Shane Fagan » Free Software

Oh OGG when will it be your time….?

Shane — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:56:42 +0000

I’m an optimist, specifically for ubuntu and the open source/free software world. One thing that puzzles me is OGG Theora and Vorbis. We see Wikimedia (Wikipedia, wikidictonary…etc) using OGG technologies as well as mozilla, google and opera embracing it. It is included by default in nearly all linux distributions (I say nearly all because I cant think of any that dont but id say some don’t have it). They are the only freely distributable codecs around.

So why am I still unsure about OGG being used worldwide as the standard for audio/video files?
1. It wont be standardized as part of HTML5
2. MP3 although outdated are still installed on more devices sold on the market.
3. No big company is pushing its adoption
4. Even people who support free software have no reason to encode their library into free formats.
5. The ubuntu one music store (going by the meeting at the UDS) more than likely wont offer OGGs as a download option.
6. Google bought On2, so they might push VP8 to the main stage by using it in Google Chrome (the browser and the OS) and on Youtube as embedded HTML5 video.

I think at the moment more can be done to encourage the use of OGGs, comparing sizes and emphasizing the free part is all well and good but it doesn’t push it to the users. Its an aggressive market, MP3, MP4 and WMA all are pushed to the users by massive companies like Apple and Microsoft. Ubuntu, Fedora, Open Solaris, FreeBSD and Opensuse (there are loads i’m not going to list them all) all distribute OGG codecs but it just seems that not many users use them and thats a shame.

Me personally I don’t use them because I have way too much music and video to convert and there wouldn’t be much point because if I convert it all I will have a degradation in quality because each codec removes different parts of the tracks. Plus I have an iPod and that doesn’t play OGGs. (before anyone asks I looked into it and I couldn’t find any OGG players in any of the shops I visited in Ireland)

One thing I have to say as a great side note is that FLAC is the most used lossless codec around and that is such a awesome example of how a free software product can dominate just because its great.

FSF

Shane — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:11:24 +0000

Recently ive heard a lot of strange mailing list banter, mainly from the Gnome marketing mailing list. Its in regard to the FSF (Free Software foundation) terms like “Free Software” and “GNU/Linux”. The FSF believes that everyone should use the term GNU/Linux rather than just Linux and use Free Software not open source.
What im wondering is are the FSF an extremist organisation that no one takes entirely seriously?
Dont get me wrong I love the idea of free software, the ability to change share and use software for any purpose is something that I really want. On the other hand one has to understand companies like Nvidia who have trade secrets to protect and would rather not let anyone outside of the company look at the specifications for their GPUs. So Nvidia write their own proprietary drivers but at least they make drivers and thats the main thing we want, support. In order to compete in a modern world we need help even if its not in the way that we would like. The FSF dont see it that way. Richard Stallman called Miguel De Icaza a traitor and he is one of the biggest contributors to free software.
The FSF need to evolve from the hard line no means no mentality and embrace every little boost we get towards our ultimate goal of a world without the boundaries of proprietary software.
The simple fact is that if a proprietary tool for example Nvidia drivers makes it easier to use free software ill use it until something free can replace it. The FSF condemn that and they shouldnt. They should stop preaching and help make free software great. Being a voice box isnt helpful, attacking supporters isnt helpful. Actually programming, translating, answering questions for new users or writing manuals is helpful but they havent done much of those in a long time. The FSF seem to be less of a help and more of a chain around our legs.
They wrote GPL, campaign and help hosting projects but hosting is done by many other organisations (source forge, lauchpad, Gnome’s bzr repo….etc) and campaigning is useless when you are campaigning for an ideal. The best way to campaign in my opinion is to show that the alternative is better, preaching the ideal is useless. So the only thing that the FSF have contributed recently is a licence. A great licence though.
Lastly I have to say whats in a name?
Of course we recognise the GNU projects contributions but Linux is more used than GNU/Linux. Its only politics and id say if people really wanted we could be calling it Gnome/Linux or KDE/Linux. People have the right to use whatever name they want. I could start using the name “monkey” instead of “GNU/Linux” if I wanted so the FSF should just let it go. The simple fact of the matter is that Linux is a lot easier to say.

