I happen to appreciate GPL v3

 After a long discussion the new GNU General Public License was released. It would be safe to say that version 3 has met far more discussion than version 2. The Jem Report even claims that GPL 3 could be the end of GNU.

I've no doubt that this is the beginning of the end for GNU, and it will prove the strength of the larger free software world. The Free Software Foundation has dumped a load of restrictions on us with GPLv3 and told us that restrictions lead to freedom and that it is good for us. That's a little too Bush administration-like for me. In fact I fully expect someone, somewhere, to claim that I "hate freedom" for speaking out about this abysmal license -- that would make the irony complete. That a license as restrictive as the GPLv3 should be mostly written by and wholeheartedly supported by someone who speaks out against the Patriot Act puts it a step beyond irony, and into hypocrisy. Further mimicking Bush political rhetoric, Stallman even claimed recently that restrictive software licenses are evil. So does that make him an "evil doer" for promoting a license that attempts to restrict hardware, software, software licensing, and patent licensing choices that should remain in the hands of software developers, or does that make people who are against it "evil doers" and "freedom haters" for not supporting it? If we aren't with you, Richard, are we against you?

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols predicts an even worse fate for the GPL v3: to be ignored by most.

They need to work more on representing the needs of the majority of open source developers, not in following their own agenda and launching noisy pointless attacks on the iPhone.

This last statement kind of got my attention and I simply disagree with it. Why would the Free Software Foundation represent the needs of the open source developers? Maybe I am wrong but didn't GPL v2 pre-date the release of the Linux kernel and lot's and lot's of free and open source software? Isn't the GPL v2 not credited for setting down a vision of software development along the four freedoms?

When open source developers did and do not agree with the GPL v2 (or v3) they either designed or used other open source licenses. There are many different licenses from the very free MIT and BSD licenses to more limiting licenses, which could still be called open sources. Yet none of those licenses made a similar impact like that of the GPL. GPL never accomodated to the needs of the open source developers, it created the environment in which open source development could thrive.

GPL v2 is sixteen years old and it's vision has held up for all that time. In fact, the core principles have not changed. The Free Software Foundation felt it necessary to update the license to adress modern developments that -according to the FSF- threaten the fabric of the developement of free software.

One of those developments is called "tivoization"

One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software.

In my own terms, GPL v3 wants to prohibit you from using free software,  modify it, say you can use it anyway you like, but then locking it in a big vault without the keys. You can do anything you want with the software, but taking the keys is illegal.

Richard Stallman is not convinced by the argument that in a properly working market the amount of competition should be enough to offer the user the necessary choices and prevent the vaults from becoming too big.

Freedom means you control what your software does, not merely that you can beg or threaten someone else who decides for you.

The FSF wants the consumer, the user to control the software, not the market place. And I happen to agree with that. The market place has never been and will never be working in the way economic theory describes it. There are always factors that prohibit free competition like import/export legislations, trade barriers, monopolies and "confuse-opolies" etc. etc.

The GPL v3 also wants to deal with the patent threats and Richard Stallman is honest about his intentions:

The explicit patent license in GPLv3 does not go as far as we might have liked. Ideally, we would make everyone who redistributes GPL-covered code surrender all software patents, along with everyone who does not redistribute GPL-covered code. Software patents are a vicious and absurd system that puts all software developers in danger of being sued by companies they have never heard of, as well as by all the megacorporations in the field. Large programs typically combine thousands of ideas, so it is no surprise if they implement ideas covered by hundreds of patents. Megacorporations collect thousands of patents, and use those patents to bully smaller developers. Patents already obstruct free software development.

The only way to make software development safe is to abolish software patents, and we aim to achieve this some day. But we cannot do this through a software license. Any program, free or not, can be killed by a software patent in the hands of an unrelated party, and the program's license cannot prevent that. Only court decisions or changes in patent law can make software development safe from patents. If we tried to do this with GPLv3, it would fail. (emphasis is mine)

Of course, the Free Software Foundation would like to have as many programs as possible to migrate to GPL v3, but won't enforce it on anyone. GPL v2 still remains valid. All the other licenses remain valid and can be used side by side.

