Courtesy of evelynishere

Which distribution is the RIGHT distribution?  Is there such a thing?  When you start your journey with Linux you might here something like this:

- Ubuntu is the best distribution for the desktop
- Linux Mint is the best distribution for a home user and the desktop
- Debian is the best way to go because of its stability and solid base
- Mandriva isn’t as good as Mageia
- Mageia isn’t as good as Mandriva
- Red Hat is for servers only
- Distribution X is better than distribution Y!

Here’s the thing…statements like these are all BLATANTLY FALSE.  Why?  Because they’re opinions..everyone has one and they are all just that…opinions.

When you start your journey with Linux, don’t let someone else tell you what you should or shouldn’t use.  Go out and find what fits you like a glove and use that.  It doesn’t matter how large of community the distribution has (unless that is what you’re specifically looking for) or how often it updates or how many hits it has on the Distrowatch tracker.  Use what is best FOR YOU.  Only you can decide what distribution scratches whatever itch you have.

If you choose the right one, chances are you’ll be a part of that distribution for a long time.  But don’t worry, it isn’t like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and if you pick the wrong distribution you won’t turn into a dusty exploding skeleton.  In this situation, the RIGHT distribution of Linux is ANY distribution of Linux.  As long as you’re making a conscious effort to choose free software and use Linux, you win.

I’ve been in, around and even leading Linux communities since the late 1990′s and there is one thing I’ve found it is this:  Every single distribution has a place in this world.  Every single distribution has it’s own niche users.  Every single distribution of Linux is important. I’m sure many of you have heard or have said that Linux just needs to simplify more and have only a handful of distributions so we can concentrate on just that handful and make it be fantastic.  Unfortunately, that wouldn’t work very well and would stifle creativity.  To prove my point…what if we didn’t have small distributions at all?  That wouldn’t have a large effect on Linux as a whole right? Let’s take a look at that hypothesis…

If Small Distributions Never Were…

As an example:  Symphony OS.  It used FVWM and Mezzo for the desktop experience and it REVOLUTIONIZED the way we see and interact with files.  If you use Gnome 3, Ubuntu Unity, or KDE 4.X, you’re using concepts that Symphony OS was the first to put onto a Linux desktop.  Symphony never had a huge user base.  It never shot up the charts at Distrowatch.  It did however, push the envelope of what a desktop distribution can and can’t do.  It did push the boundaries of design.  It did push simplicity and usability to a new level.  It also did web apps before webapps were cool.  Somehow it never caught on…but I it influenced people and challenged people to push the envelope of what was possible and impossible with desktop Linux.

Small, Niche Distributions Perform a Function

Often times I have found Linux users looking for a distribution that fills a specific function.  “I just want a file sharing distribution” they’ll say, or perhaps “I just want a nice and simple desktop”, or maybe even “I just want a tight firewall”.  The beauty of open source software and Linux is that you’ll find small, niche distributions that fit the bill for all of those needs and when you use these distributions, you’ll continue to learn about Linux…and perhaps you’ll push the envelope of what is possible and not possible just like Symphony OS did.

Regardless if you choose small or large distributions, you win.  The fact is you CHOSE and weren’t force fed something by system installers and companies who think they know what is best for you.

We CAN All Get Along

Many times when we pick the flavor of Linux we like, we identify with its goals…the direction its heading…maybe even the direction the community champions.  There isn’t anything wrong with this.  The next time you experience passionate supporters of Linux, keep in mind that neither you nor they are the enemy.  If you both use Linux and open source, you both win.  Small, large,  and niche distributions of Linux operate harmoniously together and build off one another…it’s one of the unseen benefits of Linux and open source.  Beauty and power in simplicity through collaboration.  Congratulate yourself every single day for choosing Linux!

How-To Choose the Right Distribution of Linux originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on November 17, 2011.

Today, Mark Shuttleworth’s blog was added into Planet Gnome after he made a request for it to be added.  Why is this a controversy?  Mainly because some people want blogs that are featured on Planet Gnome to be from authors that are active in the Gnome community and to actually blog about Gnome as a topic.  If Canonical’s contributions to Gnome are being called into question (as evident from the links in closing thoughts below) then what results is a controversial decision for Mark’s blog to be added in.

If you read the comments on the buglist issue, you will see that there are quite a few people in opposition to this move.  According to the Planet Gnome FAQ, there are criteria for being added.  Does Mark’s blog fit the criteria?  A close examination will result in a resounding NO.

Examining the Evidence

The evidence?  Mark has only one, single post on the topic of Gnome on his entire blog.  Is it recent?  If 2008 is recent, then yes, it’s recent.  If that’s not recent enough for you then no, it fails horribly on being recent.

Up next, let’s pull from the Planet Gnome FAQ, “It generally helps to write a few words about you and your contributions to GNOME, or why you think your blog should appear on Planet GNOME”.  Looking at the bug that was filed we find no explanation as to why it should be added other than “I contribute via Canonical”.  This phrase is going to be flogged by those people that were/are irked with Canonicals level of contributions upstream.

Lastly, since Mark is the face of his company, does this mean Gnome supports his company more than say…CEO of Red Hat or Novell since those CEO’s are not added on Planet Gnome?  Does this constitute a conflict of interest?  Does it signal favoritism?  If one person believes it to be this way, everyone loses…because there will be a debate about it and it WILL divide people and not unite them.

To be honest, I can’t believe Mark even asked to be on Planet Gnome as the CEO of Canonical.  He should know right out of the gate that it would look bad if he was added in…if it were me, I’d remove myself immediately.

