Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:29:31AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > What they are suggesting is option IV which is recreate youtube with a
> > free format, which still includes Option a, which fails for the same reason.
> 
> Gnash will enable a youtube with a free format using the Flash
> architecture but 100% free software, because it spans the Gnash
> runtime and Cygnal, a replacement for Flash Media Server.

But the original point I was elluding to was that YouTube is really,
really, really, really, really, smegging big. It's not going anywhere soon.

It's all well and good waxing lyrical about how X or Y suggestions
would work if only YouTube used this format or that format, but it's
not very constructive because YouTube don't do any of that yet.

Gnash works here and now for using YouTube and that's vitally important.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman

_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:

> It's a bit surprising that the GNU project seems to
> have switched to the bold alternative GNU (which is quite similar to
> the previous one, enough so that
> http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html
> still suggests it is the old head on the home page and I doubt many
> people will notice it) instead of one of the more cuddly 3D ones (say
> Georg Bahlon's, or the meditating GNU).

I like the meditating GNU but not everyone is a meditation fan.  
Bahlon's GNU will probably give me nightmares tonight.

Both are too complex to serve as logos. Tux has nice shading but  
simple forms and downsamples well.

- Rob.

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 14/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
>
> Just to nitpick, Linus did create the Linux OS but it was pretty
> rubbish (or so I deduce) appart from the kernel.

I thought it was only ever a kernel and was initially combined with
Minix, then GNU.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 13/01/2008, Jon Grant <jg <at> jguk.org> wrote:
> On 13/01/2008, Dave Crossland <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> > Not promoting the idea of software freedom is damaging.
> >
> > When he says things that mean "The Linux OS started in 1991
>
> Could you link me to that quote please.

I did not say this was a direct quote of his. But he says things that
are equivalent in meaning to this, by confusing the kernel with the
OS, and a good example of this is the Revolution OS interview as
quoted at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#Opinions_supporting_.22Linux.22

and that idea has spread widely:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Linux+started+in+1991 pulls up
http://www.amazon.com/review/R223GJFDXQMOOG which is a good example of
the kind of confusion I mean;
http://www.google.com/search?q=torvalds++%22the+linux+operating+system%22+%22started+in+1991%22
pulls up http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html

> I agree that if he calls it
> his OS when it's using many other people's software then that is
> misleading. I don't know how damaging it is though, have their been
> any negative consequences because of this?

The idea of software freedom is alien to most users of the OS.

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

"Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> I'm sad that people don't know how to "mute" the threads they find
> boring other than asking to censor the participants.

The above point was repeated three times in that one mail, which was
rather unnecessary.

We can mute the thread for all googlemail users by sending them known
spam with forged headers that make it look like part of the thread.

In general, be liberal and accept that not everyone filters mail from
their local user groups.  Be conservative in what you generate.

> I was hoping they would specify why they think the answers in that FAQ
> are inadequate answers their objections. [...]

The GNU/Linux FAQ is inadequate because it ignores frequently asked
questions like "Is this just credit-seeking by the GNU project?" "Why
does FSF still reject some groups who call it GNU/Linux?" and "How
have groups been persuaded to call it GNU/Linux?"

Some of the questions there that actually are frequently-asked ones,
such as the X11-Apache-Perl one, have weak answers and don't give
references to support the claims.  An answer sounds like mere opinion
even when it could be more quantitative.

Also, much of it focuses on what the GNU project doesn't or didn't do,
rather than what it does.  It's a rather negative and grating tone.

Finally, it's unstructured (compare with the GPL FAQ) and rather

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi Dave,

> > > Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.
> >
> > I didn't.  You did.  I'm talking about the actions of FSF worker
> > Matt Lee and the resulting long thread on the lugmaster list which
> > only stopped when the list admin. called a halt.
> 
> That list is not public and until you mention now it I had not heard
> rumours about any such discussion from anyone. You said,
> 
> > > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort
> > > > at retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
> 
> which has nothing to do with the lugmaster list and brings up the
> topic again.

You say the lugmaster list is not public but then state that something
has nothing to do with the list?

The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.

Cheers,

Ralph.

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

> > The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years.
> 
> So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!
> Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have
> written bits of it.
> 
> As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project
> his OS was not derived from it.  Indeed, the GNU Hurd was started at
> about the same time as the Linux kernel and didn't become operational
> until long after there were several complete Linux distributions (I
> don't know anyone who uses the Hurd, is it still even supported?  The
> last release seems to have been in 1999).

I always thought the GNU bit was nothing to do with the kernel but
supporting software developed by GNU that goes around the kernel or
comes with each distro eg Gnome. If BSD code is in similar significant
quantities there is a case for including it's name. Can you confirm that
there is a significant amount of code from the BSD project in most Linux
"kernelled" distros? SCO code? I thought that notion had been
discredited in court. KDE also gets some similar recognition with Ubuntu
in Kubuntu. Can't see a problem with Kubuntu GNU/Linux myself but I'm
sure many people will just abbreviate it to Linux for convenience. 