Fortunately, license incompatibility only matters when you want to link, merge or combine code from two different programs into a single program. There is no problem in having GPLv3-covered and GPLv2-covered programs side by side in an operating system. For instance, the TeX license and the Apache license are incompatible with GPLv2, but that doesn't stop us from running TeX and Apache in the same system with Linux, Bash and GCC. This is because they are all separate programs. Likewise, if Bash and GCC move to GPLv3, while Linux remains under GPLv2, there is no conflict.

For the layman reader: Linux isn't a monolithic system, it is a wide collection of larger and smaller pieces of software. All those pieces come with their own license and can happily co-exist on your box. It becomes a problem when you are a developers that wants to merge or link two different programs into a new program.

Back to this quote from the Jem Report:

So does that make him an "evil doer" for promoting a license that attempts to restrict hardware, software, software licensing, and patent licensing choices that should remain in the hands of software developers, or does that make people who are against it "evil doers" and "freedom haters" for not supporting it?

What restriction is there? The vision to create a free software world is by definition restrictive to all attempts that block the realization of that vision. I was attracted to Linux about five years ago not because of it's technological superiority, but because of the ideological underpinnings of the GPL v2.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

• - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• -  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• --The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

In a world that I feel is sorely lacking true visionaries when it comes to fighting injustice and inequality, I find it refreshing that Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation continue on their own course and promote software freedom in any way they can. Yes, the GPL v3 blocks the freedom to lock yourself up or lock yourself out, but that restriction I gladly accept in exchange for the other freedoms that I get in return.

Is Microsoft turning open source friendly?

We already now that Microsoft has it's own open source software blog. We know that the Redmond Mogul is dipping it's toes in sharing open source software. And after the deals with Novell, Linspire and Xandros we also know that something is brewing at Microsoft headquarters.

But a Microsoft that is actively promoting the use of competitive open source software, I guess that is kind of new. Groklaw reports that the Microsoft Marketplace offered a download of Ubuntu Linux for a short while and that at least 10.000 users actually did that.

So, thanks to Microsoft we might have about 10.000 extra converts to Linux. If the majority are actually Dutch speaking our book could be a bestseller.

And the internet has more good news. Microsoft is a Gold Sponsor for the FOSS-ed for Windows convention in Sri Lanka. You can see the familiar logo at the bottom of the page. A quote:

While there is a trend in the industry moving towards GNU/Linux and Free and Open Source Software - FOSS - Microsoft Windows is still a dominating force. Many applications have been developed around it and many continue to do so. Most of this software is also proprietary and includes heavy license fees. Proprietary software may cost anything from a few hundred dollars to millions of dollars for licensing fees alone. As a developing country, most individuals and even companies cannot afford such prices and resort to using illegal copies of software. Pirated software may cost only a fraction of the actual price but the implications can be far greater.

So are there viable alternatives to be used in the Windows environment? The answer is YES! Alternatives that don't have exorbitant licensing fees and will not result in intellectual property violation lawsuits being slapped against you! Alternatives that do not involve high maintenance costs either, are customisable, regularly and quickly provide security fixes in response to feedback and also have community driven support. What are these wonderful viable alternatives? It's Free and Open Source Software that run on Windows too! A large and wonderful catalog of FOSS applications exist for Windows users today. From Web browsers and mail clients to graphics software and content management systems, it's all out there ready to download and use! If you want to know more come check out FOSS-ed for Windows: THE event for all you decision makers to find out how YOU can benefit from FOSS while still continuing to use Windows.

Yes, you read correctly. Microsoft is supporting a convention that wants to fight the piracy of (Microsoft) software by promoting the use of open source alternatives. Maybe my argument that Microsoft is no longer the evil company it once was has some validitiy after all. Next: Microsoft open sources Office 2007.