Closing Thoughts

I said that this would be gasoline on a fire because of the firestorm debate surrounding how much Canonical, Mark Shuttleworth’s company, gives back to upstream projects like Gnome.  For more on that debate [1] [2] [3].

This is just the icing on top of the cake in my opinion.  Whoever decides what goes on Gnome and what doesn’t should really evaluate their processes and stop looking at a persons stature or bling factor and instead on the merit for them to be there.  In this instance, Marks blog provides little to merit its presence on Planet Gnome.

Please note, I’m not saying Mark hasn’t done anything at all for Gnome…just saying he doesn’t blog about it (and the evidence supports me on this claim)…and before a blog is added to Planet Gnome it should have more than one post in the past 7 years (yes, he started blogging in 2003) to be considered as a good candidate to be there.

What do you think?  Should Mark be on Planet Gnome?  Whether you agree or disagree, please state your reasons in a comment below!

A Canonical Controversy originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on September 17, 2010.

1. Child Ownership
2. Low Ages
3. Saturation
4. Connection
5. Free and Open Source

It’s important to quote what is under #5 above:

The child with an XO is not just a passive consumer of knowledge,
but an active participant in a learning community. As the children grow and pursue new ideas, the software, content, resources, and tools should be able to grow with them. The very global nature of OLPC demands that growth be driven locally, in large part by the children themselves. Each child with an XO can leverage the learning of every other child. They teach each other, share ideas, and through the social nature of the interface, support each other’s intellectual growth. Children are learners and teachers.

There is no inherent external dependency in being able to localize software into their language, fix the software to remove bugs, and repurpose the software to fit their needs. Nor is there any restriction in regard to redistribution; OLPC cannot know and should not control how the tools we create will be re-purposed in the future.

A world of great software and content is necessary to make this project succeed, both open and proprietary. Children need to be able to choose from all of it. In our context of learning where knowledge must be appropriated in order to be used, it is most appropriate for knowledge to be free. Further, every child has something to contribute; we need a free and open framework that supports and encourages the very
basic human need to express.

Give me a free and open environment and I will learn and teach with joy.

No longer is it about empowering a generation of children from poorer nations and letting them learn with the ability to help improve the platform they operate on…what it’s now about:

“‘The OLPC mission is a great endeavor, but the mission is to get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible. Whether that technology is from one operating system or another, one piece of hardware or another, or supplied or supported by one consulting company or another doesn’t matter. It’s about getting it into kids’ hands. Anything that is contrary to that objective, and limits that objective, is against what the program stands for.’”

…just like a fun toy right? <sarcasm>Let’s drop Nintendo DS gaming systems into their hands…laptops, laptops, laptops…that’s what it is about…because we’re all about getting the technology to the kids. </sarcasm> We’re not about empowering them to learn about computers, networks, and software. We’re not about them learning on a system where there are no limits. As RMS states, “Teaching children to use a proprietary (non-free) system such as Windows does not make the world a better place, because it
puts them under the power of the system’s developer.” That developer is Microsoft.

Congratulations go to Microsoft for bringing proprietary lockin to millions of kids worldwide who will no longer be able to take pride in their own contributions the the core OS, who will no longer feel community ownership, and who will no longer be the sole operator of their own open source software based XO.

Our children our the future and what we aren’t teaching them with closed source software is just as important as what we ARE teaching them.

OLPC Mission Has Changed originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on May 2, 2008.

1. “We don’t need to keep reinventing Linux, creating distributions that
put critical bits in interesting and inventive if unusual places.”

This couldn’t be more wrong. We DO need to keep reinventing Linux and creating distributions that put critical bits in interesting and inventive if unusual places. Without these multiple distributions and their drive to do what isn’t “normal” or “business as usual” innovation would be left up to a small number of distros and developers. Innovation thrives in the current environment…we have seen how desktop Linux has lept & bounded during the past 3-4 years. This statement is not only false, but it shows how much people (even industry consultants/analysts/journalists with over 25 years in the business) totally miss the mark when it comes to Linux and Open Source Software.

I assume you’d prefer a ‘unified distro’ or at least fewer to choose from…one where everyone can stop spinning their wheels developing for that small time distro and all join hands and work on that larger distro and make it 1000% better right? That’s something that won’t happen and shouldn’t happen.

Perhaps you think new users will be scared of all of these choices? I bet these same new users walk around in circles when picking out a new shirt or shopping for a pair of pants…there is just too many of them isn’t there? Using this as a reason for justification of having fewer distros is silly and stupid.

2. “An application written for Linux should be relatively simple to install on any Linux distribution. It ain’t so.”

Perhaps the author is referring to source based installs here. Well, I’d have to slightly agree…there a bit daunting for new users. But think of this also…someone for that program you installed on your Windows PC packaged up that .exe or .msi for you to install on your computer. So when you go to install something in Linux…don’t compare source based installs where you’re compiling the program to double click exe or msi installs…because it is logically unsound. Instead, compare the compiling of the code into an exe/msi for install on Windows. Apples v. Apples and Oranges v. Oranges. Comparing a .exe to a .deb or .rpm would be closer to being logically sound in this instance and when doing this installing software is the same as in Windows.

3. “Do we really need hundreds of general purpose distributions, all with diffferent tools, different filesystem layouts, variations on three major software package management schemes and a host of oddball ones, and so on? Do we need yet more to crop up?”

