The Free Software Foundation objected to UDI for various reasons. Mostly, I think, it was because they were afraid that people who are not them would choose to use drivers that were non-free. As I’ve written about before here, there are people who think that forcing people to use free software is somehow freedom—and I will not go into it in any great depth here, because I have done that in the past. Suffice it to say that forcing anything is not freedom; it cannot be freedom. So, the Free Software Foundation, I think, was really afraid that they would have to do more work to be able to stick to their own requirement of using 100% free software on their own computer systems. (And hey, Roy, if you’re reading—I’m not saying that the FSF is wrong, and I’m not putting myself in a position opposite of that of the FSF. I suspect you think so anyway, but hey, I just figured I would point that out.)

Even if the free software operating systems did not adopt the UDI specification, why didn’t proprietary operating systems? This is perhaps the most puzzling thing to me. It seems that in this event, none of the operating systems—free or proprietary—did what would have made sense. After all, even if only Apple and Microsoft adopted a common device driver specification, that would save a lot of time, effort, and improve user experience all the way around. Apple users would be able to use all the hardware that Microsoft users could use—and the inverse would also be true. The amount of time that device driver authors would have to spend writing and debugging driver code would go way down—free software driver authors would be able to write a driver once, for example, and all systems (including free software systems that chose to support the specification) would benefit.

I could see an objection of a driver specification that was binary-only. However, UDI was not—it mandated an ABI so that drivers that are built for a particular platform were binary-compatible with operating systems on the same platform, but it also mandated an API, so that drivers would be source compatible to any operating system that implemented the specification, on any platform. That by itself would seem to me to be positive motivation to hardware manufacturers to release the source code to drivers so that they can support operating systems that are on platforms that do not exist yet, or have not been considered (or have been considered to be nonviable or unsupported platforms).

So, I have to wonder why a common device driver specification was never implemented in various operating systems. It would seem to be a common sense thing, especially given that there are so many operating systems. It would make the coexistence of operating systems a lot easier, and it would promote choice. It might encourage bits of proprietary code on free software operating systems, but it would also enable people to drop the excuse that “free operating system x does not support device y”, and would as a result potentially increase the number of free software programs and operating systems in use, even if there is a minor cost in terms of certain drivers. And those drivers could always be replaced—a common driver specification would make it easier to understand the structure of drivers generally, and make it easier for lawful, clean-room reverse engineering to be done on those drivers.

Imagine, for example, if drivers for graphics cards, TV tuner cards, video and audio encoding/decoding cards, modems, storage chipsets, motherboard chipsets, USB chipsets, IEEE-1394 chipsets, graphics tablet devices, touch screens, debugging interfaces, network devices, and so forth were all written to a common specification, it would reduce the amount of code which needed testing. It would increase user choice in both hardware and operating systems—something which I still hold is quite likely the most valuable freedom we have. It would increase reliability, since the users of Windows, OS X, Linux, the various BSD systems, and other, not-so-mainstream operating systems would be able to run the same driver code and collectively supply debugging information and perform testing in a multitude of environments. It would increase security, because then common code that is well-known could be used on all platforms and not just the one it was written for. It would do for device drivers what POSIX has done for user-mode application software. I do not believe that I could be convinced that this would be anything other than a good thing.

Also, it could bring back old operating systems.  Imagine what life could be like, for example, if OS/2 had a “UDI driver” written for it, and it could then take advantage of newer drivers never intended for it. Or any other very old operating system which is no longer supported and could still be useful, for any of a number of reasons…

“You can have freedom without choice.”

That someone could even come up with this one is just amazing to me. Note that this is not an exact quote, but it is the summary of Friday’s topic. For example, this summary comes from the idea that Canonical is bad for considering making mainstream non-free software available for Ubuntu based on user preferences. It does not matter who came up with it, of course, but the important thing is that it be called what it is: patently absurd. The ability to choose is a major part of what freedom—or liberty—is. If you cannot make a choice on a matter, then by definition you do not have freedom in the context of that matter. It is quite simple and self-explanatory. Canonical is seeking to increase freedom here, not take it away. Some people actually want to use non-free software; others may not want to use it, but aren’t aware of alternatives. The latter group of people should have our focus with regard to education (but then we should let them make the choice for themselves!).

