Re: Candidacy: Emmanuele Bassi
2011/5/22 Luca Ferretti : > How should we test all the stuff needed for a first class experience > (hardware support, drivers, ecc)? This is a very interesting question. I have many computers and I help other users to install and configure GNU/Linux on their PCs. The "user experience" is very different: Intel videocards works fine, Nvidia cards give video tearing often and ATi cards have more problems. Sometimes FLOSS drivers work finest than binary ones, sometimes not. User experience is affected by a number of other things like ACPI, interrupts conflict, and so on. How to choose the best components in these cases? It is impossible because "the best components" are the worst for some users. > Do you suggest to "rebase" it on existing distro or create it > from scratch? Another interesting question. If you choose to create a distro from scratch you should create a packaging system too. Another one? No, thank you. And if you choose to do GNOME OS basing it on Debian | Fedora | Gentoo | etc., this means other distributors/vendors should work hard to adapt GNOME on their platform. IMHO, GNOME should be platform-independent and should support pretty all underlying technologies. Well, there are some of them that are cross platform or are really far better than others (examples: CUPS, Samba) so GNOME could choose them as "the standard". But I think GNOME should work on unsupported cross-platform technologies: for example, why GNOME has not official support for ACLs? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Emmanuele Bassi
2011/5/21 Emmanuele Bassi : > On 2011-05-21 at 23:18, Guido Iodice wrote: >> > first of all: at no point in my email I talked about Linux-only, and >> > least of all, at no point I've written Fedora. so that's that, and I >> > think you're projecting the flamewar on d-d-l here — so I'll kindly >> > ask you to stop right there. >> >> Fedora is an example. You did miss the point. > > an example of what? and you did miss *my* point in the first place. the > idea is not to standardize GNOME on a distribution — *any* distribution. > the goal is to make distributions based on GNOME's requirements. well, that appears a reasonable goal but think to consequences: each distributor or alternative OS that is in disagree with GNOME requirements should patch it or drop it. What is the most probable consequence when GNOME and $distribution or $alternative_os will diverge deeply? It is that they will adopt xfce or kde. That is a (bad) scenario you can't exclude. How to prevent it? But a-bit-less-worst scenario isn't comforting anyway. You see, today the most spread distro with GNOME use another Shell, another notify framework and another tray area API. To have an idea about consequences of "GNOME OS", multiply this by 10 ore 20. Someone said "fragmentation"? ;-) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Emmanuele Bassi
2011/5/21 Emmanuele Bassi : > On 2011-05-21 at 22:11, Guido Iodice wrote: > >> So, locking GNOME to Fedora is simply short-sighted > > first of all: at no point in my email I talked about Linux-only, and > least of all, at no point I've written Fedora. so that's that, and I > think you're projecting the flamewar on d-d-l here — so I'll kindly > ask you to stop right there. Fedora is an example. You did miss the point. And, I like Fedora very much and I use it to test GNOME 3. > > second of all: "lock in" with an open source project is a ridiculous > statement. It's not so ridiculous. If a FLOSS project works for many years only on a specific platform, it could be hard to port it on another platform. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Candidacy: Emmanuele Bassi
2011/5/21 Emmanuele Bassi : > the "graphical interface" part is a definition that might have applied > 10 years ago. > > the main lesson learned in these past 10 years is that writing a > "graphical interface" in a vacuum, shielded by layers of abstractions > is not only impossible: it's actively wrong. > > GNOME requires, in order to build a full user experience (not just the > user interface bits, but also the interaction between them and the > device, and the user), a full set of vertically designed and integrated > capabilities: from the chosen kernel (generally Linux) to the low-level > kernel/user space interaction (e.g. udev); from the IPC mechanism (e.g. > D-Bus) to the initialization system; from the authentication and > authorization framework up to the login manager — and we haven't even > logged into the session yet! Caro Emmanuele, I disagree on your statements. It is true that a Desktop Environment is, today, a sort of OS running on a OS. To use GNU/Linux with GNOME is not the same thing of to use GNU/Linux with another Desktop Environment, not only for users but for coders too. If I write an application for GNOME, I'll use GNOME facilities like dconf while I'll not use KDE framework like phonon. But I repeat: GNOME is itself a sort of OS on top of an underlying OS. Then, locking GNOME with GNU/Linux or a particular flavour of it is wrong and is not the mood of the moment. For example, Bada OS runs on top of Linux kernel or on top of a proprietary kernel. GNU runs on Linux or on FreeBSD's kernel. Some GNU/Linux distributors are working on integration of Android in its systems. So, locking GNOME to Fedora is simply short-sighted: surely your GNOME (/Fedora/GNU/Linux) OS will work fine, but the risk is that it confines itself to work well on this platform and thus limits its spread. I would like to have GNOME integrated with AppArmor, not only SELinux, I would like GNOME with ZFS snapshots support and Jails support on GNU/kFreeBSD, and so on. Things like these could make GNOME something more than another distribution. I know this in less simple but it is what make GNOME a big project and not a GUI for a few. Ciao. Guido. