Completely Open Source Computing System

[xelapond]

I don't really like the term open source, I think free(as in freedom) better represents what we stand for. Anyway, what do you guys think about a completely free(as in freedom) computer system. I don't mean just the software, but also the hardware. Everything from Boot ROM, to Graphics Chipset, all the way through the operating system. Not containing one piece of proprietary software or hardware. All code, schematics and specs fully available to anyone that wants one.

What would you guys think of that?

There is a poll over here, because I forget to include it:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=706444

[xelapond]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=706437

I forgot to put the poll on it, so here it is.

[fatality_uk]

I don't really like the term open source, I think free(as in freedom) better represents what we stand for. Anyway, what do you guys think about a completely free(as in freedom) computer system. I don't mean just the software, but also the hardware. Everything from Boot ROM, to Graphics Chipset, all the way through the operating system. Not containing one piece of proprietary software or hardware. All code, schematics and specs fully available to anyone that wants one.

What would you guys think of that?

Quite frankly it would be a pain in the ****. I could also go out and purchase all the parts and materials need to make a car every 4 years. But I don't. Not because I am lazy, I had to rebuild an Alfa 75 pretty much from scratch a few years back, but because I want hardware that has been tested and will perform in a way that I want it to. If I build my own gfx card, I doubt I could ever produce something anywhere near my GF 7900GT

[Donshyoku]

I think it would be a great market... it would iron out hardware/software issues quickly, cheaply, and efficiently, but, from many companies' perspectives, it makes them one of many instead of some sort of super-exclusive production team.

We are starting to see that movement, but it will take a while to pick up steam. LinuxBIOS has created an open source BIOS chipset, but I only know of one Abit (I think it was them) that have utilized it since its release a year ago.

Intel is working, very tight-lipped that is, on a PEG graphics card. It will use open source drivers, they will publish specifications without an NDA, and they will support the X.Org team as they have with their current integrated solutions. But this too has been under work for nearly two years and little information is still available.

I think Intel will be a great pioneer in this field as they are very dedicated as a company at helping open source communities and developers and have a good track record for not reinventing the wheel to often (the i810 driver is an excellent example of this). The problem with Intel, however, is that they have been very slow to support open firmware. This hasn't caused too much ruckus, but if you want a completely open system, firmware is a part of that puzzle that is really moving at the slowest pace of all.

[LaRoza]

Threads merged.

[leg]

I am actually the opposite and prefer the term open source. Simply because when people want support contracts etc they become confused that they have to pay for them.

[Donshyoku]

Quite frankly it would be a pain in the ****. I could also go out and purchase all the parts and materials need to make a car every 4 years. But I don't. Not because I am lazy, I had to rebuild an Alfa 75 pretty much from scratch a few years back, but because I want hardware that has been tested and will perform in a way that I want it to. If I build my own gfx card, I doubt I could ever produce something anywhere near my GF 7900GT

It would be a pain to engineer the parts, but I was thinking of the question differently... and maybe I am mistaken here. I was thinking of the Intel graphics solution... it is alread there, the drivers are there, and the community is there to support it. Take Ubuntu for example, it utilizes a great bit of open source, free code but that doesn't mean that I have to develop it myself... I just graciously use others' created code and implement it into my system.

Gobuntu is attempting to do this, but hardware support is limited. Like I mentioned in my first post, when we see more companies using Linux BIOS, open source drivers and firmware, the software (and Gobuntu as an OS) will fit right in. However, we just need now to convince the companies (and how can they deny Intel's widely successful business model!) that this is a good way to develop future hardware.

[xelapond]

I don't want this to get into a discussion about free vs open source, but. My idea is teat open source, yes, you can have the source. That does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. Free(as is freedom) means you get the source, and have the right to do whatever you want with it. Thats just how I look at it. We really shouldn't be arguing though, because they are both infinitely better then proprietary:)

[xelapond]

Very well said, Donshyoku. That is exactly what I mean. There are already a lot of open source(free) things out there. We would be utilizing a lot of already free and open stuff. LinuxBIOS(Now called coreBoot I believe) is a perfect example of this.