Note that I am not one of these people: I would rather use free software because of the liberty it gives me that I have come to expect over the years. But I am not going to tell someone else that they are harming me because they would rather use non-free software that is familiar to them. All I can do is show them that there are free alternatives that exist. I cannot—and I will not—make them use it or make them feel bad for not using it. I may not like proprietary software for a variety of reasons, but I will defend people’s right to use it just as I will defend even a stupid person’s right to spew nonsense by way of speech or written word. In other words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” or perhaps more appropriately, “I [may] disapprove of what [software you run], but I will defend to the death your right to [run] it.” Even I use a package or two that is proprietary in nature (though it is looking like I will not have to do so for much longer, given the efforts to replace these packages with equivalent free software).

It is worth it to note that by adding non-free software to Ubuntu, the free software that is already there does not change. The mere existence of non-free software within its repositories does not make Ubuntu somehow bad or evil. It would add choices that do not currently exist, and that one such as myself or yourself can certainly opt out of—I most likely would, for the most part, as I do not need to depend on non-free application software, and I only use non-free drivers if I have hardware where anything else is nonviable (and only until there are functional free software drivers). Did you know that Ubuntu has an option in the installer to only install free software? Can you say that for your favorite desktop operating system distribution, whatever that might be?

The response to this idea, then, is that without choice, there is very little—if any, really—freedom. The thing that gives us freedom with free software is that we are able to to download the source code, to review/audit it, to change it to fit our needs or fix a problem, and to share those changes. If we cannot do those things, then it is not free software; see the essential freedoms. But non-free software inside a distribution is not something that should not cause you great consternation even if you are among the most dedicated of freedom advocates, for if you are a true advocate of freedom then by definition you must respect a computer user’s freedom of choice. Remember that we choose to run free software because of the benefits it brings to us; we choose to improve upon free software for much the same reason. Eventually, I think that free software will once again become the norm for computer software, on merit alone, for no other reason than the development, release, and usage of free software is a highly practical solution for many things ranging from library code to application software to complete operating systems. It is worth noting that free content—which is similar in concept to free software, which itself is merely a specific application of freedom itself—also appears to making major headway towards becoming mainstream; it is doing so more quickly than free software is, but there is every reason to believe that free software will follow, for it is already.

An Example

Imagine that you are in a store, because you need some milk for dinner some night. You always get 1 gallon of 2%. But, the store has stopped carrying it, because more people buy whole milk and they were throwing away the 2% milk—demand was low, supply got to be too high, so they just stopped carrying it altogether. You leave the store and head to the next in the same town and you find the same thing there. You have a choice of stores to go to, and you have made the choice to go buy yourself some milk. But there is only one type of milk. You no longer have the choice to buy 2% where you are, and so effectively, your freedom to buy it has been taken away. (Of course, you can make 2% milk from whole milk (and make whole from 2% even, or even butter), but I suspect just as many people want to do that as want to write their own free software that they demand simply must exist, but doesn’t yet).

Now, the point here is that there is more than one freedom in play: the freedom of the store to stock (or not stock) various products, which affects your freedom as a consumer to buy the product you want. In the case of software, and choice, if the software you are running gives you all the choices you want, then it fits your needs. If it does not, then you are not going to be able to use it the way you want. Now you have two choices: you can do the work that it would take to make your desired choice possible, or you can use another system (free or proprietary) that will give you the choice that you want. Many people will choose the latter, especially if they are non-programmers. Though I’ve seen programmers also choose to use proprietary systems for something that they could themselves implement. That is their choice, of course. After all, if you really wanted 2% milk, you would have the same choice: make it yourself, or drive to the next town over which might have it available for you (assuming that there is some in stock and that the stores neighboring towns have not also decided to stop stocking 2% milk).