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: CENATIC Report on the International Status of Open Source Software 2010
Dear Mr. Diaz, I read in the report: > Since Richard Stallman began the GNU/Linux project in 1983, the open source > software development model has evolved towards new forms of cooperation > revolving around the basic concept of a community of developers. Well, RMS did not start GNU/Linux in 1983, simply because Linux (the kernel) was born in 90s. RMS started the GNU project. GNU system software, compiled on the Linus Torvalds' kernel, is now the core of GNU/Linux Operating Systems like Ubuntu, Debian GNU/Linux, Fedora, Red Hat, Suse, etc. GNU can be compiled on other kernels, for example the new brand Debian GNU/kfreebsd is a GNU system compiled on the FreeBSD kernel. On the other hand, the Linux kernel works with different userlands, like in Google Android system (now the most selled OS for smartphones) or in uCLinux systems (used in routers and microcontrollers). The statement in your report seems to say that RMS strarted the "open source development model", but RMS started the Free Software Movement. Open Source camp was born later as a "fork" of the community that doesn't talk about freedom in software but pretty only about practical advantages. I'm not sure about the existance of one "open source development model". Many software projects that use the term "open source" are really cathedral-like and there are many nuances between cathedral and bazaar. Ironically, the Bazaar[1] vcs is a GNU package. About your report: it is very interesting. Regarding my country, Italy, I can assure you that central government has today no policy about Free/Libre Open Source Software. The FLOSS observatory was dropped some months ago and the minister for public sector and innovation subscribed an agreement with Microsoft. But we are Italian so many of us ignore the central government directives :). The situation of FLOSS in Italy has lights and shadows. RMS was in Italy some days ago for a meeting with Apulia Region President, Nichi Vendola, talking against the Region agreement with Microsoft. Vendola is a very important person in Italy and should become the next prime minister candidate for center-left coalition. We hope Vendola realized his mistake: he now seems committed to Free Software. Regards. Guido Iodice, blogger, GNOME user, Associazione Software Libero - Italy Member. [1] http://bazaar.canonical.com/en/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
2010/6/14 Sriram Ramkrishna : > It's reasonably implied that Linux includes the GNU system. > There is no other system that Linux has other than GNU Pardon, but this is not true. I.e. Android has Linux but it has not GNU. It is very different from a GNU/linux distro. > GNU is not the main > part of a modern GNU/Linux system. Today, apart of GNOME, GNU is > mostly glibc, libiconv et al. (I'm not counting compilers as they are > only relevant to devs.) Excuse me, I was unclear. That is no matter of quantity, but matter of importance. In Fedora, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. have different packages. But each one uses Linux as the kernel, and GNU. Linux and GNU are the "core", the base of every distro. The combination of GNU+Linux makes these Operating Systems very similar (and even binary compatible). Fedora, Mandriva, Ubuntu, etc are "flavors" of the same OS. This OS is composed by many packages but if you want an OS *of this kind* you _need_ at least GNU and Linux. Without one of them you have not an OS. If you use somethig else, you have a different OS, like Android. If you call the whole system only "Linux" you have a paradox, because (i.e.) Android has Linux but is not "Linux". http://static.arstechnica.com/android-dev/android_not_linux.png ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
2010/6/14 Bastien Nocera : > > I'll add that people writing KDE or GNOME don't push for a > GNOME/GNU/Linux, or even GNOME/X.org/GNU/Linux. Just mentioning > GNU/Linux is disingenious. Well, but merging GNU and Linux (or GNU and FreeBSD kernel...) we have an OS. KDE is not sufficient to have an OS. It is a DE. About GNOME, it is part of GNU. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question for Bastian Nocera
