> How does using free software and encouraging others to do the same infringe
> on anyone's freedom?

I have said nothing about that, I just don't think it's fair to try to force 
people into opening their code. My only position is that Google Chrome OS 
doesn't force closed or open development, and will itself be entirely open 
source.

> Correct.  And, optionally, encourage others to do the same.

Sure.

> That's fine.  Others seek a better future by encouraging more free
> software. Why is that bad?  Now, anything can be taken to an extreme, and
> fanatics are not suffered well; but most free software advocates I know are
> not religious about it.

I didn't say that was bad, I just think it's unrealistic. I am very much a 
free software advocate, I just think that companies and developers also have 
the right to choose other license terms. I already said if there is an equal 
or better alternative that is open source, I'd choose that.

I also think that having everything moved to the web will make the situation 
better for everyone. People will be less dependent on their closed platforms, 
and developers have a wider market to develop for, so they will be more apt to 
actually participate in the open source movement - if only to improve the 
small segment that applies directly to ChromeOS.

Lets not forget also that most Linux companies make money from services and 
support. Red Hat currently in my opinion has the best cloud story around, so 
with all applications having to be hosted somewhere, it could potentially be 
very good for open source companies - which in turn will benefit the entire 
stack. Developers need to eat and they all have bills, this will make it 
possible potentially for more resources to be available to contributors of 
open source across the map.

> Of course, but it is wise to do what one can.  Using software whose source
> is available for inspection by you and others is a step in the right
> direction.

As I stated, is it really? Unless it's a pretty small tool, it is simply 
impossible to do a reasonable audit of the code.

Anyway, there are a lot of open source libs licensed under the LGPL so that 
proprietary developers can benefit from it. There are even more licensed under 
terms such as the BSD license, which dictates even less future development 
within the community.

I think what Google is doing really is exactly that, they are providing what 
they control under an open source license, but not forcing anyone to 
contribute their projects under the same license. To me, that provides 
developers with freedom.

> Yes, but don't accept them at face value.  Privacy != security.

I think that was implied by my original statement.

> Yes.  The challenge is deciding what is realistic.

For me, what is realistic is to advocate and base your decision making on free 
software ideals where it best fits. What is realistic is that normal users 
NEED software that comes from companies that will never open their code to the 
public. What is realistic is that without the programs users are used to, 
Linux will never gain any real traction.

> We'll see if google provides "open sourced web services".  It seems to me
> that their critical web services are proprietary, closed source.  That is
> their choice, of course; that's the way they make money.

They open source plenty in my opinion, and the rest is entirely standards 
compliant. Many of their important offering these days are opened though, 
things like their AppEngine and others directly related to what will likely 
constitute ChromeOS.

Look at Ubuntu as an example of how much people really care about certain 
things being opened. It is by far the most popular distro around right now, it 
is touted all over the web as the best Linux distro around. Their entire 
infrastructure basically is closed. They have tentative plans to open up more 
of Launchpad, but haven't yet. These are pretty huge parts of what makes 
Ubuntu work, and everyone seems to happily ignore it.

At least Google will be contributing more to the open source movement, and 
finally give it a chance to reach critical mass. Ubuntu just takes everyone 
elses work, adds some basic tools that in some cases have been boasted as 
taking less than a day to develop, and slapped on a new theme. I'm sick of 
Linux trying to emulate what is already on offer elsewhere. ChromeOS promises 
to give us a compelling story outside of "it's just like Windows, except it's 
free... but most of your favorite apps won't run, sorry"...

Linux wins of the server already, but if ChromeOS delivers on the potential it 
promises, it might actually finally be the "year of the Linux desktop". That 
is exciting if you ask me.

> Like many sentences beginning with all, this is false.  I'll agree that
> most software, open or proprietary, emulates things found in other
> software. For example, Internet Explorer has "emulated" mozilla, netscape
> navigator, and Firefox, among other browsers.

For a normal user, there isn't much difference, and that is by design.

> All software has the *potential* to innovate.  Whether ChromeOS will do so
> is yet to be seen.  I hope so, but see no reason to expect it.

I think, just on the ideas alone, it is innovative. Not being tied to prior 
methodologies will also help with innovation in my opinion.

> I hope that's how it works out.

It's the only way it really can work out, if it's successful.
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss