Canonical and Microsoft are in bed with other
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a member!
Microsoft once call Linux “a cancer” in computing (Microsoft once called Linux 'a cancer,' and that was a big mistake | ZDNET) and now Canonical is working with Microsoft in a partnership (Canonical and Microsoft get cosier with Active Directory integration in Ubuntu 21.04 • The Register). Talk about getting in bed with the Devil. This is a very bad move for Canonical and for the Linux community. I think it might be time for Trisquel linux to move away from Ubuntu Base and maybe go to Debian Base only. I really enjoy working with Trisquel but, I think it won’t be long before Microsoft installs some of its own “spy codes” into the Ubuntu’s base codes. Am I wrong or could this have a negative effect on Trisquel using Ubuntu as a base?
Trisquel only takes free software from upstream. Microsoft's proprietary code does not matter to Trisquel. Microsoft's free software had better be malware-free: by definition, any user is free to study it (freedom 1) and, I guess, many users do study Microsoft's code for GNU/Linux (at least: more than for code from other contributors), in search of something that would worsen Microsoft's reputation.
Microsoft, as any large software company, now contributes to free software. The software world has changed since 2001 (when Steve Ballmer said "Linux is a cancer"). In favor of free software, in several regards. In 2014, Steve Ballmer's successor, Satya Nadella, put up a slide proclaiming "Microsoft ♥ Linux".
I am a translator!
> I guess, many users do study Microsoft's code for GNU/Linux (at least: more than for code from other contributors)
Do you know whether Microsoft contribute to Ubuntu specifically or do they contribute to some upstream code?
It is certainly good to study source code attributed to Microsoft but perhaps they would not use their name directly for malicious/anti-feature code if they want to add any.
There is the Active Directory integration Brian59 was referring to. Microsoft certainly contributes to https://ubuntu.com/azure ("Ubuntu on Azure"). Since SQL Server (which is proprietary!) can be installed on GNU/Linux (since SQL Server 2017), there is certainly code contributed elsewhere to improve its integration (in particular its performances). Etc.
Just to be clear: proprietary software is bad, whatever the operating system it runs on, and code that *only* aims at running proprietary software is bad too, even if it is free software. Nevertheless, code written to help a proprietary application that relies on it will often help as well free software applications that rely on it. It may correct bugs, implement useful new features, etc. If that code is free, it is a contribution to free software, that may well come from Microsoft or Apple or Oracle or Facebook or... Rejecting it just because it comes from a company that mainly writes user-subjugating software makes no sense to me. We actually want such companies to switch to free software. To do so, we must thank them for the free code they write and harshly criticize them for their proprietary code.
Yes, this seems to be trying to sum up all of the actions of a company into a single judgment. It's best to evaluate each action separately where each one can be approved or condemned as appropriate. Microsoft does things that are good and bad, just as other companies do. If we sum up an entire company into a single thing then, for example, we'd be calling to reject the VP8 and VP9 video codecs (because they're coming out of Google from their purchase of On2 Technologies) even though those codecs are helpful for us to avoid software patent problems in the video codec area.
The phrase "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" comes to mind.
"Rejecting it just because it comes from a company that mainly writes user-subjugating software makes no sense to me"
True. Sambashare, CUPS and possibly many other examples show that it has already happened and did not harm users' freedom.
"We actually want such companies to switch to free software. To do so, we must thank them for the free code they write and harshly criticize them for their proprietary code."
This sounds a bit naive, though. These companies only do stuff when they believe it will contribute to improve their balance sheet, and this makes a huge difference because their motivation remains the same. If not, they would simply have moved to free their software long ago. Same goes for their official narrative. Most are the archetypical evil company: failing to uphold their social responsibilities whenever it serves their profits better to do so. Licenses are one thing, actors and behaviors are another, and we all know here that a license is not everything.
