GLOG

One of the free software related mailing lists I’m subscribed to is called GNU-Linux-libre. It’s a list where developers of fully free GNU/Linux distros and other projects involved in spreading software freedom gather to exchange experiences and opinions. For the last couple of days, there has been a heated discussion going on over how a free kernel should behave in certain situations. It’s a tricky subject, if you’re not familiar with it. Basically, some Linux drivers (including Intel wireless drivers), even though they’re free themselves, require the loading of firmware codes which are not free software. Logically, the Linux-libre project removes these not free firmware from the kernel to ensure users’ freedom. However, the question comes to what should be done about the left drivers that are rendered useless without the firmware. The current solution is to leave these drivers as they are and make the kernel print a *DEBLOBBED* message whenever the driver looks for the non-existent firmware.

A few days ago, the developer community started to discuss if the drivers themselves should also be removed from the Linux-libre source code. (You can read the discussion thread here.) The argument for removing the drivers is that those drivers act primarily as a trap for the user to switch to non-free firmware. And, the counterargument to that is that the drivers themselves don’t restrict user freedom and should be left as an invitation for hackers to write a free firmware. From my point of view, both sides of the argument have valid points. However, the discussion seems to be blown out of proportion for such a relatively minor issue. I am saying minor because nothing significant changes for the regular user of a free distribution either way. The involved device would be unusable regardless of whether the discussed drivers are purged or not. Furthermore, if a user has enough skills and motivation to plug a non-free firmware back, she could also just compile the whole driver module.

Anyway, the real reason why I wanted to post was to share a quotation from a mail sent during the discussion. It’s written by Daniel Olivera who is the leading developer of UTUTO, the first fully free distro recognized by the FSF. For a few years, it remained the only such distribution, until the number of free GNU/Linux distributions came close to ten with more lining up to get included. Although the language is a little bit broken (probably due to the heat of the discussion), its hilarity should make up for it. And, nevertheless, there is some truth in it, too…

This hackers, and this Gnu Project and other free software fighter never
create a free system.
All rules, All software, all hackers, all gurus, all free software
moviment never use a 100% free system.

I create this system.

I first hacker from free software moviment what compile and put only
free software in one CD are me.

you don't need teach about the history, I write de history.

Yet another blog pundit’s opinion of Google’s new operating system

I have just read Kongoni developer A.J. Venter’s blog post about Google’s new operating system. I didn’t agree with some of his views and started typing a response as it’s the tradition whenever someone is wrong on the Internet. However, it quickly got too long for a comment and, since I’m not posting for quite a while on my own weblog, I thought what better opportuntity to post. So, here’s my response and view of Google’s operating system projects:

I personally am more paranoid of the Google OS. I haven’t really navigated the blogosphere on this, so my view may have already been stated extensively.

I see a big threat in what Google is aiming here, which is complete dependence on the cloud. Google plans to release most of the so called Chrome OS as free software. Yes, but we should also look at what this OS is reduced to. Or more importantly, in which way Google is hoping to ‘educate’ its users. Replacing or modifying an operating system by Google shouldn’t be an impossible task (though with a varying difficulty from simply reinstalling a laptop’s OS to bypassing restriction mechanisms on an Android phone), but a user’s set habits are much harder to replace.

I don’t know if you would see this as unsubstantiated speculation, but Google’s main goal seems to be to create a computing environment where the operating system and everything on the user’s machine just serve as the boot loader of the real computer, i.e. the cloud, of which Google is trying get the majority userbase as quickly and as early as possible.

“this isn’t trading one monopolist for another”

My fear is even deeper than that. Microsoft is clearly a monopoly with many of its decisions taken not in the interest of its users, but rather against them. However, Google, if you accept my previous premise, is posing a much bigger threat. Whereas the fight between Free Software and Microsoft is a relatively conventional struggle between the right thing to do with your personal computing versus the wrong thing, Google’s end goal has the risk of making this whole fight irrelevant, and not in a good way…

Should we get our tinfoil hats?

Despite the significance of the threat, how or if Google’s cloud computing ideal is inevitable is far from being definite. Google doesn’t quite have the same direct force on computer users’ machines the same way IBM once had or Microsoft is still enjoying. Therefore, Google is trying to lure users with features and conveniences. Although cloud computing has several advantages over traditional computing especially for users of highly restrictive platforms such as Microsoft Windows or Apple Mac OS X, I personally believe it can never match the power of personal computing, especially when done with Free Software.

On the flip side, Google is also doing numerous beneficial things for digital freedom such as developing some pieces of software under free licenses or fighting for internet standards. Whatever motivation they may have for doing these, they certainly have also immediate good effects for the free software communities. So, I am not suggesting that one should reject all of Google’s projects. On the contrary, we should try to benefit from them as much as we can without sacrificing already established freedoms. It is only necessary to keep their end game in mind while doing so.