Ubuntu One: The Reason Behind This

This discussion came up because someone on identi.ca made the claim that Canonical is forcing proprietary software into Ubuntu by way of the Ubuntu One client software. I cannot even begin to state just how woefully incorrect this point of view is. First off: the only thing added to Ubuntu is the ability to connect to Ubuntu One, and the software that was added to Ubuntu do to that is licensed under Version 3 of the GNU General Public License. The claim made in response to that was that Ubuntu One is only partly free software, because the server is somewhere else and has not been released. As we shall soon see, that claim is nonsensical—it depends on an extremely naïve view of how software actually works in order to make sense, really.

So, first things first: Ubuntu One, which was added to Ubuntu 9.04, is not proprietary software. The proof rests in the fact that it GNU GPL v3.0, and we know a priori that software licensed under the GPL is free software, so we do not need to go further on that point.

Now, because the software in question added to Ubuntu is free software, we can read it. The essential freedoms granted to us by truly free software ensure this, and the GPLv3 is indeed a truly free software license because it grants those freedoms. Because we are able to study the software and see how it communicates with the server. Once we know how to communicate with the server, we can write that up and design a server that communicates exactly the same way. From there, it is just a matter of patching the sync dæmon that is in Ubuntu to talk to an arbitrary, Ubuntu One compatible server. To determine how to do that, one need only read the Python source code contained in the python-ubuntuone-storageprotocol and python-ubuntuone-client packages. If you do not know Python well, you might expect to spend several days doing that, but if it bothers you so tremendously that you are going to practically start a flame war over it, you may find it worth it to do so.

Of course, the other side to that is this: if you really want Ubuntu One to talk to an arbitrary server that runs free software, and you want that free software to be written, you can fund the effort to write the free software. Approach a proficient developer somewhere out there on the Internet and ask them how much they’d charge to write a server for Ubuntu One. You might not be able to afford the fund the project entirely, but if you get a number from someone, you can start a coordinated effort to raise the funds. If you are lucky enough to be able to fund the whole project, then do so: it is but one way that you can help provide something back to the community. This does not apply to just an implementation of the Ubuntu One protocol, it could apply to anything that you see that is missing and needs to be created. Or you could spend time learning what you need to learn to pick up the project yourself, if you care for the project that deeply. The most important attribute that a person can have in order to get started with development is motivation—James Westby reminded me of this a couple of years ago, something which I had forgotten.

Perceptions: Another (Possible) Reason

It was suggested to me that another possible reason that people would object to having non-free software inside an operating system distribution such as Ubuntu is that they are afraid that the proprietary options have higher quality, or offer superior features, or provide functionality that is not offered by any existing free software. Thus, they have this perception that by adding such non-free software into a distribution like Ubuntu, people will automatically use and prefer it over free software. This simply is not the case. Sure, some people will use iTunes if it is available on Ubuntu. Maybe many people would. I might even do so, if it were legally available for me to use that way and if it supports the purchase of DRM-free music. However, if there were a free software client for the iTunes store, I’d much prefer to use that. To my knowledge, however, there is no such thing that exists.

If there is not a free software alternative for a non-free component inside a distribution of software, if you are offended by that, then by all means, create a free software alternative for it! As mentioned above, you can start on such a project’s development, or you can look for people that would be interested in volunteering for it and coordinating them, or you can put up funds to pay developers to implement it. If you have money, this can be the easy part: find someone who is willing to accept payment for the service of implementing the free software alternative for whatever it is that someone else has funded, wrote, and released as proprietary software. It is not like free software is developed without cost (and if you think that it is, then you seriously do not understand what free software is or anything about the world of free software and have no standing to be getting mad when a company spends money writing software and does not release it as free software. You can try to write companies that write such software and ask them if they will give you any form of written specifications for the software, or an interface definition, or something along those lines. The worst thing that could happen is that you will be told “no”. And do so nicely, or they’ll be more inclined to tell you “bugger off” instead of simply “no”.