So to summarise this whole rant, the FSF need to not be so judgemental and they need to stop talking about change and instead help it. We need to stop fighting and being so negative for our own good.

Reply to Ballmers recent interview

Shane — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:28:32 +0000

I read and listened to an interview from Steve Ballmer:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10301028-16.html
Ok we all can agree that Mac is quite expensive but its great looking and works well. He says windows is high quality low price but we all know that vista is low quality and medium price. When you pay for an enterprise linux solution (From the likes of Novell or Red Hat ..etc) you get what Ballmer mentions as “High Quality, Low Price”.
He says that the development of linux distros is chaotic. Linux is developed at a speed that it may seem chaotic but really its speed of development and innovation and this is because of its community development model. The Kernel is the best example of this quick but innovative development cycle.
He also mentioned that when windows 7 comes out it will have all this cool new hardware but he failed to mention a lot of this new stuff will work on linux eventually too. I can agree with the point that PCs get the best hardware and Apple are always a little behind but thats because they only are one company and Microsoft doesnt make hardware so they cant judge Apple in that regard.
He also said that because of IP reasons that linux is not free and I have not paid a thing for Ubuntu so in that respect he is dead wrong. Id like to also mention that maybe you dont have to pay for linux with money but if you like it try to contribute in any way you can.
Its funny that Ballmer started off with “Linux its all about linux, we have been competing with linux for a number of years”. So he see us as a competitor and that is great. He says that windows has a fixed design and that is what makes windows great but its quite the opposite, it will follow its own design and push it to the end even if its bad. Linux is evolution, if we see a flaw in a design we change it or replace it with something better. Free as in beer and freedom is a lot better than a “fixed design” and “low” (but not really) in cost.
I think this interview like all Ballmer interviews reveals how out of touch Microsoft is. He sees Windows as low cost but its not compared to Linux distros and Mac is expensive but you pay for the stability and the good software built in (although Macs have their flaws http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32210255/ns/technology_and_science-security/)
I actually I enjoyed listening to the interview and I think any publicity is good publicity so even though he is dead wrong on many levels he revealed one thing that was of use and that is that he sees linux as a threat.

Microsoft Linux source addition

Shane — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:52:10 +0000

Interesting the past few days in the Microsoft camp. First the community promise and now they submit source to the linux kernel.
I think the question to ask is “Why are they taking this new stance?”.
I remember reading the Halloween documents and all about how they planned on tackling Free Software through FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt). Recent events have seen a major shift in policy.
Dont get me wrong I think its not a bad thing and the fact that the addition of the source code to the linux kernel is licensed under GPL. Im still left thinking “Why?”.
Of course it adds support for a Microsoft product (Hyper-V hypervisor technology) but really they havent been all that helpful before why now?
Its very confusing but it good that they are helping out and in a way supporting GPL.

Regards
Shane_Fagan

YAMP (Yet another Mono post) please end the debate

Shane — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:36:48 +0000

I just want to throw my size 10 and a half boot in on the whole Mono controversy.
First one link that some may have not seen
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx.
The community promise is legally binding. All that it contains is a promise that you can do whatever the hell you like with anything under it. If you sue Microsoft for anything you wont have a leg to stand on because they own the patent and they dont “sudo apt-get autoremove mono-common” claim anything for use of the patent. Its quite simple, use mono if you want if you don’t “sudo apt-get autoremove mono-common”.
F-Spot and Tomboy are already in Ubuntu and there isnt too many programs like them. F-Spot is just a simple picture editing, an import program and its good apart from a few bugs but nothings perfect. I dont really use Tomboy. I use Banshee as my default media player and I find it quite good too because I hate having to use two different programs simply. Its not a bad media player though missing some functionality but its new enough so that will come with time. Its a step towards having something along the same lines as ITunes or Windows Media player.
We should judge programs on how good they are and not what technology they are built using. So no more of this mono hating its been beaten to death. If there was a patent question I would be against it but its not so I say why not?
The main argument against it is that its Microsoft technology so its bad, well Mono is free software it just is a compatibility thing. Businesses find it hard if they have in house software written using C# or other Microsoft technologies and Mono allows them to switch. Argument 2 is that its helping promote Microsoft technology and it kinda does but silverlight isnt used too much outside of the Microsoft sites and there is no real reason to use it with all the other technologies available. So adding moonlight functionality is similar to supporting MP3s and WMA media formats in my opinion but we can enable it by default if we wish. It just allows us to access the sites and that is a good thing. I dont see the patent question as an issue any more so I dont accept it as an argument.
So its controversial but we have to accept it end the debate and if you have a problem make a better program to replace the Mono ones and ask for it to be included instead if you want.
We should be embracing good software because Free Software is about FREEDOM so we shouldnt have such a barrier to anything free and Mono is (Its under GPL).
Barriers are what the proprietary world uses.