Yes…we do need them. Without them, your XFS filesystem wouldn’t have been tested and tried true. Your various hardware configurations wouldn’t have been run as many times agaisnt different kernel modules because Linux would appeal LESS to people. With more choice, you can find a Linux that is right for you. Without them, new ways of doing things wouldn’t be adopted and integrated by others. Think about if rpm was still the same because .deb’s never came around? We’d probably still have rpm dependency resolution hell in many distros. Deb packages made rpm packagers and devs rethink how they did business and they adopted many practices in spec files because of it. Without this variety and innovation, it wouldn’t have happened.

They say that variety is the spice of life and I have to agree. Imagine if everyone in the United States had a limited choice of vehicle…only the most popular car could be driven and subsequently everyone would have a Toyota Camry. Think of all the manufacturers of truck parts that would fold up shop and leave. Think of how less and less people would think ‘outside of the box’ (box being a Camry in this instance). Think of all the farmers and ranchers who would be livid about having to drive a Camry on their farm/ranchstead. Choice is simple. Choice is innovative. Choice is needed.

Remember that choice for end users also means choice for developers. Devs can come in and look at where they fit in for communities and for programming languages, for community projects inside of each Linux community and for that feeling they get when they’ve arrived at the distro they should be developing for. Less distros means more developers with less territory to fit in on. If we had 12 distros and all the developers of the other 500 distros had to find new places to fit in…do you think everyone would get along? It would be mass chaos and many developers probably would just stop developing all together…and their contribution to free software and Linux would be lost.

4. “Linux has reached somewhere between 30% and 40% of the server market (depending on whose figures you believe) because the major distributions just plain work on most server hardware from major manufacturers like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Dell. We need to convince enterprise customers who buy servers to demand hardware that can use Open Source drivers.”

No business in their right mind is going to demand that a piece of hardware that works currently needs to have it’s proprietary driver replaced by one that is open source. That’s an unrealistic want/desire that will never be fulfilled.

Many people mistakenly think that the Server is the only place that Linux can make progress into people’s lives. I’d say they’re short sighted. Saying things like this is often a mistake that people make…and it gives implication of a ‘no confidence’ vote for Linux on the desktop whether the person saying it wants to or not. The server is not the last frontier for Linux…it was the first frontier.

5. “Until that day arrives proprietary drivers remain a necessary evil in a Linux distribution.”

For thousands, they aren’t a necessary evil. Having them or not having them makes no difference to these users. When something is a neccessity, it means you can’t live without it. Proprietary drivers are not food, water, and shelter for Linux. They’re a performance enhancer that people can and do live without. Making statements like this tries to portray Linux as being at the mercy of proprietary software and totally inept to tackle the problem…so inept that we need to DEMAND that open source drivers be made. Sure, it would be nice…but Linux is as Linux does…and for many, Linux does just fine. As for if it does fine in the server room…you have less support there than you do for Linux on the desktop I’m afraid.

6. “That’s just as true on the desktop as it is in the server room. Nobody will migrate from Windows to an OS that doesn’t work for them on the hardware they have.”

Let’s revisit what you were talking about earlier and then we’ll move on to adress this line. According to points #1 through #3…we don’t need more than a few Linux distros out there right? Having more is just plain stupid for sh!7sake right? If some piece of hardware doesn’t fully work in Linux…then having fewer distributions around won’t help us out at all…it will stifle the number of drivers being developed and the amount of software being written to configure these devices. So what is it that you want? You want to get rid of most of the distros and increase the amount of hardware supported…all without being detrimental to Linux. In fact, you think it would be better right? It won’t. It isn’t. It never will be.

7. “The laptop I’m writing this on doesn’t need any proprietary software to work as it should.”

Wait a second…didn’t you just say in the previous paragraph that proprietary drivers were a necessary evil? Oh for crying out loud, will you make up your mind? Are you TRYING to be appealing to both sides of the fence as to not step on toes?

I honestly don’t know what the author of this blog post was thinking when they wrote it. It doesn’t flow, it draws conclusions it shouldn’t, and it assumes everyone is of the same mind as the writer. Sure, it’s opinion. But when you offer opinions you open yourself up to good criticism and bad. In this case, I’m disagreeing with the sentiment portrayed in this blog. Perhaps next time the author might think about what they’re saying…because limiting the number of distros out there is absolutely NOT the way to go to accomplish anything other than limiting innovation.

Why Having 500+ Distros is a Good Thing originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on February 7, 2007.

There are two labels that can be applied to these stances…promotion or activism. A majority of the people who love and support Open Source software are promoters. They’re the ones that always put in a plug for their distro during tech conversations or tell their co-workers excitedly why they don’t have viruses. The others are activists who lobby congress (like lobby4linux.com), sue for GPL violations, and take an active role in the proliferation of Open Source. Both of these stances and labels are needed in Open Source and to proliferate Open Source. But just like the old saying, “too much of a good thing can kill you” so can too much activism or promotion inside Open Source.

It’s my experience that there are more of the promotionists than the activists. Of course, activists are needed with Open Source as well. They’re the informed individuals that debate the GPLv2 and v3 until they’re blue in the face…they’re the ones that force GPL compliance on those not observing that license. They ARE needed. It’s the extreme fringes of both promotionists and activists that we don’t need. When someone goes over the top and over-promotes something…their promotion becomes counterproductive because of over saturation. The same is true for activism…no one wants to hear about how wrong they are for using X or not installing X.

