-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 the on-topic bits first:
> > on the other hand, if blender and a few other projects can get their act > > together, Linux be able to may encroach on the video editting world that > > Mac is still dominant in. > > That's the point isn't it? Traditionally, the Open Source/Linux movement > has been so fragmented, that no one seems to be able to "get their act > together". no, that isn't the point at all. free software development tends to have its act together quite well. the blender issue has been an unfortunate act to watch that may yet have a happy ending, and the fact that there isn't better video edditing suites available for Linux is due largely to the user demographic, which is shifting to create both need and supply. this doesn't speak to many of the other successful Free software projects. > That's why an organization like CLUE speaking as one voice > for the majority of Linux users/companies is so important IMHO. advocating the use of and the actual development of Linux are completely seperate issues. that said, yes, having a unified voice is important in advocating its use. the challenge is discovering whether CLUE is the right place to base that voice, given its capabilities (man power, etc) and its mission (to serve/coordinate LUGs). i do believe it can help create a unified voice in one fasion or another, though. and now for the bits that are rapidly going OT, but what the hell, there are some very important points here: On Monday 29 July 2002 01:57, you wrote: > > Free software is not inherently anti-capitalist/corporatist. they are > > pro-Freedom (as it pertains to software). that said, there is absolutely > > no reason why one person/group can not approach it from the Freedom > > aspect while another group approaches it from the Business Benefits > > standpoint. > > I agree with the first part above, but I don't think the "Freedom" part > really sells well to large organizations. They care about licensing, > support and of course that the software in question can get the job done. the Freedom part sells really well to governments. especially when that government isn't the United States Government. it also sells really well to organizations that aren't hell-bent on cost savings. the CGI/movie effects houses moved to Linux for a combination of reasons, some of them Freedom related (e.g. the ability to self support based on the freedom to hack the code). in other words, Freedom is not the antithesis of corporate/government promotion. > > there are two ways to change this: stop using proprietary formats (e.g. > > Flash) and help development of Free alternatives (money, testing, > > documentation, coding, promotion) > > I'm not so sure that attacking proprietary software specifically, is in > Linux best interests right now, and quite frankly the pragmatist in me, > doesn't see such software disappearing any time soon. Hopefully such > software can be written for Linux. and so we sit waiting for Macrodmedia to port their apps to Linux so people can make pretty (useless) web pages in Linux? i hope you have great big lungs, because you'll be holding your breath for a good long time. forutnately things are not really so dire, because you completely misconstrue the concept of not supporting proprietary formats and building Free alternatives to being equal to attacking closed source software. let's be pragmatic for a moment. ;-) if there isn't software that does task X on the platform of your choice and nobody is willing to write closed source software to do so (because, say, the market around that plaftorm is too small), then the Free software world needs to write a viable option. then we can get on with our work and grow that market segment. but waiting for the desktop (or any other segment) to become viable by waiting for companies to port their closed apps is a losing proposition (hint: it has to do with chickens and eggs). furthermore, are closed file formats holding us to a certain platform and not allowing people to write software targetted for alternative platforms (due to licensing costs/restrictions combined with R&D involved in reverse engineering)? then we must replace the closed formats with open ones so people can cost effectively create software, closed or open. i know this requires an understanding of how software is created and works to really grok, but Linux advocates need to do their homework. please sit down and talk to someone who is a software professional involved in the Linux world about these things if you aren't one yourself. i'm sure they'll yak your head off for the price of a guinness. > of, offhand. The big houses haven't really shifted to Linux on the > desktop side, they've been using it in the render farm for some time, i suppose ILM and Dreamworks don't count then. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-826047.html http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6011 stop listening to Apple. they are not a friend of Free software. they are only here because they have little choice otherwise and would happily slit the throat of Free software if only to escape once again. - -- Aaron J. Seigo GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9RaWT1rcusafx20MRArNQAKCPJRxv/tRb+fBiaofstQ30ckzcugCggpfI IzU3tcFdoqFzvpODoSNA0bY= =G+2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