Regards
Shane_Fagan

The whole RMS controversy

Shane — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:17:10 +0000

Im hearing a lot about this RMS sexism thing and my only thought on it is that he is an eccentric hardcore guy. He has strong views about everything. You shouldnt care because he is a crazy old coot. He shouldnt be taken that seriously anymore though in my opinion.
Of course I love free software and thats his baby but his views anyway are a little too hardcore. I have to use the NVidia drivers for my computer because otherwise it would look downright awful and I dont have a problem with that but of course id prefer free software. I think most would agree with that point of view.
His views are and have always been extremely liberal in every area and most of those opinions other people wouldnt agree with.
So on the whole sexism thing just let it pass, it seems like it angered a load of people but they shouldnt take him that seriously anyway. Also have a look at here if you haven’t already.

My views on KDE and Gnome

Shane — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:32:39 +0000

I am a Gnome guy I have always been but I have to say I recently started being annoyed by a few little things. I looked at KDE the one in the karmic repo I dont have a clue what version they are on now and im quite surprised. I had tried out KDE back in ubuntu 8.04 and I was very disappointed but everything that I hated has been changed since then more or less. The fact of the matter is that KDE has what Gnome doesnt which is good applications all around and a good looking UI. Gnome-panel looks bad but they are doing something about it.

There is no excuse for the bad choice of media players Rhythmbox and Totem are ugly and dont hold a candle to any other program that competes with them. Banshee, Songbird, Amarok, etc and the proprietary ones in other operating systems Windows media player and itunes all put Rhythmbox and Totem to shame. The one thing that Totem has is the browser plugin but that will be not needed when the tag comes into Firefox (3.5 which is going to be included in ubuntu 9.10 I hear). Evolution is also very bad too.

Then for Ubuntu and Debian related nonsense you have two ways to install programs add/remove and synaptic, as well as an update manager and software sources managers couldnt we integrate all them into one big program? KDE has this cool thing also that notifies of tasks to do and suggests installing of packages etc which is very nice. The KDE desktop is very tidy and has nice applications (Widgets) running for your convenience that are very flexible so they can be used by a wide array of people in different ways Gnome doesnt have anything to this effect and thats a real shame. Of course KDE looks better than Gnome but again with Gnome 3.0 that will be about even.

It weird because gnome is the default for many distros probably more than KDE but still it seems like many UI problems and inconsistencies are still in Gnome. We need to be creative and collaborative and revamp the lot. Some days the Free software community seems to be too big for its own good, too much talk (or too little in a lot of cases) not enough definitive decisions. Gnome needs a direction, KDE has one and they have the strength to push towards that and that is the main difference between KDE and Gnome in my opinion. Canonical, Red Hat, Novell etc anyone who has an interest in Gnome seems to have a direction that they want it to go and thats good but it seems like they are all going in different directions (and interestingly all use different programming languages). Its good to see such interesting developments but each cook makes his or her chicken soup differently and that is a problem that leads to inconsistency.

So in short KDE is number 1 I think at the moment in terms of UI and consistency, but I am still exited about the future of Gnome as long as they make a consistent user experience and put in the best applications for the users sake.