BSD revisited

It's been a few years since I dabbled in BSD. I was enthused enough about it to help out with a new project that aims at creating a BSD certification. Due to some health problems I had to let that go. But why is BSD appealing?

I am playing with Linux for somewhat more than five years. Soon after I ran into BSD as it was mentioned in newsgroups by some who didn't like Linux anymore, as it became too userfriendly and GUI-based. Led more by curiosity than by knowledge I dove into the world of BSD.

Linux has it's roots in Unix, but BSD is Unix (though it would be better to say Unix-like) and proudly carries it's torch. The hard work of a team of developers removed all proprietary code from the original Unix in the early 1990s. The BSD license differs somewhat from the GPL, which allowed for instance Microsoft to use parts in it's Windows operating system. Binary, closed source redistribution is allowed under the BSD license.

I also found the BSD playing field refreshingly simple. At that time you had three big names. OpenBSD with a very very high focus on security, NetBSD aiming at maximum portability and FreeBSD as the accessible BSD. OpenBSD is hardly a fringe OS as it is the backbone of a serious part of the internet infrastructure. In terms of security it is unparallelled.

At that time FreeBSD was the only one I could really do something with. I was still working mostly under Windows and was glad the then current Linux distributions had a graphical installer. FreeBSD had some features that made it "easy" to install, like the autopartition option and the exemplary FreeBSD Handbook, which is something Linux distributions might take a look at. Once installed it looked similar to your average Linux desktop, which should not be surprising since the KDE and GNOME desktops are available for yours truly.

A few years ago Distrowatch decided to incude BSD in it's listings. As I recall that didn't happen without some criticism as some were determined to focus more on the differences between BSD and Linux than on seeing two major open source movements with widely shared goals and methods. If you like to know more about the differences and similarities of BSD and Linux this article might interest you. A quick look at the Distrowatch website will also reveal that there has been some change in the BSD world. Currently it lists twelve active BSD versions of which FreeBSD as the highest ranking, followed by PC-BSD and DesktopBSD.

You won't find many articles or references in mainstream IT magazines and most of the Linux crowd wouldn't know where to start either. Two interesting starting points would be the BSD section of Slashdot or the BSD dev center pages with O'Reilly. Dru Lavigne, front woman for the BSD Certification Group, established author for books on BSD and BSD advocate keeps a blog at ittoolbox. Once you start digging you will find that BSD has very active and involved communities, an example of which can be found at BSDForums.

Back to the original question: "What makes BSD appealing?". First, it is firmly rooted in decades of Unix history, even more than Linux, with a very strong focus on security and stability.  In recent years FreeBSD tried to follow a more Linux-like release pattern resulting in more buggy and unstable releases. A nuisance and accepted custom in the Linux wolrd, but a mortal sin in the BSD world but the FreeBSD team seems to be back on the original track again. Second, many BSD features have found and are finding their way into Linux distributions. One example, the methods you can use to install software. FreeBSD offers two systems, via the ports collection (installing from source) and via packages (pre-built binaries). Gentoo's Portage ows much to FeeeBSD. And don't think you are restricted in your choice of software. At the time of writing there were 17.300 ports, which is slightly less than the Debian repositories.  This means that you won't miss much when you use FreeBSD instead of your Linux distribution. Third, BSD support various hardware platforms. NetBSD has perhaps the widest support, but FreeBSD is holding it's own with support for Alpha, AMD64, i386, IA64, PC98, PowerPC and Sparc64.  Fourth, it is highly educational to get acquainted with BSD. Digging into OpenBSD will definitely enhance your security awareness. Personally I learned some hardcore skills for Linux via Unix and BSD. Fifth, we all want to be geeks right ;-) . Within our own Linux circles you can enhance your standing by casually dropping into a conversation that you use BSD on your server. Some might not agree with your choice, but at least you are the centre of attention and carry geekdom one step further.

My next question would be whether FreeBSD is a good choice for the desktop or if one of the other BSD's might be a better choice? How do they handle the problems with codecs and drivers? And software management? Those questions will be dealt with in three articles, about FreeBSD, PC-BSD and DesktopBSD, to appear in the coming weeks.