“Allowing users to choose proprietary software is anti-freedom.”

Nothing could be farther from the truth; it is the same, in fact, as the above statement that one can have freedom without choice. For example, if Ubuntu adopts iTunes and makes it so that you can “sudo aptitude install itunes” in the future, that is not a bad thing! How can it be—It contributes to the ability to choose, and thereby contributes to the freedom of the end-user. If you are a die-hard free software supporter and do not want to run non-free software on your system, then there is a very simple solution for you: simply don’t install it.  That is a valid solution to the problem. There are tools already available that can be run as a cron job and report on any non-free software that you might have accidentally (or even intentionally) installed. If you are worried about additional non-free software getting into Ubuntu, then help enhance those tools. Or write a GUI front-end for something like the virtual RMS program and work to get that included into Ubuntu as well, perhaps something that can run every time you login to the computer, or that runs as a persistent process that watches the package database on your distribution of choice for updates and then checks to see if newly installed software is non-free and alerts the user. Of course, it’d be most effective as an opt-in system, and not an opt-out one where it would just be annoying.

There is no way, then, that freedom is actually reduced in this way when another choice becomes available. If iTunes were to be included in the repositories (and I suspect it would be, like the restricted, universe and multiverse repositories, a separate opt-in repository; perhaps simply “proprietary” would be fitting), this does not reduce your ability to choose to run a free software media player and manager like Banshee, or Rhythmbox, or even AmaroK if you are so inclined to run that KDE stuff.

Once upon a time, FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) was the tool of Microsoft. We (the free software world) completely hated it when Microsoft would put out FUD, because we would then have to fight that FUD by way of explanation and demonstration. Well, some time ago, a subgroup of the free software world decided to start using FUD themselves—it was done with Mono, and it is being done now with just a survey asking people what sort of software they would like to see in Ubuntu. Now, those of us who are left who are advocates of liberty—both personal and societal—are stuck potentially fighting two battles. One with Microsoft’s FUD—such as the constant notion that you have to pay for software—and one with the “free software evangelists” FUD, who have even gone so far as to say that people should not use certain types of free software (the one who calls himself “The Open Sourcer” even still today tells people to remove certain truly free software from their systems). The truth is somewhere in the middle, between these two ends of the spectrum.

Conclusion

Back to the point at hand: to say that giving a person a choice is a constraint on that person’s freedom, that is doublespeak.; it is saying that “slavery is freedom,” albeit to a lesser degree than that very melodramatic extreme—it simply does not make sense. The concept just does not make sense unless the words that are used to express the concept are dramatically redefined to mean things vastly different from what standard English dictionaries define them to be. The only reason that one has to try to convince someone that additional choice is a constraint on freedom is to try to convince people of things that are not true; to install fear, uncertainty, and doubt into people. This is the sort of behavior that—no matter what community it originates from—is completely immoral, unethical, and absolutely unacceptable. It’s dishonest, and for those of you who know me personally, you know what I think of dishonesty.

That’s right.  Now, there are many things that the man has done that have been effective, and the man has worked hard to ensure that we have freedom in the vast world of software.  But recently, he has stated that Miguel de Icaza “is basically a traitor to the free software community,” and no matter how much good a person has done, I cannot stand by such a fallacious statement.

What is freedom, people?  The two cornerstones of freedom are education and choice.  A person who is uneducated cannot choose, and so one depends on the other.  Some people will choose to use either free software or proprietary software exclusively, and others will mix the two together, with varying priorities that they place on their choices.  As long as people are aware of what’s out there and can determine what is best for the way they use their own systems, freedom is available.  Yes, that means some people may choose to run Windows.  Many will not, and if one makes a conscious choice, that is for them to do for themselves.  My concern is that people need to know about the choices in order to make a choice to begin with.