[justin whitaker]

I don't want this to get into a discussion about free vs open source, but. My idea is teat open source, yes, you can have the source. That does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. Free(as is freedom) means you get the source, and have the right to do whatever you want with it. Thats just how I look at it. We really shouldn't be arguing though, because they are both infinitely better then proprietary:)

Well, the GPL supports four freedoms, right? You are really only talking about one of them: access to the source.

[regomodo]

I wonder how GNU/Hurd is coming along

[mrsteveman1]

The problem with the "Free" (as in freedom) definition of open soure comes from the fact that lots of things are still done for financial purposes.

Say your company wants to release a new application for Linux, the GPL doesn't restrict the company from developing software and selling it to users, it only mandates that the source be given to those users. However, those users who now have the source, have the right to compile it and give it away to anyone. It makes it hard for a company to GPL software they want to sell to users, and if they can't sell software to users they must find another way to support development.

The GPL is a great tool but it can't work everywhere, some things still need to be supported by money directly.

[k2t0f12d]

In the legal sense, open source licensing and free software licensing guarantee exactly the same thing. The open source definition contains ten stipulations to free software's four freedoms. The extra stipulations in open source do not make it any more a restrictive license definition, since, the extra stipulations of open source are implicit in the four freedoms of free software.

Socially, the two movements have different values and different means to an end. In the connotations of its name, open source abandons the importance of representing the values of freedom and user's rights, even though the license terms and definitions are not meaningfully different from free software. The name open source implies that value resides in access to the source, not in the user's rights to study, modify, and redistribute. In the English language alone, free software suffers from confusion between the ideas of gratis and freedom, which is why the statement free as freedom, not free as in beer is endemic to the movement. Open source is free software, stripped of the discussion of freedom and user's rights in order to endear it to those with power and money who would otherwise find the idea of user's having rights unappealing.

Having free software and free hardware does not mean that a user would have to assemble all of his devices piecemeal, even though it probably does mean the user could do so in a much more meaningful way, if she wished, then without any freedoms at all. We can observe in the the behavior of free software that the addition of rights and freedoms in the licensing tends to cause greater coherence in its distribution. The closest analogy in proprietary software is the addition of bloatware programs that a developer pays a vendor to include with the sale of hardware, a practice very annoying to the user. Otherwise proprietary software developers are vertically integrated corporate interests with very little if any incentive to cooperate with one another in the market while competing against each other.

Free software exhibits the tendency and ability to collect the most useful software and distribute it all at once in the most convenient way for the user. We are also now seeing some hardware vendors packaging it with the sale of hardware, offering even more convenience for the user. If hardware were free in the same way that software was free, would it not also stand to reason that its distribution would enjoy a similar phenomenon?

[phrostbyte]

The problem is that open hardware doesn't work as well as open software, and offers much less advantages. Despite the learning curve of programming it is nothing like the "learning curve" of hardware design from schematics. Also developing hardware currently requires capital (a fab plant, robots, etc.), while software can be created with zero capital (at least compared to being a user of said software), a serious advantage.

Open hardware will become a reality once nanotechnology kicks off. Imagine downloading a schematic over BitTorrent, then uploading the schematic to your nanogenerator, and it goes ahead and builds the said product automatically.

[k2t0f12d]

Without the incentive of the technological advance of software, there is no value in the proprietary development model for the user. As free software systems gain greater visibility, the contrast in the speed with which it develops and improves when compared against the proprietary model is disturbingly clear. In many cases we can find examples where free software is not lacking any development, simply lacking in permissions from those sheltering ideas behind illegitimate power supplied by the patent system and other forms of social and legal pressure.

The social problem is in the lack of limitations on what the developer may or may not apply to the terms of the use of the software. The result of the social problem is that users are kept divided and helpless. They may neither help one another without someone else's permission nor participate meaningfully in the development of the software without someone else's permission. The legal problem is the inability for the free software developers to use an idea in their program without the fear of retribution from a patent holder. The result of the legal problem is a bottleneck in the improvements of software where freedom is lacking. Either the changes that would benefit the user come from those who have claimed authority over an idea, or they do not come at all, and the public has no recourse.