2010/6/14 Stormy Peters : > > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > Millions of people now say Linux Millions of people believed the earth was flat, but they wrong :) > and GNU/Linux is > harder to say, uglier sounding (hard G's are not easy), implies that we feel > left out, etc. Well, then we should change the name of this DE. GNOME begins with "GN" like GNU. Well... GNOME *is* part of GNU! Following you statement, we could rename it "LIOME" or something else. :) > Names often do not include all the components. I drive a Pontiac car that > includes many other parts. We drink "coke" that includes many other brands. > I use "kleenex" that is often not kleenex at all. "Pontiac" is like "Ubuntu", "Fedora", etc. But the questions are: What is a Pontiac Torrent? It is a car. What kind of car? It is a SUV What is Fedora? It is a OS. What kind of OS is it? It is a GNU/Linux OS. > We need to work on other campaigns to spread the word about the value of > free software. Surely free software needs more. But it should be useful for all to explain than GNOME is part of GNU, and GNU is the main part of the GNU/Linux system. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: question for candidates
Il giorno gio, 10/06/2010 alle 13.30 +0200, Dodji Seketeli ha scritto: > Do you have public pointers to some of these marketing researches? I am > not trying to tell you "show me the links or shut up". Rather, I think > having those pointers at hand could be interesting for future > references. > > Thanks. > > -- >Dodji > Thank you for the question. This is an example of a research about FLOSS adoption in Europe: http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/analyst-idc/110915 Companies did not cite low cost as their main reason for deploying open source, a factor usually considered one of the main reasons for open source's success. Rather, companies said open source's top benefit was the flexibility allowed by the open source licence. "The most important motivator was that they could deploy whenever they wanted, without having to go back to the vendor and negotiate over licences, without having to discuss it with the CFO or looking at the cost implications. They could just do it," Another surprise was that many companies said the ability to customize open source software was important. IDC didn't suggest this as one of the standard multiple-choice answers. Instead, many companies added it in the "comments" section of the survey. Vendors of prepackaged, proprietary software routinely downplay the customizability of open source, arguing customers are not interested in extending software themselves. Another example is this: http://opensource.sys-con.com/node/431543 what's really driving the adoption of open source software is freedom. Almost half of all respondents interviewed in the Forrester study cited open standards, a lack of usage restrictions, and not being locked into a single software vendor as their primary reasons for looking at or adopting open source solutions. Lower initial purchase cost was cited as important by most interviewees, but just as important is the ability to customize these packages to specific business uses - especially in vertical markets. And although most noted that they won't really change the code, having that option is very valuable to them. Freedom is key. It is true that in more recent survey, during recession, price factor seems to override each other reason. This is obvious when money is less. But factors as "easy customization", "flexibility", "vendor lock-in" remain very important also during recession, often more important than generic "better feature" that are variable in FLOSS (and in non-FLOSS). Personal addendum. I often talk about "FLOSS", crossing over the dispute on naming, because in my personal experience "freedom matters" for both practical and ethical reasons, and I see these reasons strongly related, like two faces of the same coin, so I don't feel a contrast. As I wrote in previous e-mail, practical advantages like security are often a side-effect of freedom to see, modify and propagate the code. On the other hand, a good "advertisement" for freedom is to show how it brings practical advantages. I.e., some times I modify software to help people to fit their needs. Former Windows users are amazed about this, they did not imagine that there is opportunity to take a program and force it to do what you want, i.e. to modify a driver to support a new hardware or to modify an applet to open Evolution instead GMail in the browser. This is inconceivable for them. They know only how to "crack" proprietary software but because it is illegal, they think it is something to hide. They are surprised that to hack a free/libre/open source software is a normal activity and then realize the importance of freedom. So I hope GNOME people will help users and companies to understand about the effects of freedom in their life and in their business. Often users are aware of practical advantages of habeas corpus (i.e. to be not in a prison ;) ), but they are not aware about practical advantages of other kind of freedom and rights, the immaterial ones, like privacy or software freedom. Companies often stay for "free market" but they should understand that freedom in business includes software freedom too. Thank you. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: question for candidates
