4 ms·

>Demand Android in your phones Is it just me or is this not a sufficient demand? If we are to live in a truly open world, we need software which is truly Free,

by scythe 15y ago

>Demand Android in your phones Is it just me or is this not a sufficient demand? If we are to live in a truly open world, we need software which is truly Free, not something which is developed on top of open-source. Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X. It is confusing to see people count adoption of Chrome as a victory for the open-source community when frankly it seems like anything but.

spot 15y ago
you've never heard of chromium?
- scythe 15y ago
  I've heard of Chromium, just as I have heard of Darwin. Regardless, the proportion of users who use these technologies is a vanishingly small fraction of the Chrome and OS X marketshare.
  - kamechan 15y ago
    but at least an open source version does exist. IIRC, the reason there is an open and non-open source version of chromium/chrome is that chrome contains some proprietary 3rd party software that cannot be open sourced.
    - scythe 15y ago
      >but at least an open source version does exist. So what? If the goal is to promote the users' freedom, what use is it to develop software they do not use?
      - freyrs3 15y ago
        Chromium is used quite frequently on the Linux side of things. Distros like Arch Linux and Debian distribute only Chromium in their main repos.
ChrisLTD 15y ago
Agreed. At the very least we should be demanding hardware that isn't tied to a particular OS. It's bad enough that we're often legally tied a specific wireless carrier. If Apple or Samsung releases an update for my phone that I don't like or doesn't work properly, I should be able to switch to different software. And I should be able to switch without scouring shady parts of the internet for jailbreaking tools. With Macs or PCs you can install whatever OS you'd like without jumping through hacks. Apple even makes it user friendly to install alternate OSs with their Boot Camp software.
bad_user 15y ago
we need software which is truly Free What is "Free"? According to the FSF definition, Chromium is as Free as it gets, with Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM). Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat. Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X That's bollocks and you're either trying to spread FUD or you don't know what you're talking about. If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have (and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a legal manner on top of non-Apple computers.
- scythe 15y ago
  >Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM). It does not matter: would Stallman use Chrome? Chromium, like Darwin, is indeed as Free as it gets. >Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat. RHEL is fully Free, and can be recompiled at leisure, cf. Scientific Linux and Oracle Linux. It is not quite analogous. >If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have (and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a legal manner on top of non-Apple computers. Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X?
  - bad_user 15y ago
    RHEL is fully Free No it's not, the brand Red Hat is protected by trademarks and there's a license involved if you want to use software branded as Red Hat, a license for which you have to pay for. You also cannot redistribute RHEL, having many restrictions one would expect from proprietary software. Also, only Red Hat, the company, gets to make releases of RHEL and only that company gets to decide what to include in that release. RHEL is commercial software and it makes no guarantees on whether you'll end up using only free software or not (unless you're paying close attention), although the process itself for the RHEL snapshot is fairly transparent and you can inspect what goes in and out of such a release. What sets Red Hat apart from others in regards to open-source is their handling of in-house developments - they are one of the biggest contributors to Linux and they are giving back both through up-stream and through Fedora, not to mention they aren't very upset about CentOS. Chrome to RHEL and Fedora to Chromium couldn't be more analogous, although I have to agree, Google doesn't play very well with upstream (but that's not a political issue, Google engineers are just stubborn). Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X? Indeed, who said you were?

by scythe 15y ago

spot 15y ago

you've never heard of chromium?

scythe 15y ago
I've heard of Chromium, just as I have heard of Darwin. Regardless, the proportion of users who use these technologies is a vanishingly small fraction of the Chrome and OS X marketshare.
- kamechan 15y ago
  but at least an open source version does exist. IIRC, the reason there is an open and non-open source version of chromium/chrome is that chrome contains some proprietary 3rd party software that cannot be open sourced.
  - scythe 15y ago
    >but at least an open source version does exist. So what? If the goal is to promote the users' freedom, what use is it to develop software they do not use?
    - freyrs3 15y ago
      Chromium is used quite frequently on the Linux side of things. Distros like Arch Linux and Debian distribute only Chromium in their main repos.

ChrisLTD 15y ago

Agreed. At the very least we should be demanding hardware that isn't tied to a particular OS. It's bad enough that we're often legally tied a specific wireless carrier. If Apple or Samsung releases an update for my phone that I don't like or doesn't work properly, I should be able to switch to different software. And I should be able to switch without scouring shady parts of the internet for jailbreaking tools. With Macs or PCs you can install whatever OS you'd like without jumping through hacks. Apple even makes it user friendly to install alternate OSs with their Boot Camp software.

bad_user 15y ago

we need software which is truly Free What is "Free"? According to the FSF definition, Chromium is as Free as it gets, with Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM). Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat. Google Chrome is no more open source than is Mac OS X That's bollocks and you're either trying to spread FUD or you don't know what you're talking about. If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have (and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a legal manner on top of non-Apple computers.

scythe 15y ago
>Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM). It does not matter: would Stallman use Chrome? Chromium, like Darwin, is indeed as Free as it gets. >Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat. RHEL is fully Free, and can be recompiled at leisure, cf. Scientific Linux and Oracle Linux. It is not quite analogous. >If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have (and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a legal manner on top of non-Apple computers. Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X?
- bad_user 15y ago
  RHEL is fully Free No it's not, the brand Red Hat is protected by trademarks and there's a license involved if you want to use software branded as Red Hat, a license for which you have to pay for. You also cannot redistribute RHEL, having many restrictions one would expect from proprietary software. Also, only Red Hat, the company, gets to make releases of RHEL and only that company gets to decide what to include in that release. RHEL is commercial software and it makes no guarantees on whether you'll end up using only free software or not (unless you're paying close attention), although the process itself for the RHEL snapshot is fairly transparent and you can inspect what goes in and out of such a release. What sets Red Hat apart from others in regards to open-source is their handling of in-house developments - they are one of the biggest contributors to Linux and they are giving back both through up-stream and through Fedora, not to mention they aren't very upset about CentOS. Chrome to RHEL and Fedora to Chromium couldn't be more analogous, although I have to agree, Google doesn't play very well with upstream (but that's not a political issue, Google engineers are just stubborn). Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X? Indeed, who said you were?