So which group would be worse? It’s really up in the air. Over saturation means that (when people hear about Linux after a promotionist has filled their ears to the brim with how great it is) a person will more than likely ignore something with Linux or not consider it when it would be worthwhile to them. On the contrary, activists may distract new advocates and new users by focusing them not on promotion of using Open Source but rather, debating on Libre vs. Non-Libre or whatever their argument might be (as Libre vs. Non-Libre is not the only area that has activists vs. promotionists). Remember, we’re speaking of the rabidly fanatical end aka fringes of the spectrum…not generalizing here. People can be rabid on the promotion side of things too…it’s important to note that when you’re on the extreme side of either, you’re counterproductive to the proliferation of open source software.

We can see this debate beginning in Ubuntu. Many people are not happy with the direction Ubuntu is going with the inclusion of proprietary drivers. Of course, instead of respecting the stance that opposing opinions have…some in the community are VERY vocal and very inflamatory about it…which is sad because Ubuntu is a fantastic distro with a fantastic community. Seeing things like this happen inside a community isn’t fun and it isn’t entertaining. In fact, it can be quite scary to see rifts building in a community…for any reason.

It’s imperative that when you hear extreme activists or promotionists shouting at the top of their lungs about all things this or that, that you remember where they are coming from. They’re members of the same community you are. They’re also people that make Open Source software tick. They’re programmers and coders, users and designers just like you. So instead of slamming them and verbally slapping them, take the time to remember that we’re all using Open Source and we all like it…and we all wouldn’t mind seeing Open Source push to the farthest corners of the earth…in other words, just remember that we have more in common with each other than we have not in common.

Likewise, those of you that are on the fringes of the activists and promotionists…remember that people are reacting to what you say and do…not who you are. Don’t let it get personal Hopefully, we can all even things out for each other and fill the holes that are needed in the community.

Activism and Promotion originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on December 20, 2006.

The problem is that two Ubuntu contributors asked for Cipherfunk.org to comply with the GPL by removing cost associated with distribution of source code. This is harmless in itself and applauded by many in the community. However, it’s not the why they did it that is wrong…it’s the HOW they did it. How they did it is by first informing the Cipherfunk.org that it was wrong to charge $$ for the source, and second by touting various sections of the GPL where they believed Cipherfunk was in violation. Why is this wrong? Let’s examine things a bit.

The big stink everyone brought up is not that Cipherfunk WASN’T distributing the source code…but that Cipherfunk WAS CHARGING for the source code which they believed was in violation. However, having seen this same case (where Warren Woodford and MEPIS distribute their sourced code for a cost) I know for a fact that the GPL allows one to do this. But let’s take a look at the GPL shall we?

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide equivalent access to download the source–therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

We can see here that if you provide the program at a charge, you can’t charge more for the source and that you may also charge a fee to download if the fee is not greater than the cost of downloading the binary. So, what did Cipherfunk do that got people up in arms? They required a donation before downloading the source. From Cipherfunk.org:

Well, the GNU General Public Licence states — as part of Section 3) of the licence that I must provide source code on request for no more than the cost of physically performing the distribution.Given that the host this box is on actually costs me $110.95AUD every thirty (30) days to run, $9.90, as nice as that is — still will cost me over $100 AUD to distribute the code at all.

Now, I consider (in this technologically advanced day and age) that ‘the internet’ is an acceptable way of distributing software for public use, so effectively, my request to get people to help me pay for hosting — seemed quite rational to me, but apparently, some people don’t share my view — and I wouldn’t want to put anyone out.

I consider the whole thing a disappointment. I don’t like threats, but I am especially concerned at the number of people who grabbed the code, without even saying thankyou for my efforts.

It wasn’t as if i’d asked anyone to cure cancer, find me a job, or pay off my debts — what I did say was effectively “help me pay for hosting this for you or help me advertise my other website (in a rather cut-throat market), thanks. and, as i’m obligated to — you’ll get the sources, binaries and even some support from me, until Canonical can upstream these fixes.

So what actually happened? Was there a GPL violation? Not at all. Requiring a donation that is less than the cost of bandwidth to provide the source is allowed IAW the GPL. So the finger pointing…what did it accomplish? Other than making those who point the fingers look like idiots, not much. I guess it could have caused a rift in the Linux community as well…though effects like this are often hard to calculate.

What could have happened in this case? The contributors COULD have tried to get these patches integrated into the source tree at Ubuntu OR they could have taken the time to find out why the source code wasn’t being distributed for free by simply asking. Instead, the send robotic ‘you-are-wrong’ emails like this.

Hi,

I've noticed that you're providing kernel binaries at
http://64.71.152.24/dapper-binaries/ . As I'm sure you're aware, the
kernel is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2.
Under section (3) of the license, when distributing derivitives of this
code you are obliged to either

a) accompany it with the source code, or
b) provide a written offer to provide the source code on request for no
more than the cost of physically performing the distribution

Currently you are doing neither of these, and as a result are breaching
the license of the code. As one of the copyright holders of the code, I
would request that you conform to your obligations under the license.

This is not required for the X driver, as it is not released under the
GPL.

Thanks,
--
Matthew Garrett | mxxx9@sxxf.uxxm.org

What does this email tell us? First, it tells us that the person writing it believes they are immediatley correct. It assumes that the person being written to is completely wrong. It also offers no assistance to correct said issue, instead opting for a “fix these two things immediately” tone.