Moreover, I do not believe anyone from their executive team is reading this forum, so there is no reason to praise them or criticize them harshly. We know we should better keep them away from our computing and ignore them. It is the Trisquel devs' job to freedom clean Ubuntu, and they have been doing a great job. They are the ones who deserve praise.
To take the opposite example, the Linux kernel team allowing proprietary blobs to slip in does not mean that we should run away from Linux. Using Hurd would be great of course, but I do not believe that using Linux is hurting GNU in any way (apart from the naming controversy). We can have Linux-libre because Linux is still aiming at being "open source": the philosophy may be different but the goals are roughly aligned. Our praise should go to the Linux-libre team, because they may be reading this, but I see no reason not to be grateful to the upstream Linux contributors too.
Apple pretty much abandoned CUPS actually. The version of CUPS used in GNU/Linux distributions is developed by OpenPrinting, and I think Apple maintains a version for their operating systems only.
>"To take the opposite example, the Linux kernel team allowing proprietary blobs to slip in does not mean that we should run away from Linux. Using Hurd would be great of course, but I do not believe that using Linux is hurting GNU in any way (apart from the naming controversy). We can have Linux-libre because Linux is still aiming at being "open source": the philosophy may be different but the goals are roughly aligned. Our praise should go to the Linux-libre team, because they may be reading this, but I see no reason not to be grateful to the upstream Linux contributors too."
That's exactly what Hyperbola is doing with Hyperbola BSD. Which, by the way, I am told is getting nearer to an Alpha release.
For a Hyperbola true believer, all of us Trisquel folks are making far too many compromises and far too many deals with the devil. Can't say I disagree.
A line like this would never fly with the Hyperbola folks:
>"Rejecting it just because it comes from a company that mainly writes user-subjugating software makes no sense to me"
OpenBSD has some proprietary firmware in it, just like Linux does. They are also supported by corporations like Google and Microsoft: https://www.openbsdfoundation.org/contributors.html
Which is why the Hyperbola devs are rewriting huge parts of the kernel and making their tools work on a BSD base. It's an interesting way of doing things.
All I'm saying is, OpenBSD is no better than Linux when it comes to freedom, nor is it any better if you want to avoid software backed by big tech companies. The Hyperbola purists might say that distros which use a deblobbed version of Linux are compromising (I don't know if they actually say this), but that doesn't make it true.
Indeed. Also:
Other notable derivatives include (...) Apple Inc.'s iOS and macOS, with its Darwin base including a large amount of code derived from FreeBSD.
Most of the current BSD operating systems are open source and available for download, free of charge, under the BSD License, the most notable exceptions being macOS and iOS. (...)
In the past, BSD was also used as a basis for several proprietary versions of UNIX, such as Sun's SunOS, Sequent's Dynix, NeXT's NeXTSTEP, DEC's Ultrix and OSF/1 AXP (which became the now discontinued Tru64 UNIX). Parts of NeXT's software became the foundation for macOS which, together with iOS, is among the most commercially successful BSD variants in the general market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BSD_operating_systems
I am a translator!
I can't find that reason at https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-roadmap/
There is a more verbose thing at https://conocimientoslibres.tuxfamily.org/en/interview-about-hyperbolabsd/, this is also not what it says.
EDIT: sorry, which reason are you talking about? These pages clearly say that the Hyperbola devs are putting loads of work into liberating openBSD, so I guess you are referring to whether "hard forking" is going to be enough to cut them off from the upstream donors. That is indeed going to be the crucial point here, given the topic at hand.
I am a translator!
Unless I did not understand English well enough (that happens to me regularly), what was said in this forum is that hyperbola developers decided to give up linux because it has proprietary firmware.
I am just pointing out that this is not in the list reasons given by Hyperbola developers themselves. If people want to comment on hyperbola, they'd rather comment on what hyperbola actually write (and preferrably not in the place for helping trisquel users).
>"I can't find that reason at https://www.hyperbola.info/news/announcing-hyperbolabsd-roadmap/"
The page you cite clearly says, "including new code written under GPLv3 and LGPLv3 to replace GPL-incompatible parts and non-free ones."
