billdotson
September 1st, 2009, 01:06 PM
I was reading a fair amount of (mostly old) articles yesterday about lots of things Linux related. It all started when I was trying to find a Linux distribution that allowed easy access for me to buy commercial applications, codecs, etc. so that if I wanted to recommend GNU/Linux to someone that wasn't comfortable with the codec situation I could say "get x, you can legally purchase the codecs."
Of course, I found Xandros, Linspire and Freespire. After a little digging I found out that with Freespire (unless Xandros is dismantling it and it's CNR package manager) you have a fully free operating system. You also have the CNR plugin which can allow you to purchase codecs, programs (like Cedega) or get commercial (non-free) hardware drivers.
It sounded good, but then I read about the Microsoft Novell racketeering thing. Not only did Microsoft demand Novell give them money or they and their users would be sued but they did this to Xandros as well. As you can imagine, I refuse to get a Linux OS where I have to pay a $50 Microsoft fine for something they do not own even if it is setup in a way to make things easier for the home desktop user. They won't publicly say the patents that are involved for who knows what reason.
I don't know much about the TomTom case but I think those type of things are actually good for the Linux kernel. If companies keep making products built on the Linux kernel and get sued then the Linux community will just say "ok, you think that infringes on your patent, fine. Here is code that does the same thing that doesn't. Problem solved." Open source doesn't want or need Microsoft code. In fact, it is probably preferred that they would tell us what is an "infringement" just so it could be patched and they would have to STFU. The nonsense about the FAT "infringement" in the TomTam case was fixed very quickly.
(I may be out of the loop and this might have already been done). This may sound like the act of a traitor, but wouldn't it be easier for the open source world if Solaris were released under the GPL v3 (it might be already)? The GNU part of the GNU/Linux OS could be moved to work on top of the Solaris kernel and then there wouldn't be any disputes about who would own the kernel. Sun Microsystems owns the Solaris kernel indisputably (unless something happened) and if they released it under the GPL it would be a lot harder for MS to spew any nonsense about patent infringements. Then, (Sun or Oracle, whoever owns who) OpenSolaris would have a big backing from a major technology company in addition to the open source community.
Thoughts? Should we just code an entirely new kernel altogether and stick GNU on it? Should Google make its own kernel? Or is Linux progressing into the business and home desktop world just fine? In my opinion the only real way to push anything Linux into the main user space (currently) is to have a system that is free by default but a system in which they have easy access to patented codecs, etc. through indisputably legal channels. Until enough things can be replaced with open source open source users still have to rely on some proprietary technologies. We should just get youtube to switch to an open version of flash and rid the web on anything MPAA, windows media or quicktime and many problems would be fixed.
Also, what effect do you think Google has on open source? Are they the big brother watching out for open source or are they only promoting it when it is convenient?
Of course, I found Xandros, Linspire and Freespire. After a little digging I found out that with Freespire (unless Xandros is dismantling it and it's CNR package manager) you have a fully free operating system. You also have the CNR plugin which can allow you to purchase codecs, programs (like Cedega) or get commercial (non-free) hardware drivers.
It sounded good, but then I read about the Microsoft Novell racketeering thing. Not only did Microsoft demand Novell give them money or they and their users would be sued but they did this to Xandros as well. As you can imagine, I refuse to get a Linux OS where I have to pay a $50 Microsoft fine for something they do not own even if it is setup in a way to make things easier for the home desktop user. They won't publicly say the patents that are involved for who knows what reason.
I don't know much about the TomTom case but I think those type of things are actually good for the Linux kernel. If companies keep making products built on the Linux kernel and get sued then the Linux community will just say "ok, you think that infringes on your patent, fine. Here is code that does the same thing that doesn't. Problem solved." Open source doesn't want or need Microsoft code. In fact, it is probably preferred that they would tell us what is an "infringement" just so it could be patched and they would have to STFU. The nonsense about the FAT "infringement" in the TomTam case was fixed very quickly.
(I may be out of the loop and this might have already been done). This may sound like the act of a traitor, but wouldn't it be easier for the open source world if Solaris were released under the GPL v3 (it might be already)? The GNU part of the GNU/Linux OS could be moved to work on top of the Solaris kernel and then there wouldn't be any disputes about who would own the kernel. Sun Microsystems owns the Solaris kernel indisputably (unless something happened) and if they released it under the GPL it would be a lot harder for MS to spew any nonsense about patent infringements. Then, (Sun or Oracle, whoever owns who) OpenSolaris would have a big backing from a major technology company in addition to the open source community.
Thoughts? Should we just code an entirely new kernel altogether and stick GNU on it? Should Google make its own kernel? Or is Linux progressing into the business and home desktop world just fine? In my opinion the only real way to push anything Linux into the main user space (currently) is to have a system that is free by default but a system in which they have easy access to patented codecs, etc. through indisputably legal channels. Until enough things can be replaced with open source open source users still have to rely on some proprietary technologies. We should just get youtube to switch to an open version of flash and rid the web on anything MPAA, windows media or quicktime and many problems would be fixed.
Also, what effect do you think Google has on open source? Are they the big brother watching out for open source or are they only promoting it when it is convenient?