Instead, accusations flew and the Linux for Human Beings can now be seen as Linux for Slapping Human Beings that help fix its problems in the face. That’s right, 5 bugs could have been squashed in one swoop yet instead of approaching this in a manner of one developer/contributor to another (i.e. “hey, I see you’ve developed a patch for this problem…can I see how you did this by looking at your source code? Oh, you’re having problems distributing your source code due to bandwidth and are charging for it? Ok, let me see if I can find any help for you or possibly get a mirror”) they approached the situation as a superior approaches a subordinate. To me, this is silly. This guy at Cipherfunk was helping, not hindering. What should have happened was to help him distribute the code by providing mirrors, more bandwidth, etc. Instead, they’ve distanced themselves from an obviously talented person and left a bitter taste in his mouth.

What can we learn from this? We can learn patience instead of immediate accusation and finger pointing. We can learn that swatting at hands that help you is something you might not want to do. We can learn that a little bit of research can go a long way. And we can learn what not to do in a Linux community by trying to stay away from the mob mentality that developed in the Ubuntu and Linux community around Cipherfunks’ patch release and subsequent news posting.

Sometimes, I’m embarrassed of my fellow Linux users/devs/contributors. I sure hope Paul Drain, aka Cipherfunk.org’s webmaster, doesn’t stop contributing to Ubuntu. A little investigation and understanding can go a long way. I hope Ubuntu patches this fiasco up quickly and those two contributors who wrongly pointed fingers apologize for being ignorant so we can get back to the way things were.

Cipherfunk.org, the GPL, and Ubuntu Contributors originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on August 25, 2006.

Often, it’s attitudes, egos, and intelligence that make this gap between users’ perspective even wider. What’s interesting about all of this philosophy and debate is that it is more prolific now than it was 10 years ago. Why? Well, more users of course! Linux and open source are enjoying a very large following currently. Add more users to the fray and you’re bound to get more perspective…for the good things and the bad.

Working with users at work who don’t even know how to place clipart in their MS Word docs (I sub in for helpdesk since we’re a smaller state agency) got me thinking the other day. Where does the new user fit in with this philosophy and debate? How are we to get their perspective across to programmers, developers, application hackers, and designers? The more I thought about it, the more I realized that Linux has arrived at a point unprecedented in history…when a Linux desktop is usable and productive. As Uncle Ben said in Spiderman 2, “with great power comes great responsibility”. I feel the community is being irresponsible on this…and yes, it is all about perspective. So please read on…let’s see if we can change your perspective a bit and close the gap between new users and advanced users.

The thing that gets to me is that we have new users…users coming from Windows XP where most everything ‘just works’ or is a few clicks away from just working. When these users come over to Linux we sit there and expect them to dig right in and not expect everything to ‘just work’? How is it that we do that? How do we expect them to come from an environment where most stuff just works to one where things don’t always ‘just work’ without complaining? I for one find anyone who looks at new users in this light a detriment to Linux and Open Source Software in general. It’s people that share this perspective (that a new user shouldn’t be complaining because a) it’s easier now to use Linux than it was when I learned it b) they haven’t read the man pages/manual yet c) they haven’t searched the forums or wiki or whatever) that cause users to make comments and adopt attitudes similar to this person.

We also expect them to immediately respect FLOSS/FOSS and buy into the philisophical debate right away. They should want to use FLOSS/FOSS because it is free and it works right? I don’t think so. They should want to use FLOSS/FOSS because they’re using it. Confused? Well, the simple fact of the matter is that they’re trying FLOSS/FOSS…so they know it is free and that it somewhat works otherwise they’d have dropped it before it even got off the ground. They want to use it because they’re using it…and we shouldn’t expect them to buy into all of our open source philosophy or purist/elitist ideas. We shouldn’t expect them to feel immersed in the ideas of FLOSS/FOSS without first giving them the opportunity to feel a part of the community. They can’t hop up on our purist box and look at the world from our Libre perspective without first arriving there on their own accord. We must first teach them to walk before they can run.

Yet this is precisely what we do. We try to pigeonhole new users, advanced users, Linux, and just about anything we can categorize into tidy little categories that we can stereotype and apply label to. We try to force the new Linux user to immediately conform to FLOSS/FOSS philosophy and try to force them to adopt our ideals…mainly by chastizing them in forums, mailing lists, and newsgroups.

I know I’m addressing an issue or issues that have been spoken of before:

1. Linux Snobs: Real Barriers to Entry
2. Eric Raymond and the RTFM Jerks
3. Free Open Source Support: The Bad and the Good

Really though, these issues didn’t touch on perspectives and how they can attract or drive away users. Think about this for a second. New features are dead. The more functions and features an operating system gets doesn’t matter anymore. XGL? Who cares? Bells, Whistles? Only if it is an Oscar Mayer Wiener Whistle and a tinkerbell. All in all, features have ceased to be the driving force in consumer electronics. Now begins the age of usability. Quickly go over to this page and read the article

…it hits the nail right on the head.

So, what are we to do? Well, with change in landscape (i.e., technological landscape) comes change in perspective. Why? Because it is inevitable. One cannot have a change in one’s current landscape and not have perspective changed. This being said, we need to STOP nonsensical forced methods to get users to ascribe to one philosophy/distro/package manager/window manager/idea and begin to look at things with usability-eyes instead of feature-happy ones. It’s not that hard…one just has to have the same understanding for perspective that one has for code. I know most Linux users can do it because it is far less complicated than port forwarding, IPTABLES, and getting Cron to run jobs. It’s just far less convenient for us to change.