Tags: BSD, Linux

Open Sourcing the ECDL/ICDL

One of the key elements in the Linux Proliferation Agreement is the availabilty of high quality e-learning materials. The European Computer Drivers License or International Computer Drivers License is a complete skill set that describe a good set of computer skills for end users. There is one big problem. Though the descriptions of the skill sets are vendor neutral, training materials and test centers are almost predominantly Microsoft oriented. Open sourcing the ECDL should not be complicated, but it does require some serious work. So I decided that this will be my next major project.

ECDL modules and how to open source them

The ECDL/ICDL consists of seven modules which encompass major end user skill sets:

Module 1 - Concepts of Information Technology (IT)

Module 2 - Using the Computer and Managing Files

Module 3 - Word Processing

Module 4 - Spreadsheets

Module 5 - Database

Module 6 - Presentation

Module 7 - Information and Communication

One of the first decisions to make is the selection of software that will be used to learn the skill sets. Modules 3, 4, 5 and 6 can be covered by selecting OpenOffice.org. I believe it is necessary to use software that is multiplatform and OpenOffice.org fits the bill. Module 7 deals with internet and e-mail and can be explained with Firefox and Thunderbird as foundation.

Module 1 is hardware and attitude oriented, so that shouldn't be a big problem. Module 2 will be the biggest problem. The general description is as follows:

This module requires the Candidate to demonstrate knowledge and competence in using the common functions of a personal computer and its operating system. The Candidate shall be able to adjust main settings, use the built-in help features and deal with a non-responding application.
He or she shall be able to operate effectively within the desktop environment and work with desktop icons and windows. The Candidate shall be able to manage and organise files and directories/folders, and know how to duplicate, move and delete files and directories/folders, and compress and extract files.
The Candidate shall also understand what a computer virus is and be able to use virus-scanning software. The Candidate shall demonstrate the ability to use simple editing tools and print management facilities available within the operating system.

It is not really a problem to translate the skill set as it applies to Linux, but the differences between Windows and Linux might make the transfer of knowledge somewhat more complicated. Nonetheless, module 2 can be open sourced as well.

A general roadmap

What is needed is to write and develop e-learning materials for these seven modules. That is quite an undertaking and a roadmap is needed to guide the whole project.

The first step is to translate each of the skill sets of the seven modules as they apply to Linux, OpenOffice.org, Firefox and Thunderbird. Nothing spectacular, but basic documents that describe the skill sets into end user interactions.

Then comes the work of writing e-learning materials based on these basic documents. These materials need to be based on solid didactical principles. The first set of books will be self-study materials that are made available as e-books and/or webpages. The second set of books need to be teacher's manuals for use in an educational context.

The third major phase will focus on developing rich content, multimedia e-learning materials. Instructional videos and interactive exercises. These materials will be made available on a live Linux CD/DVD thus furnacing the operating system, the software and the e-learning materials in one go.

Developing the materials is not sufficient. It should be a goal to get certified as a test center for the open source version of the ECDL/ICDL. The fourth major part is to develop an online test center with tests that objective test the skill sets and can verify the competencies of the candidates. Once the test center is complete and up to a level that can stand up to public scrutiny we will work towards the goal of becoming a certified center.

Projects and courseware site

Ambitious? Maybe. But as I pointed out in the article about the Linux Proliferation Agreement promoting the use of Linux and open source is not a short term endeavor. I am not a coder, I am a writer. I have been working in education as project manager and am adding to the Linux and open source community what I do best.

I have set up a projects and courseware site based on Moodle. This provides a fairly complete infrastructure to develop new materials in smaller teams with forums, chat rooms and wikis. Moodle is an e-learning CMS which means that it is perfectly suited for online courses and testing. This is the platform that I will use as a foundation for this project.

The development will take place in the open source way. The documents will be released quick and early awaiting the feedback from the community. They will be available for public scrutiny and public use. I will post updates regularly.