Dear Mr.Nocera and Mr.Stallman, as GNOME and FLOSS fan I would like say something about this: RMS: >> Many people have already chosen free software precisely for the sake >> of freedom. So have some national and regional governments. BN: >They chose it first because it matches their requirements, then because > it was libre software. Or because it matched their requirements close > enough that they'd be able to modify it for those. Pretty *all* marketing reaserches show that companies choose FLOSS because this reasons: * to escape from vendor lock-in * to have the possibility to adapt software to their needs * in general: "flexibility" These are freedom-related reasons, I think. Despite the fact that they call FS only as "open source", companies are searching for freedom. Price is often the third or forth reason for importance. Additionally, security is often a primary goal, but we need to remember that security in FS is often a side-effect of the fact that it is free-as-in-freedom. In facts, other Unix like system (i.e. Mac OS X) are not secure like GNU/Linux as many hacker contest have demostrate. Many other pratical advangates of FLOSS are side-effects of freedom. In other words, "freedom is a feature" Thank you for attention. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi, I'm not a Foundation member, but I would like to do some suggestions: > > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software > > but > > that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, > > promote, use and write free software. This is a self contradictory statement. Free software was born to replace proprietary software. I.e. GNOME was born to replace KDE when it was dependent by QT. But anti-proprietary is a bad word, it miss the point that is propositive, not negative. I thik that a good statement should be: "The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes it as a reliable alternative* to proprietary software." * or "a reliable replacement" > Sometimes those companies are > > proprietary software companies Most of main software companies are not only-proprietary software companies, i.e. Google, Oracle/SUN, Intel, etc. A statement like this: "Sometimes those companies products proprietary software too, and while " is more accurate. ____ GUIDO IODICE guido.iod...@gmail.com http://guiodic.wordpress.com http://www.linuxqualityhelp.it signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
Hi to all. I'm not a GNOME Foundation member, then I apologize for this e-mail. But as enthusiastic GNOME user, I would like to send you my opinion. First at all: thank you Richard Stallman and Miguel De Icaza for GNOME idea. Thank you Miguel for GNOME hacking and for Mono too. Thank you RMS for GCC, Emacs and other packages of GNU system. Especially thanks to all GNOME hackers to improve GNOME every day. If some of you use/develop/love some proprietary software, this not matter. Thank you for your free code in GNOME. As user, my vision is that free software is a competitor of non-free software. It is simple for me: free software was born to replace proprietary software. Not only GNU/Linux is a competitor of Mac OS X and Windows, but all FLOSS are a competitor of its proprietary counterparts. I.e.: Firefox is a competitor of IE and Safari (and Chrome, that is partially non-free). GCC is a competitor of proprietary compilers (and GCC won :-) ). GNOME was born as a competitor of KDE because it was based on a proprietary framework. Today GNOME and KDE are friends and both free/open source. So the Free/Open Source Software is - taking it as a whole - a competitor of proprietary software. You may be not in agree with me, but many users see the issue in these terms. They would like to have free/open tools to replace proprietary tools. They "feel" free/open source software as a proprietary software alternative/competitor/replacement. I often read msdn blogs, google blogs, and other corporate and community blogs and planets. I never read on msdn something to "legitimate" Mac. Oh yes, you can read about MS Office for Mac, but it is different. You can read on GNU website about GNU software for Windows or Mac too. For GNU Project it is better to use Octave on Windows instead Matlab on Windows. If floss is a non-floss competitor then it is logic do not advertise or speaking favorably about non-free software in the GNOME Planet. Obviously, it is good to analyze proprietary software and learn from it. IMHO GNOME brings the better ideas from Windows an Mac, and it is better than Mac and Windows. But GNOME, on top of a free/open OS, is a replacement of Windows and Mac. And I think that GNOME should "advertise" its "brothers" in virtualization software, like QEMU and Virtualbox[1], not vmWare. Then I think RMS suggestion is essentially logic and coherent with GNOME mission and with what users expect from it. Thank you and best regards. Guido http://guiodic.wordpress.com [1] it is distributed as free software too. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