Perspective is as perspective does. Changing perspectives is one way to solve a problem…so when a new user comes SHOUTING INTO A FORUM…try a little less crass behavior and a little more understanding. Try stepping down off your horse and viewing things from their perspective. Perhaps then the gap will close and Linux will mature…not just in code but in attitude as well.

Devnet

Perspective is as Perspective Does originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on July 20, 2006.

When these users posted articles about this phenomenon, those articles are either deleted, the users are banned (Submitted & Banned Pics), or the story is buried (despite having 164 diggs at the time of this writing…not on the front page). There is even reports of users submitting an article who haven’t submitted before only to have another user who is ‘popular’ get the story posted despite posting it later. Digg.com is supposed to have a duplicate url system in place preventing this…

Now digg.com can do whatever they want with their website. In fact, they can bully all the other websites they want to. However, they can’t build their community on a Democratic, Users-vote-for-the-story-and-our-editors-don’t model and then just drop it. They need to follow their own TOS (terms of service) to maintain their credibility or recant that part of the TOS and release an updated TOS. As of this writing, Digg insists that its content is driven by the users. With the information collected in this article, it seems that something is rank in the state of Diggmark. You decide.

For your perusal, I’ve collected all the links I can find with information on this issue. Please comment if you’ve found alternative links and I will update these as the comments come in. Please note that I belive Forevergeek.com was the first to post on this…they are listed at #1. Also please note many of the comments in these articles…users are pretty livid about this…and there is no response from digg.com yet.

1. Digg Corrupted: Editor’s Playground, not User-Driven Website
2. The Story that Got Deleted – The digg story that went pewf!
3. Kevin Rose abusing Digg – links to google group tracking this story
4. Suspicious Digging
5. Google Blogoscoped – more on the google group
6. Digg Corrupted – a digg.com user attempts to hold digg accountable
7. Digg Abused? – Newsvine article on this
8. Digg Army – Binary Bonsai
9. Digg, not democracy after all – Yugatech Blog Post
10. The J Spot
11. Corruption. The House of the Digg Elite
12. The Trouble with DIGG
13. Growing Censorship Concerns at Digg – Just got slashdotted!
14. Digg Army: Right in Line – More from Forevergeek
15. 146 diggs, 57 comments, 6 hours and no frontpage at digg
16. Non Response from Digg.com – Forevergeek
17. Digg.com Explanation? – Kevin Responds? Sort of…
18. BoingBoing’s Take On This
19. The Guardian Picks Up the Story…
20. The Inquirer Hops On
21. Sitepoint Diggs in their Claws
22. Boyhazard.net Blog
23. Splasho’s Blog…Update on Digg
24. Three Reasons Why Digg is a Crock! – Zdnet Blogs
25. MonkeyBites Blog
26. BlogCritics – A Must Read
27. Thomas Hawkes Digital Connection – He has the most dugg story of all time…
28. Odeo Podcast on the Subject
29. ForeverGeek Comments Further
30. Zippity Doo Dah – A Statistical Analysis of Digging Corruption? You Decide…
31. CEO of Weblogs.inc – The Digg Backlash
32. More from Techno Pinoy
33. DuncanRiley.com chimes in
34. Is Digg Rigging its Diggs? – a Tech Writer from Toronto adds two cents
35. Businesspundit
36. Kellegous.com Speaks of Digg
37. ProBlogger – Digg Deception
38. Newsome Blog
39. RealTechNews
40. Silicon Valley Sleuth – Social Websites have a Social Responsibility
41. Basement.org
42. Search Engine Guide – is digg working with their own shovel?
43. Publishing 2.0
44. SuperGeekBlog – The Social Corruption of Digg
45. Student-Rant Blog – Interesting Statistics on Editor Posting
46. Virtual Thought
47. CNET Podcast on the subject
48. FG-DIGG Issue on TWiT @ Forever Geek
49. 

The Dirt on Suspicious Digging at Digg.com… originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on April 21, 2006.

In our last article on Groklaw.net, we went over one person’s experience as a groklaw user and content provider of that site. Of the points discussed, no one could argue that Mr. Petrofsky was unreasonable at any time, nor could one argue that he was at all unprofessional in his requests and his behavior. By examining the evidence presented in that article, one can infer that he was indeed deceived. Today, we’ll look into more possible examples of deception and censorship from the site where “open source principles are applied.” We’ll be chatting with an ex-moderator from Groklaw named Brenda Banks aka br3n who was removed as a moderator after expressing her opinion about certain matters at groklaw. After having her moderator status stripped from her, she then asked to be removed from the userlist based on her own moral compass. Read on for more on br3n.

Q: Please give the readers some background on yourself (any you feel is necessary)

br3n: I am a grandmother of 5 grandchildren, married 35+ years, nontechie type.

Q: Where did you get your start with technology?

br3n: I bought a computer in 98 with win 95 on it and it had the win 98 upgrade. I had a commodore 64 and commodore 128 many years ago, but never did anything other than print a few things like cards and banners. I started with linux in november 2001.

Q: Do you use GPL software? If so, what do you use?

br3n: Yes. I use mandrake 10.2

Q: What does the GPL mean to you?

br3n: it means that I can try to fix and control my own software to suit myself. I am not allowing any information out without my knowledge.