Should this remain a one man project? I hope not. Feel free to enroll in the projects and courseware site and send me a message on how you wish to participate. It is time to open source the ECDL/ICL.

Tags: Open Source, ECDL

Column: Sturm und Drang

It can never hurt to get yourself a Communications 101 course. I did get some more than that during my university years, but let's stick to a simple model of communication. You have a sender/transmitter, the message and the receiver. To make it somewhat more complete: also take the medium into account as the carrier of the message. Just keep this model in mind with basically all forms of communication and see how much the wiser you get.

Who could avoid the uproar in the Linux world in the last week. The Big Enemy from Redmond U.S.A., known in some circles as Microsoft -the near monopolist in desktop operating systems- went a bit "loco" in the head and accused Linux of patent infringes. 235 infringes! This was such a veil attack that forceful countermeasures were warranted. A how forcefully the responses were on numerous websites and weblogs. A real "Sturm und Drang" with a sprinkle of primal scream  here and there.

Back to Communications 101. The article that caused the uproar was an interview of Fortune reporter Roger Parloff with some Microsoft head hotshots Brad Smith en Horacio Gutierrez. What was the medium or carrier? The CNN Money website!. Indeed, the number one website for hardcore IT-news. Not! The message was never intended for the Linux world, but for Corporate America, to the CEO's and board rooms of the Fortune 500 companies (or the wannabe's and wanna-be-there's). In the U.S.A.. Why is this important? First, we do well to realize that litigation is an integral part of the business warchest of American corporate culture. It is an acceptable instrument and one no company will want to blunt in public. The shareholders accept nothing less than a company willing to do everything to legally protect their interests.

What was the message for Corporate America? The description of the Linux world is a tale in itself. Richard Stallman was presented as someone with a heartfelt loathing for patents -considered part of the life blood for companies and their R&D departments- and the look and lack of flexibility of and Old Testament prophet. The reporter makes a side remark about Eben Moglen that he is professor in the history of political economy. Short translation: Moglen is a Marxist. Stallman then appears as accommodating as Bin Laden. Since Fortune refused to comply with Richard's demand to be consistent in the use of GNU/Linux he did not cooperate in preparation for the article. And then the world of Linux itself. Ridiculous, it is an amorphous mass of developers and companies and nobody can be held accountable. No one is accountable!!! That must some communist ragtag band. The article really pulled out all old images of Capitalism versus Communism. Why did the reporter not present the CEO's of IBM, Canonical or Red Hat? Imagine, Linux might even appear "salonfähig" (to use another good German phrase) enough for the board rooms.

We -in the Linux world- really want to know specifically which Microsoft patents are violated by our favorite operating systems. Personally I am convinced that I violate one or more patents when I open my eyes in the morning, completely aware that some company had that action patented. Anyway, Microsoft came up with some numbers. Linux kernel: 42 patents, graphical user interface: 65 patents, OpenOffice.org: 45 patents, e-mail: 15, all others: 68. Only 45 infringes for OpenOffice.org? Gee. Maybe the boys and girls in Redmond need to take a closer look because there should me more. The complete OpenOffice.org interface and functionality is so Office97 that it hurts my eyes. Anyway, the accusation is nothing new and we still have the same information we had a year ago.

Is it all bluff? Or can the claims be substantiated? It is part of a poker game. Not with Microsoft and the Linux community as the key players, but with Microsoft and Corporate America who may thin migrating to Linux is a bargain. The majority of the patents appears to focus on the desktop side where Microsoft makes it's money through Vista and Office. At the same time it also the market place where it can not act too aggressively to push a small, minute competitor away. Now, the server market is a whole different ballgame. Microsoft is meeting tough and fierce competition from Linux and Unix derivates. Sun (with Solaris in the field) is buddy buddy with Microsoft. Novell is playing nice at well, at least for the next couple of years. It is fighting on a par with the other players to get the contracts for the Fortune 500 companies. Linux is not the underdog here. Now, it might not seem nice to present your competition as a group of fundamentalist communist thieves without respect for intellectual property, bit how often does the Linux world refers to Microsoft as some capitalist monopolistic robber baron. That's also not nice, don't you think?