> Well, I'm one of the people who gets annoyed with that "campaign".  As
> far as I'm concerned it's just as much hijacking the name as it would be
> to talk of "GNU/BSD", the BSD systems I know have just as much GNU/FSF
> owned software as do Linux systems.  Heck, I know Windows systems with
> as much.

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 08/01/2008, Chris Croughton <affs <at> keristor.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years.
>
> So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!

Please read the FAQ on this issue in full -
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

It answers this exaggeration at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many and I am quoting that
part in full here in case you have a specific objection to it.

-- 8< --
Q: Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it
includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your
arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead
to a name so long it is absurd.)

A:    What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal
developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU
Project, and the system is basically GNU.

    If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is
due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve
credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against
it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you
want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that
Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write
GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:56:51PM +0000, Chris Croughton wrote:
> So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!
> Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have
> written bits of it.

Your comments illustrate a lack of understanding or a joke, I'm not
sure which - so appologies if I got it wrong.

Clearly the name is used to describe the important components, if you
can show me an operting system that is actually comprised of GNU,
Linux, BSD and Unix I will take your comments seriously.

Until that time, GNU is an operating system and Linux is one of it's
kernels. Sure, BSD is an operating system and it has it's own kernel,
the same with OpenSolaris. It doesn't effect the specific case of a
GNU system being run with a Linux kernel.

If you actually run an operating system with the Linux kernel as well
as the Linux user space tools, C library and shell then you should be
calling it Linux, but only then.

> As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project
> his OS was not derived from it.

Sure, but Linux these days means his kernel not his operating system.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:43:05AM +0100, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> Hi MJ
> 
> MJ Ray wrote:
...
> >> 3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
> >>    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html
> > 
> > What's needed to bring these to the UK?
> 
> We need to establish a relationship or a series of relationships with
> local training suppliers.  We would like to target area of large
> technology usage and growth if possible.  It would be very useful to
> have local knowledge about geographic areas to target, training
> providers who might be interested in co-delivering courses, and
> suggestions about what's required in the UK marketplace.

I'd imagine that the Open Source Consortium has several members that
would be able to give such training:

   http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/

of course, they may not be willing to talk to you since you've got into
bed with Open Forum Europe.

Cheers, Phil.

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:43 +0100, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> > Related question: is AFFS forwarding FSFE donations at the mo?
> 
> I don't know the answer to this one.  Alex, can you pick it up?

I guess there are a couple of parts to this answer. 

The original agreement with the FSFE was that we would collect
donations, but only forward them once they reached a certain level - I
imagine to save on transfer fees and exchange fees. Last time we looked,
we hadn't reached that level, but that was sometime last Autumn IIRC, so
it may well be that we're past that level.

The slightly wider question of what we should do with the AFFS is
something I've been meaning to bring up on this list for a while, but
for various reasons - mostly my "urgent" priorities outweighing my
"important" priorities for a little while - haven't been able to. This
is something that we should discuss, though, particularly since I know
of at least one set of people who want to re-invent that wheel.

> >> 3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
> >>    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html
> > 
> > What's needed to bring these to the UK?
> 
> We need to establish a relationship or a series of relationships with
> local training suppliers.  We would like to target area of large
> technology usage and growth if possible.  It would be very useful to
> have local knowledge about geographic areas to target, training

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi Noah,

On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:02PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
> > for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.
>
> Where, specifically, does SVG & EMCA Script fall short?

Lack of Audio and Video? Take a look at this Bejewled game for an
example of what AJAX can do:

http://static.popcap.com/iphone/

--

-- 
linkme: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jongrant
web: http://jguk.org/

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:02PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
> > for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.
>
> Where, specifically, does SVG & EMCA Script fall short?

URL of an example piece of SVG+EMCA that is comparable to a typical
rich piece of Flash, please 

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave

Re: Content creation (was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only)

On 07/01/2008, rob <at> robmyers.org <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
> Quoting Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com>:
>
> > In this case, I think that's the
> > wrong operating system - no professional graphic artist uses GNU*.
>
> Gimp, and then Inkscape, need to support CMYK. It is that simple.
> Maybe next decade? 

Maybe Krita and Karbon will do it first.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave

Re: Content creation (was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only)

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:06 +0000, rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com>:
> > In this case, I think that's the
> > wrong operating system - no professional graphic artist uses GNU*.
> 
> Gimp, and then Inkscape, need to support CMYK.
> 
> It is that simple.

It's that simple to state; but not that simple to actually implement :)

Sad in way, because free software can often do things that proprietary
vendors never will - a unified, integrated colour system is an obvious
feature. Having correct CMYK/RGB conversion throughout every app and
everything being colour-aware would be a huge feature.

> Maybe next decade? 

We should be so lucky :(

Cheers,

Alex.