Q: What was your specific role at groklaw and how did you get your start there?

br3n: I was moderator. I gave PJ news links and helped with quote data base. I was so frightened when I first learned about the SCO vs IBM suit. I did constant news searches on SCO and found mettler’s site by a link from on slashdot. Mettler had a link to groklaw. I lurked for a while because I didnt feel I had anything to contribute to her [Pamela Jones from Groklaw aka PJ]. In fact then very few people posted at all. That was in either late May or early June. Then I got my nerve up to write her an email about one of her articles and we started corresponding. I would email news links to her with short summaries from the article that were the most important.

Q: What was the ultimate goal you hoped to achieve by being a contributor at groklaw?

br3n: I dont think I ever set out to do anything. I found something I could handle such as sending her the links for news articles and it helped her with her time since she was working. I also helped with the quote data base.

Q: How would you classify your time spent at groklaw? Fun? Informative? Horrible? Please explain.

br3n: I had a lot of fun but most from reading others comments.sometimes I feel sad that I was so blind to be willing to trust someone like that. I was horribly disappointed in the treatment dealt from PJ at groklaw for things that happened off site.

Q: When (if at all) did you notice things starting to go awry at groklaw?

br3n: My first alarms/questions arose when the announcement came out that PJ was working at OSRM, then came the 283 patent infringement possibilities announced around the same time. Then when jgabriel [another Groklaw user] had his account deleted there was no way to ignore things anymore. This was when I tested PJ by email asking about his deletion and posting mild criticism of her on yahoo [The Yahoo SCO finance boards]. She never answered the email about him and she then removed moderation powers from me without correspondance. I felt that was the answer I would have to accept and that she would keep ignoring what she doesnt want to answer. Deleting his [jgabriel's] account and making all his posts anon, was just the most terrible/disrespectful thing I thought I had ever heard of.

Continued Interview with br3n:

Q: What specifically do you feel was the cause of these things?

br3n: For myself the OSRM issue (Groklaw editor joins OSRM) was a total turnaround from what I had understood her position to be before this point. She had blasted HP and Sun for their indemnity offers and then decides to go off with this one.

Q: What would it take for these problems to be resolved or have they been resolved?

br3n: Well, I have to answer that with a question: How do you trust someone when they have never admitted any wrong doing or admitted making any mistakes or even offering reasons for their mistaken/wrong actions?

Q: Now that some time has passed since these incidents occurred and you have had time to reflect on them, has your opinion changed?

br3n: No,in fact I feel stronger than ever that leaving groklaw was a right decision.

Q: Take a look at this list of names: Harlan, JohnGabriel, mck9, Thad Beier, h@ns, mjpieters, warmcat, al_petrofsky, Wally Bass, Rushing, thebean, walterbyrd, R. Wheelwright, JimK, talks_to_birds, harlanc, Maat, SCO_DNR. All of these members were at one time locked out and/or deleted due to reasons unknown and unsaid. Do you recognize any of these names (EDITOR’S NOTE: They’ve all been removed/deleted/censored at one time from groklaw since Nov 2004)?

br3n: harlan= I heard about him missing from other boards but don’t remember from groklaw. He was a big contributor but I have no personal knowledge of him. Harlanc is same person I believe.

john gabriel = was a more familiar name to me. I was watching closely when he was deleted. He had nothing on groklaw [in form of content] that would provide a reason for deletion. I was watching that closely. He had posted criticism on the yahoo SCOX board and I believe this is why he was deleted.

mck9= I don’t recognize this handle.

Thad Beier = is still a member isnt he?

h@ns = I thought he was still a member also.

mjpieters= nick is familiar but no details.

warmcat = Was deleted around the same time as al petrofsky because of the same tape of the court hearing that al was deleted for.

al_petrofsky = Was deleted due to the posting of the url to a tape of a hearing in court regarding SCO. He had written permission from the court to make it publically available and was deleted from groklaw without warning. Al Petrofsky [being censored/deleted/deceived] was not for good reason in my opinion. He had permission from the court for the recording and he believed he was in the right. I also think he was in the right.
Wally Bass = I recognize the nick and I believe he was deleted because he had a different opinion of the facts.
Rushing= I belive he was also named heimdal…

thebean = dont remember the nick

walterbyrd = still has an account i think

R. Wheelwright = dont recall the nick

mikey = had written an application for downloading groklaw content for use when he was traveling. He called it glsucks since it “sucked” down groklaw content onto his computer. Let’s just say that groklaw/PJ’s reaction to that leave little suspicion on why he lost his account.

JimK = dont recall the nick

talks_to_birds = is same as infosecgroupie on yahoo scox board also Maat = I don’t have any recollection of any problems from groklaw with this nick but after the fact heard of some.

tomas had had his account locked and his gpg key removed and all but his first name altered under the account info. No way for anyone to even email him. His account was reinstated if he gave permission for the alteration (something in his signature about his comments being creative common license or something) to stay, but am not sure that he ever gave that and think he is locked out of his account now…but I’m not 100% sure.

Q: Can you think of any names I’ve left out of my list?

br3n: How about colonel_zen (colzen), nono, spanishinquisition, and flimbag? I’m sure there are others.

Moderator no more, grandmother still…br3n tells an interesting story. At the core, it’s an open source story that many of us have experienced. It’s a story of how one person begins to make a difference and becomes a part of something bigger than themselves. They learn from it. They become better people by learning. Soon, the movement gains momentum. It develops its own conciousness in a way due to the vast number of people that it attracts. When someone doesn’t agree with the direction its going or what is being said, they are silenced.