Suppose for a moment that Microsoft is correct and that Linux infringes 235 patents. As far as I am concerned Microsoft can make a full disclosure tomorrow in exchange for a promise that we will stop using all code that is tainted. All of it, with no exceptions and no questions asked. No counter litigation. Nothing. I really believe we should deal with these threats by following two established traditions. One is the example set by the Debian project. There has been some criticism about the decision to remove the name and logo of Firefox and Thunderbird due to limiting copyrights, but it does prevent software with any limiting rights entering the repositories. The other example is BSD. In the early days of BSD the developers created a list of code that was not free and wrote new code to replace it. The didn't fight the position of the rights owner, but focused on making new, free code. How long would this take for the 235 infringes? I have no idea, but it didn't take the BSD team long when they had to do it and it only consisted of a handful of people. 235 problems to be solved by a worldwide community of hackers in cooperation with multiple big companies. It could take maybe two or three years but it would be done with the tide on our side. Endusers who know why we take one step back now will wait out this period.

Microsoft plays the game well. It's message was directed at Corporate America, a warning that Linux might be less cheap than some CEO's think. Maybe the Linux world should remember the Carly Simon song: "You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, don't you...".

This column was originally written for the Dutch website Digiplace, a meeting place for Linux users.

Tags: Linux, Microsoft

Focus: Rhythmbox and Amarok

Rhythmbox is the default music player for Ubuntu/GNOME and Amarok for KDE. Both are 'everything and the kitchen sink' style programs and both are featured in our upcoming book. Why not revive the GNOME vs KDE debate a bit and compare these two programs.

Amarok: first preference
I am slightly biased towards Amarok. When I wanted to listen to Last.FM under Dapper Drake there was no Last.FM client available, but it was supported by Amarok. That, along with the context browser, made it my player of choice for the last few months. My previous experience with Rhythmbox were less positive. I used it to sync podcasts with my MP3 player, but that was more annoying than helpful.

Rhythmbox rematch
Maybe I missed it previously, but finding the plugin section was a pleasant surprise. Rhythmbox has plugins for lyrics and for three music sharing communities: Last.FM, Magnatune and Jamendo. When you like an artist served through Jamendo downloading the whole album is just a rightmousebuttonclick away. The Last.FM plugin doesn't seem okay, since it crashed Rhythmbox most of the time.
The three panel/left sidepanel layout is used almost consistently, though not enabled by default in the podcasts section. As we can expect from a GNOME application the interface is simple, smooth with few apparent bells and whistles. The preference option is easy enough and adding/managing your podcasts is no big problem either. Rhythmbox keeps an eye out for your music folder.
Synchronizing music and podcasts with your MP3 player is not there by default. The workaround for the podcasts is still the same: pointing the Rhythmbox podcasts folder to your device. One problem: when the device is not connected there is no option to queue the podcasts for later on.

Amarok again
As you might expect from KDE based program Amarok is packed with easily accessible options. There is always more than one access point to doing things. For me that makes for a cluttered and restless interface, which is not always pleasing to the eyes.
Amarok can keep watch over your music folder and does a good job at that. Browsing your collection isn't really hard (simple tree structure), but compared to the filters in Rhythmbox a bit awkward. Each albumfolder gets its own cover icon, but you have to search manually in the Amazon collection and select the right one. I have found this option less than perfect and somewhat below Rhythmbox's abilities to select the correct cover.
Magnatune has it's own tab and is easily accessible. Last.FM is a simple menu entry that just works. In combination with the context browser it's a great way to discover new artists.
How does Amarok handle podcasts and my MP3 player? Well, adding and managing your podcasts won't win first prices for looks and ease of use. Can anyone explain why the podcasts folder need to be red? It rings the wrong kind of bells. Anyway, the right mousebutton is your big buddy and from then on it is a matter of downloading your podcasts. Amarok does have a feature to queue episodes for the next sync with your player.
My player is a no brand generic one without a fancy name (nor the high price tag). When you plug it in Amarok recognizes an external device and asks whether you want to set it up for synchronization. From there you are just a Connect and Transfer away from adding the latest podcasts to the player. Or anything else you want to transfer.

