagination. I'm not saying all the problems are solved though, but there are always ways of solving the issue of programs co-existing with one another and users getting what they want in the simplest easiest ways possible. There are better solutions, and it doesn't involve making everyone use the exact same bundles of software. You just need standards, the framework. You sound like you've given up before even trying to think of the solutions for the problems you're thinking of, but let me assure you that better solutions, like Zero Install, do exist, they just need our help and the work of those who care about real software freedom and who don't want to be tied to any one distro in any way on any level. As I've said many times before, I know right now this problem doesn't exist for those who compile everything (other than the problem of their time being stolen from them if there is no real point to them compiling it themselves) but it is a problem for everyone else. I want free software to be as good as it can be which includes ease of use, and this problem is real, does exist, and needs to be overcome to make free operating systems more appealing. "Oh, I'm sorry, that package doesn't exist for your distro, you have to compile" isn't good enough for the average user.

    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    As long as a program is fully free software, there is no way they can take away this freedom from you anyway. It may require some effort from you, because no one is volunteering to maintain it, but as long as the complete source code is always available, you can always build it for yourself and indeed maintain that code yourself. But convenience is a privilege, not a right, and indeed can never be a right as the term itself is variable and a right must be applicable to everyone. So what you want is a system that is more convenient. But do not fool yourself into thinking you have the right to tell other people to make that happen for you. That is not a freedom.
    "Be HAPPY I even RELEASED IT FOR YOU TO COMPILE!" lol. Yes. Thanks for that. Now if we could get everyone releasing binaries that everyone could install regardless of distro, or regardless of OS even (Zero Install could in theory do this), that would be great. After all, even the developers need to compile code before they can run it. Making a standards-compliant package from that isn't hard and can be automated.

    Finally, I'm not "just telling everyone to do it for me", I'm informing everyone that this is a real problem and needs to be addressed. I'm informing everyone about Zero Install in order to support the ZI project and other remedies however they can.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
      That's like someone saying, "Freedom? Pfff, you are free, just program your own software, you can program whatever you want!" Yeah, like your grandma can do that. You missed the point. The point is we shouldn't all be on totally isolated software islands by ourselves. We should be working together. That's how you get good software and good communities and spread real freedom.
      It is not a freedom for things to be convenient, and frankly I find it reprehensible how the word "freedom" keeps getting mangled in common usage. Ease of use is a virtue, and not one I would argue with, but it is not a freedom and it certainly is not a right. Looking at a dictionary definition of freedom, we get "the power to determine action without restraint.". Free software is free because it gives us the power to determine how our software works, it can be reviewed, ported, mangled, modified, forked, dismantled, rebuilt, as you want. That is a freedom.

      Making an environment your grandma could use is once again laudable and may even be the right thing to do, but her freedom is not lessened if such a solution is not already in place. It is not her right to have other people make such an environment for her. The fact that people all over the world, many of them volunteers, are working on things to do just that in several different projects is a wonderful act and should be respected and rewarded. But no ones rights would be violated if tomorrow they all threw up their hands, gave up, and went home.

      Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
      Isolating everyone onto their own island based on the rolled-together software bundles called distros that they happen to be using because their ability to share software among each other is limited is not working together and is not propelling a software ecosystem which provides freedom. In other to provide real freedom and choice, you need to all be working off of standards so that there can be direct competition and cooperation. Keeping Linux fragmented and not using standards is what the enemies of free software ecosystems want.
      A software ecosystem that is free is one that grants "the power to determine action without restraint.". No system is going to be completely free, as in real life applications freedoms are restricted due to physical factors and the fact that in a fair society some freedoms must be given up to give a greater equality of rights and exchange to the whole (for example, no one should have the freedom to pursue the action of murder). When it comes to systems that encourage freedom, I say Linux as an ecosystem for the most part is doing okay, you can modify all of its key components and even most of its user level operations.

      The threats to freedom are not from Linux's divided nature, but from encroachment of propriety blocks or DRM tactics onto the system. If you believe that it is hurting Linux as a platform, you may have a point, if you say that it is limiting its growth, you may have a point. But it is not limiting anyone's freedom nor is it discouraging it. That is a completely different statement and that was the whole point of my previous post.

      Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
      So everyone who wants to use Linux or wants to see progress on the front of standards and interoperability to ensure that community operating systems are the best they can be needs to know how to compile? Fail. Computers have the ability to do a lot of work for everyone without extensive knowledge required by the user, which is the entire point of the computer: to do work for you so you don't have to. Calling me lazy is laughable just because I want more interoperability between distros by having a common program installation framework so that sharing both binaries and source packages becomes cake.
      I never said you were lazy, where did I ever use the word lazy? I said that having something to cater to other peoples conveniences is not an essential freedom, but I never said those who wished those conveniences existed were necessarily lazy. I just postulated that it was too much to ask to expect other people to make this happen for them.

      Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
      As I've said many times before, I know right now this problem doesn't exist for those who compile everything (other than the problem of their time being stolen from them if there is no real point to them compiling it themselves) but it is a problem for everyone else. I want free software to be as good as it can be which includes ease of use, and this problem is real, does exist, and needs to be overcome to make free operating systems more appealing. "Oh, I'm sorry, that package doesn't exist for your distro, you have to compile" isn't good enough for the average user.
      Wanting free software to be as good as it can be and wanting it to be free are two separate things which, while not mutually exclusive, are not the same thing. If you just came out saying that you wanted this to happen to make the system more appealing, I would never have responded to your post. But you were presuming it was a freedom and a right for free software to be appealing, and that is just not true or even rationally possible. If it is appealing, it is because a lot of hard effort was put into it by talented people. That is entirely separate from whether or not it is free or not. There are many proprietary offerings which are technically quite appealing which I avoid because I want to support software that does respect what freedoms I do have.

      As to the rest of your post, there is nothing there I feel would benefit from a response, as I can not really comment on it, besides saying that I am still not convinced by Zero Installs practicality, though I do concede my ignorance of its internals may be blinding me of it proper uses.
      Last edited by Hamish Wilson; 11-03-2011, 02:51 AM.

      Comment

      Working...
      X