Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:05:41 +0100 From: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> To: Chris Pressey <cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Powerbook Setup Message-ID: <20041020100541.GY42527@iconoplex.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20041019141518.27c1db83.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> References: <16710656779.20041018233408@synchron.org> <200410182229.07373.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20041019102120.GI42527@iconoplex.co.uk> <200410191151.00604.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20041019163138.GW42527@iconoplex.co.uk> <20041019141518.27c1db83.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 02:15:18PM -0700, Chris Pressey wrote: > Sure. But who is saying that open-source is the greatest thing ever? Lots of people, me included. Admittedly, we disagree on details, but there are plenty of people out there who see the potential for open source to be as big a revolution to the information age as the wheel was to the dawn of commerce. > The BSD license lets Apple close their source. If you don't like that, > perhaps you would find more appeal in the GPL, which - in its own way - > tries harder to prevent that. I don't have a problem with the BSD license. In fact, I have been the proponent on this list in years past of trying to identify which GPL bits of FreeBSD could be easily replaced (answer: there were about 20 components, all of them pretty much irreplaceable without huge amounts of work). My problem with Apple is not that is has closed its source. My problem is with people who proclaim BSD is the most wonderful license in the world then drop it like a hot brick to go and buy into closed source. It's not as if they went to work on GPL stuff here - they're abondoning open source in it's entirety. Doesn't anybody else see that as even remotely damaging in any way? Closed source is a problem for me on several levels. For example: Excuse #234 for switching to Mac OS X: "I used to get by fine with OpenOffice, but the great thing about OS X is that I can give Microsoft $500 and run their office suite perpetuating their lock-in on that market. I don't care we've been fighting for the last decade and a half, and oh by the way, when I said I didn't like MS' closed standards on their file formats, I was obviously lying! Hahaha!" Please, somebody tell me they can see where I'm going on this? Am I completely alone here? > I can't, because I infer from the above that you believe that politics > is less vacuous than style. I'm not sure I agree. From what I've > seen of it, politics is pretty darn vacuous. Depends on the type of politics. When you have a bunch of people spewing rhetoric to sycophantically curry favour with an electorate, it's vacuous. When your boss comes to you and says you've got a £300k contract with a company that has a load of code in ASP.NET, it's not. To turn around and say "well, I'm not running that code because it won't run on my Unix boxes" is going to get me fired. But if I'm specifying which companies go on the list for procurement in the first place, I have some greater degree of control, which is also politics, but is not particularly vacuous. > IMHO: Make support for FreeBSD more accessible than support for OS X. Well, am I right in thinking there are two routes here you may be suggesting: 1. Reduce the learning overhead for casual use of FreeBSD by cleaning up some of the dumber interfaces. You know, this is a bikeshed that has been running around for two years - "We need a new installer", "We need better integration between system tools and KDE/Gnome", "We need better package management"... all are true, but nobody agrees on how to proceed. Especially as so many people don't think FreeBSD should have any development effort orientated towards the desktop space - many people see FreeBSD as a purely server-based operating system. Maybe I "don't get it" because I use it as a desktop, and all the guys running off to the Apple Store waving their credit cards "don't get it" because they think FreeBSD can only be used on servers. Who knows? 2. Increase the visibility of local organisations that can offer support on FreeBSD. I work with an organisation that assists local tech businesses in becoming more aware of non-tech issues. We sometimes interface with other public bodies who are attempting to promote open source within small businesses. Their number one barrier for open source getting onto the desks of SMEs: support. A SME can pick up the phone and get somebody to come and install an Exchange server and stay on retainer for a few hundred a month quite easily. Can they find people who will come and install an open source solution? Nope. Is that it? Or am I missing something else? > False dilemma, I think. Everyone is free to do as they like. You're > free to try to pursuade them to stay if you choose, as well, although > advocacy@ might be a more appropriate venue for that. My point is that > I don't think Apple-bashing (deserved or not) is going to be very > persuasive to most people, so if that's your goal, my recommendation > would be to change tack. I don't think this is pure -advocacy material. For a start, that lot are mental. Secondly, if I'm trying to get an idea of why people are dropping *BSD in favour of another flavour, they're not going to be on -advocacy. They're more likely to be here if they are still in a transitional state. I am an Apple-basher in real life, but my purpose here (despite starting out bashing Apple kit) is now to try and find the gap* between the perception of this project and that of OS X and understand why people are running away from *BSD in general on the desktop. * - in the case of Apple users, they're probably more familiar with GAP. See, I just can't help myself. Perhaps I have a problem with loafers and goatee beards. :-) -- Paul Robinson http://www.iconoplex.co.uk/ "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041020100541.GY42527>