> 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
(text/plain)