It does seem odd that so many people have found themselves ostracized from a site dedicated to support open source. In the early days of the GPL and open source, supporters were open and welcomed constructive criticism. Nowadays, mob rule has begun to take a foot hold. If one’s opinion does not follow that of the general sentiment of persons that post/chat at a certain site…they find themselves censored or silenced at said site. Groklaw is not the only practitioner of this form of censorship…there are many other sites across the web that find time to block comments that aren’t vulgar, but rather, do not agree with what site visitors and supports would agree with.

It is clear from the examples contained in this category; GreatDivide and Groklaw, that censorship and deception have become the ways of the web. People can post anonymously on the web and not have to worry about repercussions of what they say…afterall, they’re not face to face with that person so what do they care?

I often think of this anonymity and have found that the best way to relate to it is through an illustration. Imagine for a minute that you are driving in your car. You accidentally cut off the driver in front of you when you make a turn and he/she lays on the horn. They drive right up to your rear bumper and tailgate you for the next few miles and then you turn off at your turn and never see that person again.

Now imagine that you are standing in line at the bank. You accidentally reach across a persons face standing in line behind you. Does this mean that the person is now going to stand a few inches behind you, tailgating you for the rest of the time spent in the line? Not likely. This is because it is personal…and confrontation is something most people shy away from. The web has become the vehicle on the information superhighway and it has brought all the anonymity of driving a car along with it.

Have we found the answer? Is it this unwillingness to deal with people that is the causal factor for many deleted accounts at groklaw? Or is it mob rule that has taken hold…a “it’s my way or the highway” mentality? We may never know. When asked to comment on this article, no response was illicited from groklaw.net NOR Pamela Jones. Perhaps I’ll need to work on my google rank before I’m deemed worthy enough to respond to.

“It is in the nature of tyranny to deride the will of the people as the voice of the mob, and to denounce the cry for freedom as the roar of anarchy.” William Safire

Disagreements + Groklaw = Deletion? originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on March 22, 2005.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859¹

It has happened again. Just like water seeps into cracks in rocks and freezes in the cold, splitting them apart…so has an ideal begun to chip away at Linux. In my previous post on this subject I talked about how Linux was beginning to be categorized. Not in the normal categories you would think…but in demographic and social categories. Linux is beginning to become associated with political ideas and social idealism. Political Correctness and concepts of sexism have flexed their muscle from within Debian.

The Debian Women’s Group (link broken at the time of this article) have spoke yet again against something considered sexist. Instead of being sexist language in a file…we have something a bit different. Newsforge reported on a small program that had been submitted for packaging called Hotbabe, which is a graphical representation of CPU activity. It depicts a cartoon woman who strips off clothing with higher CPU activity and is based on the artwork of Bruno Bellamy, a French cartoonist. The synopsis of what happened is this: Someone didn’t like the fact that this could be considered sexist or erotica…so they submitted a bug to the list and started a thread on the Debian Women’s Mailing list. A BUG!?!?? Since when did content become a “bug”? For that matter, where in Debian Policy does it say that a package must contain content that is unoffensive to all groups?? Wouldn’t that defeat the concept of free software and uncensored free software?

The thing that really gets me going isn’t the fact that people have a problem with this package. It’s the fact that they abused the system and submitted a BUG for their problem. First off, this isn’t a bug. The second thing they did wrong was complain about it via the BUGLIST itself. There are proper channels for this discussion and this wasn’t one of them. If you have a problem with this software…don’t use it.? Problem solved.

I think that this whole discussion has gone a bit too far. The “bug” should have never been allowed to be submitted because it deals NOTHING with how the program works or doesn’t work. The package should never have been contended in any capacity other than unofficial because it goes against the submitters’ rights to have his software included…there are NO guidlines in Debian that prevent him/her from doing so.

This whole situation further proves what I observed on November 5th, 2004…that Linux has become chock full of social and political divisions…something it was NEVER supposed to be full of. Let me give you an example. I was associated in 1995 with development of an IRC script for use with IRC. There were about 6 of us that worked on this script that offered DCC handling and general security. Out of the 6 people I worked on this with…I knew the gender of ONE PERSON. The reason I knew this person is because they hung out in the same IRC channel that I did for about a year previous and he had introduced me to the project…the rest of the people I knew only by nickname and email…they could have been male or female. I really didn’t care either…as long as the script was completed and was bugfree. This is how things USED to be. This IMHO is how open source should be.

Yet today, we see the influence of the few causing strife for the many. BUGS being submitted for moral, social, and political reasons will most likely continue to be submitted. People will continue to divide themselves up until we have Linux categorized in tidy little sections that cater to each person’s moral codes.? Unfortunate but preventable. Preventable in only one way…we need to stick to the ideals of the Free Software Foundation:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Emphasis was mine above. For any purpose is entertainment, professional use, or whatever purpose the end user has. Hotbabe complies with free software by definition and should be considered an addition to Debian without objection. If there are moral or other objections to its inclusion, they should be discussed through unofficial channels. If someone objects to the inclusion of this package…they should just NOT USE IT. Think of what would happen if this package weren’t allowed due to moral objection…we’d have a huge task on our hands of censoring software…ALL SOFTWARE. We’d have to go back through all repositories and find all software that could be offensive and we’d have to remove it. Not only is it a silly concept but it boggles the mind to even consider it. We need to remember what free software, open source, and individual choice are all about and NOT categorize Linux any further.

Devnet

The Great Schism Continues and the Rift Grows Wider originally appeared on Yet Another Linux Blog on January 7, 2005.