The problem is not that the terms of the GPL prohibit a stream of cash from the user to the developer. The user does not pay for development, they pay for someone to make them a copy that they are allowed to use. In a society where it is easy to make functioning copies of a thing that provides value, there is no longer any need to supply just one authority with the right to distribute copies. The result is that users for whom software provides value will pay to ensure that that software works as well as possible for their purposes. There ceases to be a limitation on who may or may not be employed to supply the service of ensuring that the software works as well as possible. Free software capitalism has created development houses that employ programmers to create value in a type of software rather then a brand of software. This is already evident in the free operating system, where you find that there are companies that participate and fund the creation of value in the same software that is traded and improved by the users. In contrast to the Microsoft monopoly, there is no single developer or distributor of GNU/Linux. The system would have much less, if any, value if it were controlled by just one authority.

[zerhacke]

It''s almost impossible to utilize only free software and have a functional computer. Take for example flash, almost everyone who uses Ubuntu eventually installs flash so they can see youtube videos or what have you. Flash isn't open source.

Given that, hardware too is going to be too much a challenge. Maybe in 20 years.

[k2t0f12d]

There is also not as much danger to the advance in the techology of hardware. From inception to state-of-the-art, it can easily be demonstrated that nearly any hardware component has increased exponentially in value. Since the introduction of the proprietary software development model, each software in its field that gained visibility first almost invariably dominated its market, or was excluded by Microsoft and became free software (e.g. Netscape --> Mozilla --> Firefox). Distributing hardware designs in the same manner as free software would be great, but not as urgently necessary for progress as the freedoms of free software.

Software has improved, but not very much, and certainly not as rapidly or on the same scale as hardware. That is because there exists a real and practical ability to reverse engineer physical devices. Without specs it is infinitely easier to reverse a hardware component then it is to be able to reverse a very mature program from disassembly without symbols. Either can be done, however, in the former case, someone with the time and passion could presumably create value and establish a business in hardware by reversing what already exists and improving on it. In the latter case, it is almost invariably easier, cheaper, and faster to write a program from scratch then it is to reverse what has already been done without source.

[xelapond]

@zerhacke: "We need to teach people to refuse to install non-free plug-ins; we need to teach people to care more about their long-term interest of freedom than their immediate desire to view a particular site." - Richard Stallman

This is even happening, the gnash player is a good replacement for Flash, and its free. I am compiling my own distro now, and its based on 100% free software.

I do not think this movement is going to happen any time soon, but it is inevitable. Things such as coreBoot, and many other open specs are beginning to show themselves. It will be a matter of time, but it will happen.

[louieb]

History show that someone will make a buck off of free stuff. IBM gave away the specifications for their XT PC. Soon there were 100's of clone makers. Some such as Compaq, and Dell became quite large. The competition drove prices down. Some PC makers such as Commodore when out of business. Almost killed Apple too.

Computers are like anything else the cheaper they are the more of them will be bought.

[phrostbyte]

It''s almost impossible to utilize only free software and have a functional computer. Take for example flash, almost everyone who uses Ubuntu eventually installs flash so they can see youtube videos or what have you. Flash isn't open source.

Given that, hardware too is going to be too much a challenge. Maybe in 20 years.

Flash isn't, but Gnash is. Gnash can play Youtube videos without much problem. In fact I think Gnash would have been much better then it is today if Adobe didn't release Flash 9 for Linux. But it is still progressing pretty well.

It's perfectly possible to have a complete FOSS system and not make extreme compromises. Just buy hardware that is usable with FOSS drivers (this in itself is much easier then it was just 2 years ago), use Gnash instead of Flash, and uh, I don't know what else you'd need. Besides Flash & binary drivers, most people's Ubuntu systems are FOSS based already.