[Leaplist] The sad state of not knowing the options (with indemnification issues) -- WAS: sad state of Linux default desktop installs

[Ray Brunkow]

Bryan J Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 21:09 -0400, Ray Brunkow wrote:
>   
>> even after fully patching and updating Fedora 11, it was running FF 
>> 3.0.x not 3.5.x
>>     
>
> Ummm, you weren't running Fedora 11 then.  What were you running?  Or
> better yet, where did you get it?
>   
from http://fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora  that would be Fedora 11.  I 
just googled fedora and poof its the top link.  it does not come with 
FF3.5.x
> The official Fedora 11 media/distro includes 3.5 Beta 4:  
>   http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/releases/11/Fedora/i386/os/Packages/
>
> And updates has 3.5.3 current:  
>   http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/11/i386/  
>
> I think you're more likely running Red Hat Enterprise Linux (EL) or some
> EL rebuild (e.g., CentOS).  EL 4.7+ and 5.2+ rebased Firefox to 3.0.x
> (from 1.5.x prior).  That's not remotely Fedora, as EL 4 is based on
> Fedora Core 3 (2004) and EL 5 is based on Fedora Core 6 (2006).
>
> So, would you like to "revise" the "details" of your evaluation?  @-ppp
>
>   
>> Again I understand the the reason why RH and many others choose NOT to 
>> include as a part of their default installation the codecs mentioned.
>>     
>
> Explain that reason to me.  I just want to hear it.  This will be my 2nd
> to last post, and I will make only one more, possible post as an
> explanation to your answer.
>   
Licensing and legal reason.  From what I understand RH has chosen NOT to 
include the codecs that are NOT 100% free and could some day require 
payment to use like MP3 in their base install.  This is a legal choice 
that I both understand and respect.
>   
>   
>> Yes they can be installed, yes they can be paid for, I was just looking 
>> for an out of the box experience like a limited knowledge user would do.
>>     
>
> Then you want a Fedora Remix, which is not Fedora(TM).
>
> Omega is by Rahul Sundaram ( http://www.linkedin.com/in/rahulsundaram ),
> a major Fedora(TM) contributor and lead, as well as a key RPM Fusion
> contributor.  Omega includes RPM Fusion, including "Non-Free"
> components, which would be a legal nightmare to include by Fedora(TM).
> Omega is not Fedora(TM), but an unsponsored Fedora Remix (as they are
> all).
>
> Fedora(TM) is a trademark of Red Hat(R), a publicly traded company
> (NYSE:RHT) in the S&P 500 index pushing $1B/year in revenues around the
> world and a market cap of many billion dollars.  It's not my place to
> say much more, but I don't think I have to warn you about patent trolls.
> Red Hat has initiated several IP defense organizations and funds, among
> other things.
>
> Other organizations are regularly sued for their irresponsibility.
>
>   
>> Ill check that one out tonight.
>>     
>
> Spread the word, and about Fedora Remixes in general.  Fedora is the
> basis for many, many distros from many organizations specifically
> because, like Debian, it _can_ be trusted to be indemnified against
> countless, common IP issues.
>
>   
>> That is a sad thing, but meh.
>>     
>
> The sad thing is that people are not aware that licensing is a reality,
> regardless of community or commercial.  Microsoft gets sued regularly.
> Do you really think successful open source companies want to involve
> themselves with that non-sense?!  Not worth it.  I've learn that.
>
> E.g., Red Hat was more than happy to say "no" to Microsoft over many
> years until Microsoft was forced by its Gold Partners and major
> enterprises to sign an interoperability agreement without IP and other
> licensing.  In the meanwhile you had the agreement with Novell
> (Microsoft came to Red Hat first, well documented and admitted by
> everyone), Oracle building their distro on CentOS, etc... with people
> predicting the end of Red Hat.
>
> Guess what?  Red Hat didn't just survive, but thrived in that time.  Do
> you really think it's "worth it"?  If there is one constant I've noted
> about Red Hat over a decade is that code is king and Red Hat doesn't
> spend money unless it makes more GPL or subsidizes the ability to hire
> more GPL developers so they can write more GPL code upstream for
> everyone to use.
>
> And, again, licensing commercial components is hard enough for one
> commercial distro, much less a freely redistributed one much less for
> other entities that might redistribute their variants.  And those
> components are moving targets, time-limited and other things.  Instead
> of focusing on going after commercial components, it's better to
> introduce superior codecs that people should support, which removes the
> problems of IP once-and-for-all.
>
> That's the reality.  It's about freedom, because free is costly like you
> wouldn't believe.  ;)
>
>   
>> Not really sure beat MS is what I was getting at other then time and
>> ease of installation and getting to a basic usable desktop.
>>     
>
> I've worked with Joseph Creek, the creator and 5-year man behind Lycoris
> (fka Redmond Linux), among countless other giants in the Linux desktop
> push in my time.  Mark Shuttleworth is also a great read.  There is
> countless other individuals.  Michael Tiemann continues to be my
> favorite, but he should be, as the man who co-founded the first open
> source success story (Cygnus).
>
> It doesn't matter if you're Apple, IBM or a Linux distributor, there is
> one constant.  Microsoft controls the distribution channels which over
> 90% of consumers get their solutions.  It's just hard to break that,
> regardless of the solution.
>
>   
>> Time and effort are what I was testing more then anything.
>>     
>
> Then install Omega.  Done.  Just don't redistribute it in a corporation
> or tell others they can freely do so, or expect possible indemnification
> issues.
>
> But I don't think you actually installed Fedora 11 (as above).
>   
Yes, I did.  Have the disk to prove it.  *grins*
>   
>> True, for the Linux distros I used OOo not MS Office 2k7.  Went with 
>> what the average user would face when they set up their Windows box.  
>>     
>
> They wouldn't get MS Office 2007 either.  They'd have to pay over $100
> for it, just for the Student & Teacher (although sometimes it can be had
> for $69-89).
>
>   
>> Typically they will think MS Windows (what ever flavor, XP, Vista, 7) 
>> and MS Office.  So for the MS test I used MS Office 2007.  For all 
>> others the default was to have OOo installed during the install of the 
>> OS.  this to me is a major plus for the end user.
>>     
>
> Then compare to a $100-200 Linux distribution with all the codecs
> licensed -- or better yet, get it pre-installed.  Just compared to the
> cost of MS Office, much less with Windows.
>
> Free isn't cheap.  Freedom is, especially over the long-run.
>   
Never claimed to be comparing price to freedom.  Just what the average 
user would buy v get from a FOSS source.  All of the Linux distros 
included OOo as a part of the base install without me having to do 
anything to make sure it was installed.  It was just there.  This is a 
mega kudos for Linux.  I did the MS Office 2k7 in Windows 7 as that is 
what most users who would be in the category of my test requirements 
would do as well.



-- 
Raymond L. Brunkow
5th Degree Black Belt
Certified Instructor
Choong Sil Kwan TaekwonDo Federation


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/attachments/20090913/f7ec114d/attachment.html