-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/21/2014 11:56 AM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:36:55AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> ...I'd like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately
> supersede all the rest: "Functional".
I think anytime anyone suggests a new foundation that supersedes
all of what the project and community has stood for for many years
then they are doing it wrong. I mean, Fedora has traditionally
been very strong in upholding the values of FOSS. We live it, feed
it, and use it. Does this mean that Fedora isn't always great when
dealing with proprietary solutions later on (like Flash)? Sure,
but that also means that there is more of a push to get FOSS
solutions in place that remedy those issues. Fedora has never
forebade a user to install third-party software (proprietary or
otherwise) after the
I spoke too strongly there, I think. We do however give a *very*
strong impression that using non-FOSS solutions for anything at all is
unwelcome at best. Consider the recent discussions around GNOME
Software where we have
1) Forbidden it from automatically looking up software from non-Fedora
repositories, even FOSS ones
2) Asserted that it must consider web apps (either FOSS or not) to be
second-class citizens (and call it out as such)
fact. The fact that many (most?) users don't have to do such
things is a testiment to how well FOSS has been developed and meets
the needs of our users.
Please understand, I'm as much a proponent of FOSS as anyone here. I
believe it to be the best way to develop software. However, I also
feel that actively discouraging users from using the tools with which
they are most comfortable on our platform is harmful to our long-term
strategy of converting them. Microsoft had great success with
"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and I think that FOSS can enjoy very
similar results (probably without Extinguish, except in cases where
user interest in the original wanes) as long as we make it
approachable. I don't see that as the case today.
I'm also concerned over the word "functional".
I've seen some
disturbing trends in Fedora that points to an all-out attack on
FOSS in the name of "functionality". To me, this lowers the value
of Fedora and makes me question not only the operating system I use
on a daily basis but also the number of hours I spend supporting
the project that used to have strong values towards FOSS. One
person's "functional" is another person's "disfunctional".
Eric, I'm not trying to start a flame-war with you. I do, however,
feel that the best way to convert people to the Open Source Way is to
do so gradually, coaching them on why it's a better choice. Right now,
what we're building is a system that caters only to those who have
already drunk the Kool-Aid(TM) on every level. It offers no ramp-up
and no path to enlightenment. In effect, we're an exclusive club that
you can only join if you happen to have exactly the right beliefs.
> Now, let me be further clear on this: I am not in any way
> advocating the use of closed-source software or services. I am
> not suggesting that we start carrying patent-encumbered software.
> I think it is absolutely the mission of Fedora to show people
> that FOSS is the better long-term solution. However, in my
> experience a person who is exposed to open source and allowed to
> migrate in their own time is one who is more likely to become a
> lifelong supporter. A person who is told "if you switch to
> Fedora, you must stop using Application X" is a person who is not
> running Fedora.
I'm confused here. No one is telling anyone that they can't use
Application X. Users are, and have always been, free to install
and use whatever software they choose. That said, Fedora shouldn't
be
No, they haven't. At least, not without finding workarounds to things
that should be very simple.
packaging or otherwise making it easier for one to choose
proprietary software. When we start pushing proprietary solutions
in our "software store" right along side FOSS solutions we are
devaluing our FOSS and making it easier for people to ignore the
software we hope they'll migrate to.
This is a key point that I disagree with entirely. I think we could
attract many more users if we were the easiest way for them to get a
free, open-source friendly operating system that also allowed them to
continue using the tools they want to use.
I don't think it's unreasonable for us to allow them to use Chrome
from the Google repository. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow
them to use Steam from the Valve repository. Device drivers get into
hazy territory, but I think it's a conversation worth having.
What about solutions that have no useful FOSS analog? Are you
expecting that someone who uses Adobe Lightroom all the time should
switch to Fedora and write a brand-new post-processing engine themselves?
If you aren't advocating close-source solutions then why are you
advocating a new foundation that supersedes the foundation of
freedom?
I'm advocating that they should have a place at the table. I don't
advocate placing them "above" FOSS solutions (and I'm perfectly happy
with requiring that any tool that provides access to them clearly
identify them as such and ideally recommend a FOSS alternative instead).
But I think that trying to actively discourage (read: prevent) users
from installing such software is harmful to our Mission of advancing
Free Software. In my view, it's okay to occasionally embrace
closed-source as a means to expose more people to open-source. Failing
to do so has a tendency to leave us labeled as zealots, which are
often ignored.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNVSWUACgkQeiVVYja6o6NRYQCfQQSAIH0/uE4H6lUU5Bb7DbFB
1REAoJuA8l6Avsl9iUHFYxsDk4LL1p/x
=tiLK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----