Now, de Icaza has done a great deal of work for the open source community.  He’s one of the key people who has been behind Midnight Commander and GNOME.  And of course, Mono.  He has given us a great deal of good quality, free software that many people can choose to use, and he has given the ability to use a VM-based runtime environment that previously was not cross-platform, as well, on nearly any platform that can be chosen.  The GNU people are even working on a similar one.  But this is not the reason that de Icaza is supposedly a traitor to the community.  The reason?  de Icaza is helping Microsoft out with their new “Open Source Labs”.

Guess what, Mr. Stallman?  The fact that Microsoft is starting to enter the world of free software cannot be considered to be a bad thing.  You did a great deal of work to ensure that free software that is adequately licensed can stay that way, and the turn the copyright system around on those who have sought out to corrupt it.  You have put free software on the radar around the world.  You have done a great many things that others would not have the heart, nor the motivation, to carry out.  It would appear, however, your time is up:  the world can and will move on without you, and I declare that it is time for you to go away.  When you start attacking people in the very world that you helped to create, you become obsolete and no longer serve your purpose.  I dub St. Ignucius of the Church of Emacs to be a heathen who has forgotten his message, forgotten his values, and is now a harmful creature; hardly a saint, more like a devil.  Overtaken with fits of arrogance.  Lately, you have caused a great deal of infighting within the community.  As I am sure you are well aware, infighting serves very little useful purpose but to tear apart communities.  And now you make a bold, arrogant, and false statement that serves only that purpose, but to an extent the likes of which we have never seen from you.

I say that we shun him—and his kind. Things are starting—albeit slowly—to come around to the way we want them, and he would prefer to attack it.  Why?  What logical reason is there to do so?  Because he’s not the controller of it?  Because it grew to be something that even companies that he helped cultivate an irrational, religious-like hatred of, are beginning to see is useful (not only to them, but to all of us)?  What is his new goal, that all software should be GPL’d and if it isn’t it is evil?  We should not tolerate these sorts of counterproductive behaviors.  Stallman has reduced himself to a Schestowitz, a creature who deserves no respect.  A troll.  I suppose in his old age, he has decided that attention is more important than our freedoms.

Richard Matthew Stallman, you are no longer relevant to our community, our world, the world of people who truly believe in and advocate for freedom, that of choice and that of the rights to study, improve, and distribute software.  Thank you for your services, for they were needed to get us where we are today.  However, you have chosen to do us no further good, only ill.  And for that, I say damn you.  Leave the Free Software Foundation and permit it to continue to work for freedom, or take it down and let the GNU project carry on to produce software without all of the utter crap that you have begun to spew of late.  I have no problem with the GNU project.  I love the GNU project.  And I am grateful for the work that you, independently and through the Free Software Foundation, have done so that we can enjoy the freedom to choose a free software system to do our work and our play.  But you are no longer helping; you have become a bully, an old troll.  You do not help free software any more.  Your recent action is a great offense to free software, and very much condemning a road which will lead to more free software.  Go away, troll.

Long live freedom—true freedom—and free software.  And thank you, Miguel de Icaza, for all of the great software that you have given us, as well, for your continued work to make software more useful and portable.  May you never wind up irrelevant and petty as Stallman has wound up being.

1. Windows 7 commits sins.
2. Windows 7 users are sinners.

The site provides a decent amount of information.  But I would imagine that a good portion of its potential readers that are linked to the site will stop reading at the domain name, windows7sins.org, just for the two very clear things it says.  Okay, so we have a very strong tie to science, but does that mean that we should alienate people from the start?  I do not think so.  If you are curious, the alleged “sins” are: poisoning education, invading privacy, monopoly behavior, lock-in, abusing standards, enforcing DRM, and threatening user security.