I'm not sure how you think that is NOT a reason for them re-writing parts of the BSD kernel to get rid of proprietary blobs.
Regardless, I am admittedly no expert at all on Hyperbola. I have it installed on one machine and I've written installation how-to's here on this forum, but there are many things about the distro that I do not know or understand. So if you or anyone else here wants to argue about Hyperbola future activities, you'll have to do it without my input.
I am a translator!
> The page you cite clearly says, "including new code written under GPLv3 and LGPLv3 to replace GPL-incompatible parts and non-free ones."
> I'm not sure how you think that is NOT a reason for them re-writing parts of the BSD kernel to get rid of proprietary blobs.
Yes, and that clearly has nothing to do with giving up linux because it has proprietary firmware, which I understood your wrote, but perhaps I misunderstood.
Oh, no, Hyperbola has access to the Linux-libre kernel and have been using it in Hyperbola GNU/Linux for years.
They have some other reasons besides proprietary blobs for transitioning from using the Linux kernel over to their own modified version of the BSD kernel.
I've read an interview with the main Hyperbola developer - if I recall correctly his concerns with the Linux kernel had more to do with security and hardening.
Well, I thought you were implying that they're switching to OpenBSD because using Linux (like all other FSDG distros) is a compromise.
Security makes more sense as a reason, as OpenBSD is generally said to be more secure. But I'm pretty skeptical that a rewrite of 20% of the OpenBSD code will still be secure, unless it is heavily scrutinized and audited. It's very easy to introduce bugs when writing C code.
> because using Linux (like all other FSDG distros) is a compromise
Where did you read that? Surely you know the difference between Linux and Trisquel, as in "all of us Trisquel folks are making far too many compromises". Which probably refers to this: "Many GNU userspace and core utils are all forcing adaption of features without build time options to disable them. E.g. (PulseAudio / SystemD / Rust / Java as forced dependencies)" from the first link mentioned in Avron's decisive post. I take it that you are not deliberately twisting andyprough's words, so you may have simply made a honest mistake.
I'm not deliberately twisting anything. I didn't say the Hyperbola developers said using Linux is a compromise, but that's what it seemed that andyprough was implying.
I'm referring to this post by andyprough. Since it was countering your comment that we should be grateful to the upstream Linux developers, I thought he was referring to Linux vs. BSD and implying that BSD as a base for Hyperbola will somehow make it less user-subjugating. Now I'm not really sure which compromises he was referring to.
'''
That's exactly what Hyperbola is doing with Hyperbola BSD. Which, by the way, I am told is getting nearer to an Alpha release.
For a Hyperbola true believer, all of us Trisquel folks are making far too many compromises and far too many deals with the devil. Can't say I disagree.
A line like this would never fly with the Hyperbola folks:
>"Rejecting it just because it comes from a company that mainly writes user-subjugating software makes no sense to me"
'''
Yes, I was responding to that and to this statement:
>"Rejecting it just because it comes from a company that mainly writes user-subjugating software makes no sense to me"
I'm pretty certain that the Hyperbola true-believers would look at a statement like that as complete anathema.
"This sounds a bit naive, though. These companies only do stuff when they believe it will contribute to improve their balance sheet"
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-motives.en.html
As you can see there can be lots of motives for writing free software. While it would be nice to get everyone on board with the political idealism to help people escape power we can't expect that everyone will agree with the philosophy of the free software movement. As long as it is in fact free software their reasons don't matter and rejecting an otherwise free program on the basis that they didn't write it for the right reasons seems harmful by chopping off access to otherwise useful programs. We can still for purely practical reasons take the software they made.
Sure. The part you quoted was referring to this:
"We actually want such companies to switch to free software. To do so, we must thank them for the free code they write and harshly criticize them for their proprietary code."
Which I believe is a different point.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios