Daniel Pocock: If you thought systemd proponents were bad....
Just imagine for a moment if something like the iPhone App Store approval process was applied to every application for a domain name. Delays and unexplained rejections killing many great ideas before they even get off the ground. In the worse cases, like that of Greg Hughes, the great firewall of the app store has been used to quash ideas that it appears Apple may have been planning to compete with or copy.
If domain applicants had to go through such a process or if other core technologies fell into a rut like that then it would throw Charles Darwin's long established theory of evolution out the window and society would end up eating each other. Once companies had established their position and were happily making money they would do everything possible to stomp out any innovation that may undermine them.
This is exactly the kind of non-evolution that has plagued the telecoms sector for many years now. You don't have to look past the price of a simple SMS to see the truth of this situation. Your 160 bytes can cost anywhere between $US0.10 - $US0.50 throughout the western world, even on a network that is otherwise charging maybe $10 per 1MiB (the equivalent of 6,000 text messages) when roaming.
One of the compelling features of free software is that it empowers innovation and efficiency. Telecoms executives may argue that by charging you these extortionate fees, they are keeping spam out of your phone. Think again: technologies like XMPP and SIP are doing that even more effectively and without any price to pay. Software for managing buddy lists and algorithms for spam detection put those telecoms executives out of a job. If SIP, XMPP or both become dominant, evolution may succeed yet.
Despite having these great technologies available for messaging and multimedia communications and despite having a range of free software success stories in products such as Firefox or whole distributions like Fedora, Debian and its derivatives like Ubuntu, non-free communications solutions like Skype and Viber continue to run rampant in the voice and video domain.
As it turns out, this is a very dangerous area for the free software community to neglect.
How many people know somebody who tried running Linux but went back to a proprietary solution so they could use a non-free softphone?
In these cases, it is not the phone software itself that appeals to the user: it is the people that software lets them communicate with, their friends, family, professional community and beyond. For people who don't truly perceive the benefits of free software or those who don't have the confidence or experience to defend those benefits, the power of Metcalfe's law hits them like a tsunami and violently sweeps away all the rest of the free software they had started to use.
While Skype is currently available for some distributions of Linux, it is not free software: amongst other things, there is no published source code and no independent review of the code has been possible. Leveraging the power of Metcalfe's law, the publisher of that software gains significant power over those who choose to install it. Any day now, they could even use it to offer users a one-click "free trial" upgrade to some "Windows Lite" or install other components that obstruct effective upgrades to newer versions of the free operating system. To make an analogy, the potential for dirty tricks in this area is far more scary than the things systemd proponents have been accused of.
For those with an interest in solving these problems or at least giving free real-time communications software a try,
- Drop by the real-time lounge at FOSDEM this weekend
- Try the Debian SIP service
- Join the Free RTC mailing list sponsored by FSF Europe
- and see some of my previous blogs for more detail about projects in this area of free software
I want Zoe to do one "extra curricular" activity per term this year. Something
dance-related, something gymnastics-related and maybe some other form of sport
(I'm thinking soccer). My girlfriend and I were wandering through
Couple of weeks ago I was in the situation of having to setup up a new laptop. I decided to go with wheezy s DVD installer. So far so good. I didn t expect (somewhere in the lies-I-tell-myself dept.) to have GNOME as the default Debian desktop. However after install I ve figured it was the new GNOME3 everybody was talking about. Before that I ve seen it in Ubuntu systems used by my classmates. I thought yeah, OK GNOME3, I think that s fine for them as a Linux desktop. Turns out that I ve started using the Debian desktop aka GNOME3 and noticed that it was not as bloated as the Ubuntu desktop I ve seen before looked, so I sticked with it, (I thought for a while).
Turns out that I did like this new so called GNOME3, the non-window based but an application-based system (that is something that sticks in my head). I liked the way it makes sense as a desktop system, like when you look for applications, documents, connect to networks, use pluggable devices or just configure stuff every time with less and less effort. Good practices and concepts learned from Mac OS X-like environments and for sure taking advantage of the new features the Linux kernel and user-space environment got over the years. So, like one month later I stick with it and it makes sense for me to keep it. I had no chance to try the latest XFCE or KDE, my default choices before this experience. Kudos GNOME team, even after the depictions you guys had on GNOME Shell; as I learned.
This whole situation got me into some pondering about the past of the Linux user experience and how we in the community lead people into joining. I remember that when I guy asked: how do I configure this new monitor/VGA card/network card/Etc? the answer was in the lines of: what is the exact chipset model and specific whole product code number that your device has? Putting myself in the shoes of such people or today s people I d say: what are you talking about? what it is a chipset? I mean, like it was too technical that only one guy with more than average knowledge could grasp. From a product perspective this is similar for a car manufacturer tell to a customer to look for the exact layout or design your car s engine has, so that they are able to tell whether is the 82 s model A or 83 s model C. Simplicity on naming and identification was not in the mindset of most of us.
This is funny because as technology advances it also becomes more transparent to the customer. So, for instance, today s kids can become really power users of any new technology as if they had, indeed, many pre-set chipsets in their brain. But when going into the details we had to grasp few years ago they have some hard time figuring out the complexity of the product that presents itself on this clean and simple interface. New times, interesting times. Always good to look back. No, I m not getting old.
Do you remember the very vocal people who, a decade ago, would endlessly argue that udev was broken and that they would never use it?
I don't know how Debian planet deals with MathJax (it seems to
become illegible), but I will try to post this, anyway.
My friend
While the user may have simply pressed the "call" button, Lumicall alerts them to several ways that they may proceed:
I was a member of the
I'm actually doing
The