Linux desktop lacks innovation

[Peter Garrett]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 02:21:15 +0000
"Liam Proven" <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2007 5:19 AM, Peter Garrett <peter.garrett at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:51:42 -0600
> > "Tommy Trussell" <tommy.trussell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/13/07, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Not sure if folks hereabouts saw this. I had hoped for more
> > > > constructive comment and criticism than I got. Even the legal eagles
> > > > at Groklaw missed my point and dismissed it as a troll.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/02/linux-innovation-missing
> > >
> > > Thank you for a thought-provoking article. It's too bad people are
> > > skimming and dismissing it rather than recognizing it for what it is.
> > >
> > It's certainly an interesting article.
> 
> Thanks! Glad you think so.
> 
> > I think there are a few aspects of this that need consideration:
> >
> > 1) Not all countries subscribe to the ridiculous notion that software is
> > patentable, thank goodness. MS might win in the USA, but they are just
> > playing whack-a-mole, because you cannot stop everyone, and there are
> > multiple ways to do anything, anyway...
> 
> That's a good point, but the question I must ask in response is this:
> how many places is it necessary for MS to win in court to defeat the
> FOSS efforts? E.g. Ubuntu is - let's not beat around the bush here -
> *crippled* by the lack of codecs for all the various modern non-Free
> formats around, from Flash to Java.

I think the answer rather depends on how you define "defeat". The general
thrust of what I am saying is based on an historical, long-term view. In
other words, I'm suggesting that whether or not there are setbacks, the
nature of Free and Open Source development is similar to the academic
model. There have been, and will continue to be, setbacks to academic
freedom - but in the long term, people want to share information, and they
will do so, regardless of temporary setbacks.

Flash and Java are interesting examples, since ( supposedly) Java is being
"freed", and Gnash is starting to actually sort-of-work. For example, on
my PPC iBook it is now possible to view most flash content, but there are
odd artifacts on Youtube, and so on, still. A year ago this was just not
working at all. Similarly, ffmpeg now is able to play most Real media and
Windows Media here, using for example mplayer, and without w32codecs.
> 
> MacOS ships with them. Some Linux distros ship with them. But they're
> illegal in some countries, so worldwide, products like Ubuntu and
> Fedora go without, massively reducing their usability for millions of
> users worldwide.

See above - this is changing. On the other hand, of course every time we
get close to decent functionality, the companies move the goalposts :)
> 
> I'm British. As far as I know, here in the EU, it would be legal for
> Canonical - HQed in my old home, the offshore tax haven of the Isle of
> Man - to distribute DeCSS and so on with its distro. Mandriva and SuSE
> do. But no, it's illegal in the USA, so Ubuntu doesn't, so in the past
> I had to frig around with EasyUbuntu and Automatix and now I have to
> manually install ubuntu-restricted-extras to get this stuff.
> 
> One country's laws, but worldwide effects.

I don't disagree with you - but if you restrict people long enough and
unpleasantly enough, eventually they break out and find ways around it.
> 
> > 2) Free and open software will route around any attempts to kill it.
> > People will simply change their software and keep rolling...
> 
> Say that when all new PCs ship with TPM chips fitted and enabled so
> that they won't boot without signed code.

Now *that* is the really scary prospect. That would be much harder to work
around, indeed. Without actually putting on the proverbial tinfoil hat, I
suggest that this is an excellent reason for keeping old machines! 

Overcoming that one would require that people notice restrictions, and buy
elsewhere, from companies that supply "open" hardware. Whether that would
happen I'm less sure, so I think this is the really *big* issue.
> 
[snip]
> > Trying to stop this has become more or less futile, despite the legal
> > muscle being used to throttle it. We need a new paradigm for practically
> > every form of expression, and fundamental changes in the way we view
> > copyright, trademarks and patents. They are becoming irrelevant in their
> > old forms.
> >
> > We are living in a second Gutenberg revolution: we are winning, and I
> > doubt that the old ways can survive.
> 
> I devoutly hope you're right.
> 
> However, don't doubt for a minute that the entrenched powers, huge and
> rich as they are, will do *anything* and fight very very dirty to do
> all they can to stop this happening.

They will. 
> 
> The top half a dozen US software companies put together are worth more
> than the bottom few dozens or so countries put together. That's a lot
> of financial power. Big business already owns and runs the US
> government; read Naomi Klein's /No Logo/ and similar for details.
> 
> They are a force to be reckoned with.
> 
> But currently, the FOSS community isn't even thinking about how to
> deal with this; it's just laughing at the threat.
> 
> That's not a sensible plan.

I think there *are* people thinking about it, and developing strategies.
Comment boards. mailing lists and blogs are not the places where this kind
of counter-plotting takes place, though ;-)

It's important, and you are right to raise the issues, here and in your
article. We all need to have our eyes open, and continue to discuss the
issues.

Peter
-- 
"INX Is Not X" based on Ubuntu 7.04 Live CD: http://inx.maincontent.net
Screenshots slideshow: http://inx.maincontent.net/album/1.png.html