What is lacking?
One feature I really missed, looked for and couldn't find is the option to rip CD's. Even the Windows Media Player has that feature and when you are designing the kitchen sink anyway. Besides this I have begun to develop a real fondness for Streamtuner and it's easy access to loads of radiostreams. To have that integrated in both players along with a streamrip option would be nice.

Conclusions
Amarok still comes out strong with the context browser and the way I can use my MP3 player with it. The interface could use some polish, but that is personal preference. Rhythmbox did climb quite a few places on my popularity list. It's simple and smooth. In the end I am still looking for the best of both worlds. Let's say a Rhythmbox with a better context browser and better synchronization, or a smoother looking Amarok with a few extras thrown in for the both of them.

Tags: Ubuntu, Linux, Amarok, Rhythmbox

8 reasons why Linux won't make it to the desktop

The Linux Proliferation Agreement is intended as a means to promote the use of Linux on the desktop and asks endusers to become structurally involved in making Linux visible in the public domain. Apart from the support there came a wide range of counterarguments of things that Linux would need to change before it would ever become a viable choice. Let's look into the counterarguments, summarized in the 8 reasons why Linux won't ever make it to the desktop. But do they stop the Linux Proliferation Agreement as well?

(1) Some programs are not available for Linux
Correct. No question about that. For the most part programs from the Adobe/Macromedia suites were mentioned, but no doubt there are more programs for which there is no suitable Linux counterpart yet. If you use these programs intensively on a day to day basis the migration to Linux is cumbersome. But let's not forget a few things. This problem is valid for a group of endusers, but hardly for all. Not everyone is a Dreamweaver or Photoshop power user. Most software has far more functionalities than are used from day to day or even regularly by the largest group of users. When promoting W2L migration we should focus on the functionalities actually used, instead of the programs as integrated packages. In those cases where the software is intensively used we have two possible solutions: emulation (which can not be called 'emulation', so maybe 'pretendization' is better) and virtualization. The mentioned Adobe/Macromedia suites are in one way or another supported by Wine and CrossOver Office. Virtualization through VirtualBox, Xen or VMware gives desktop access to a Windows installation and the software that requires it. Yes, it might require the investment in extra RAM, but that is hardly expensive in exchange for saving all other proprietary (and paid for) software by open source counterparts.

(2) Linux is not a platform for games
Correct as well, but should that stop the Linux Proliferation Agreement? Vista isn't really a gaming platform as well, but who is stopped by that? Gaming is used as a benchmark and it is a multibillion industry, but in the end it is only a part of day to day use of computers. And hardcore gaming only influences a niche of users, a niche that has people that won't mind paying € 600,-- for a new graphics card in order to play a game that will be released next month. No doubt an interesting group from the perspective of the hardware industry, but hardly representative of most endusers.
Now, there is something strange with the hardware requirements of PC games as well. I remember Thief 3. When it was released, it could be played (officially) on a very limited range of graphics cards (which, mind you, didn't bother the hardcore gamers). However, the xBox version had the same graphical effects on a console that has far lower hardware specifications. Is it strange when I ask myself how this is possible? Could it be that the hardware specifications and the OS limitations are more artificial than actual?
Anyway, the number of games released for Linux is limited in comparison to Windows. Cedega provides a limited solution for some of the most popular games. But should that stop us? Should this prevent the use of Linux in schools? Should we hold back in properly educating and empowering endusers because of it?

(3) Linux needs a unified desktop
Having used Windows for years I can understand the argument. Quite a few endusers panic when the icon is no longer in the same place. Endusers are trained in using the Windows GUI, but how many users are actually able to find the various system tools and use them? The majority can't and don't care.
Linux is different. Linux doesn't equate the GUI with the operating system. What you do and don't do with the GUI is a matter of personal preference, an expression of your personal identity. A unified desktop seems like a good solution, but it isn't. Proper education and training in the use of Linux is. It will provide the endusers with a choice and a freedom to use the computer as they see fit. As we see fit.