So, we can hold those points as true: Microsoft has done all of these things, and many more, which make supporting it as an organization something that some of us would shudder to think of, and that many more of us simply would not do if given the choice.  And that is the real key to freedom, is it not?  That we should give out the information in a way so as to reach the widest possible audience, that is.  Not that we use emotional manipulation to compel the audience to switch because then all we are doing is forcing them to feel they need to change.  Instead, users should change (or try) when they are ready—not before they are ready, and not because you offended them and made them feel dirty.  That is exactly the same tactic Microsoft uses on its customers in order to convince them of various things like “you get what you pay for,” or “if you did not pay for the software, it is pirated, it’s not legitimate,” or that free software is a form of “malware,” and so forth.  Why should we stoop down to their level?

Wait, am I saying that it is okay if users choose to use Windows?  Yes, I am.  But if Windows is the only thing that you are aware of, and it is all that you know (and believe me, there are still many such people out there) then it is naturally going to be what you are using.  So they’re a “sinner” by default, and that is offensive.  The only thing that they are guilty of is ignorance, and ignorance has a very simple fix: deliver information, let them learn of these things, and then there is no more ignorance.  For many, it is not even intentional ignorance.  They simply do not know.

I think that this campaign would have been a good thing if it did not seek to offend to make its point.  That’s resorting to a very below-the-belt tactic, and it makes the Free Software Foundation (in this case) come out looking no better than Microsoft itself which is unfortunate.  They have done the wrong thing, for the right reason, and it is constructed to make very little go their way.

So, do not refer users to the Windows 7 Sins Web site when attempting to convince them that they should not choose to upgrade to Windows 7 (or are already running it in one of its pre-release forms).  Instead, offer them information.  Explain things to them, and if they aren’t ready to try something else, whatever.  If they want to try something else, and they wind up going back to running Windows for one reason or another, then by all means, let them.  Of course, find out why they did, first, and maybe you can fix something that will eliminate a problem for others, too.

That is freedom.  It’s not free and it’s not easy.  But just remember that users have the freedom to choose, and that is a bigger freedom than what some of them will ever see or understand in free software.  And if they choose to use something we don’t like, that’s fine; it is, after all, their choice.  Who cares if it is not the choice that you would make?

Airports are some of the most stupid and ignorant places a person can go. Very new technology? Not permitted, because it’s not understood. Why, even when it is, if the TSA breaks it, they can threaten to arrest you when you get miffed about it because they’re idiots. Remember the MacBook Air that the TSA thought was unreal? Idiots.

Very often, in software and other fields, simple engineering is preferred to any alternatives. Well, guess what? The TSA, our government, and the people that are in it like to make things very complex. We need for things to be grossly simplified so that we as a society can function, know the parameters we’re expected to adhere to (because secret rules which we can be arrested for not obeying are obviously reasonable) and be able to jump in at a moment’s notice and actually be able to save a person from some idiot without the fear of that person then being an idiot. After all, idiocy reigns over us and people sue for being saved. The fix?

Simple law. Simple government. Level playing field. Right?

So, carry your guns (legally!) into Hartsfield. Use those permits. Exercise your legal right. Too bad it requires a permit, because I’d just show up. As it is, permits should not be required according to the Law of the Land, but who pays attention to the US Constitution anymore. It’s just a piece of ancient history, right Uncle Sam?

This is a flagrant violation of trust, ethics, and the rights of computer users.

This is why I do not trust software that is closed-source by nature, because it is all too easy for abuses like this to be built-in to the software. Fortunately, someone spotted the problem and alerted the world (see the link above), but only after over one thousand five hundred accounts had their login and password information sent to the author of this program.

If you have ever used G-Archiver, change your passwords immediately to something strong. Good examples of strong passwords are things that you will remember, but are hard to guess, consist of upper-case letters, lower-case letters, numbers, and special characters such as the period or the exclamation point, and more than one of each type of thing.

This is why freedom should reign. We become victims all too easily when we shun our freedom. (And this does not just apply to software…)