(4) Linux should drop the commandline stuff
I don't hope so. It would mean that the GUI has become the operating system and that my choices have become limited. Recently I gave a workshop "Installing software under Ubuntu Linux" to a group of about 20 endusers. They had little previous experience with Linux, but a substantial number had experience with DOS. We started the workshop with Install/Remove..., moved on to Synaptic and continued with apt-get and aptitude. The participants learned four ways to manage software on Debian-like systems. The commandline stuff could be repeated and understood more rapidly than than the GUI alternatives and most went home feeling empowered to move on with Linux. The commandline is less scary when properly explained. Understanding the commandline does prevent a lot of "it won't work anymore"s when the GUI is frozen.

(5) Linux needs better hardware support
It does. But did anyone install Vista recently? And, did it work? Did all of it work? Could you install all software? No, we couldn't. Yes, there is a need for improvement. There are too many accounts of monitorsettings not being correct out of the box, of wifi being hard to get working etc. etc. There are solutions for most hardware problems. In my early Linux days I had to buy a new external modem, since my winmodem wasn't supported. Before that I didn't even know a winmodem existed. My old iMac also gave me some headaches with x, but searching the internet provided the proper solutions. See, empowerment does help.
One thing should not be forgotten. When the number of endusers reach a critical mass this problem will be moot. We have to educate the endusers to buy the proper hardware, hardware that has "Linux compatible" on the box. The market forces will take care of the rest of the problem.

(6) Linux needs to get better first
It needs to and it will. But that doesn't change the basic skills we need to use and troubleshoot Linux on a day to day base, hence the basic skills we need to teach new groups of endusers. Besides, with a larger group of empowered and involved endusers we will see more and better bug reports which will aid the developers.
But what are the areas for Linux to improve? Which functionalities are now non-existent that make most applications unfit for day 2 day use? Yes, there are gaps, but those are not relevant to the largest groups of endusers. For some (even quite a few) lacking a decent Thunderbird- Exchange server connector is a serious problem. However, should this prevent us to promote the use of Thunderbird in all other organizations that don't use Exchange server?

(7) Linux is too splintered
The Linux world knows many, many distributions. Software needs to be offered in various shapes and sizes (RPM, DEB, tarball etc.) and we might want to keep our fingers crossed even then. Managing software through the distribution's own repositories won't cause too many headaches, but a little venture outside the trotted path gives us a serious migraine. The various communities are -alas- equally divided. With religious fervor users defend their own distribution, calling down heavenly fires upon the other distributions and ostracizing those from within who are not as 'pure'.
Honestly, I don't have much use for this kind of involvement. Endusers aren't bothered with distribution A of B, or with softwaremanagementtool X, Y or Z. They are doing their work and use programs to finish their tasks. Most of them hardly care whether the OpenOffice.org runs on Windows, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mepis or Mac OS X. It doesn't matter and it shouldn't stop promoting the use of Linux and open source software. We do need proper IT-education and that is exactly what the Linux Proliferation Agreement is about. Endusers can learn to deal with the choices Linux provide. Compare that to gaming. When was the last time hardcore gamers complained that a game could only be played on the xBox and not a Playstation 3. They don't (or at least don't stop gaming because of it), because they understand the system. Education it is.

(8) Linux is a philosophy
Fortunately it is. Linux is build around the principles of cooperation, transparency, participation and free distribution. Call me an idealist, but I can't find much of a flaw in these principles. When things go wrong in the Linux world it goes wrong when individuals or groups forget these principles.

In the end I appreciate the discussion and the arguments against the viability of Linux and/or the Linux Proliferation Agreement. Most likely there are more counterarguments and I look forward to hearing them. But one thing is clear to me as well: there is nothing seriously hindering the advance of Linux from a technical perspective.

Tags: Linux