# Wayland



## fernandobsd (Apr 10, 2015)

Would it be a good idea to port Wayland to FreeBSD? Wayland seems to be better than Xorg.

http://wayland.freedesktop.org/architecture.html


----------



## SirDice (Apr 10, 2015)

https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/wayland-begins-porting-process-to-freebsd.38964/#post-264364


----------



## getopt (Apr 11, 2015)

To put it in a comprehensible, honest and short sentence: There is nothing FreeBSD can offer present or in near future. 

See: https://wiki.freebsd.org/Graphics#Wayland

Thank you fernandobsd for pointing to Wayland. More FreeBSD developers should start reading there: http://wayland.freedesktop.org/ 

Answering your question: Yes, of course it would be desirable to have Wayland on FreeBSD.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 13, 2015)

But he has a point. Wayland is part of Linux effort to become a Windows-like operating system instead of a Unix-like one. Games are a large part of the Wayland effort which is why most Windows users own a computer at all. Porting Wayland to FreeBSD might only attract such people and cause a distraction away from serious computing and put us in the same mess Linux is in now.

Someone else had a great line, that FreeBSD is like a quiet beach no one knew about and you want to enjoy it before anyone else discovered it and messed it all up.


----------



## getopt (Apr 13, 2015)

drhowarddrfine said:


> Someone else had a great line, that FreeBSD is like a quiet beach no one knew about and you want to enjoy it before anyone else discovered it and messed it all up.


I share this thought 100%.

But I do not share this:


drhowarddrfine said:


> Wayland is part of Linux effort to become a Windows-like operating system instead of a Unix-like one. Games are a large part of the Wayland effort which is why most Windows users own a computer at all. Porting Wayland to FreeBSD might only attract such people and cause a distraction away from serious computing and put us in the same mess Linux is in now.


Did you remember evolution of X-Windows? Do you know about the history of Xorg security problems, still not resolved and lagging behind months in FreeBSD  compared to actual patching done by Xorg? 

If we discuss about Wayland here, we need to compare to Xorg and what we actually do have with that (mess). And Wayland emerged because of that.

FreeBSD has a well reputation with it's kernel. That is what we want to have and keep it up without diluting it. If Wayland can use it without messing with it, there should be no reason to give it a try. Isn't it? Facts on this for discussion are welcome.

Your gaming argument is not very fair as it is a general dual-use-problem. You could use MS-Windows also for serious usage. On the other hand if that are your fears about Wayland, it would have a very big potential to become really successful.


----------



## kpa (Apr 13, 2015)

X11 sucks as a graphics platform, it's a product of 1980's thinking and ideas as witnessed by its monolithic design *). It's time for something more modern that can compete with MS Windows and OS X on an even basis.

*) If you don't buy my argument, just think about how X11 is providing support for various pieces of display hardware. It is still providing its own drivers (userspace code that runs as part of the main X process!!!) that have to be updated in X11 itself when new hardware is introduced. The competition moved to proper kernel level device drivers that offer proper abstraction of the hardware already in late 1990's.


----------



## protocelt (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm not sure I understand the argument against here. Wayland is a vastly improved modern X11 replacement as already stated. No more, no less. It's already been ported, FreeBSD just has nothing to test and take advantage of it yet, at least according to the wiki SirDice referenced above. I don't think Windows gamers are going to be a problem. Windows works quite well for gaming, and I really don't see many of them running too switch over. Most of them don't even know Linux much less FreeBSD exists, and besides, the majority are consumer gamers not developers so it's a moot point anyway IMO. Finally, anyone using FreeBSD as a server without graphics will not be affected by Wayland in the first place and can continue to use FreeBSD exactly as they have been.


----------



## swirling_vortex (Apr 13, 2015)

protocelt said:


> I'm not sure I understand the argument against here.


Because there's a been a small, but vocal minority of people who basically thinks everything created out of the 1980s is sacred and any attempts to change that will turn it into Windows. I think this slide from Theo De Raadt sums up part of the problem with X: http://openbsd.comstyle.com/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release_engineering/mgp00009.html

From a security standpoint, there are plans to sandbox apps with Wayland as well: https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2015/02/17/first-fully-sandboxed-linux-desktop-app/


----------



## protocelt (Apr 13, 2015)

swirling_vortex said:


> From a security standpoint, there are plans to sandbox apps with Wayland as well: https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2015/02/17/first-fully-sandboxed-linux-desktop-app/


Interesting. I wonder if this is feasible on FreeBSD as well using capsicum(4).


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 13, 2015)

swirling_vortex said:


> Because there's a been a small, but vocal minority of people who basically thinks everything created out of the 1980s is sacred and any attempts to change that will turn it into Windows.


No. The problem is new people thinking something created in the 80s is old and therefore bad so something new must replace it rather than fixing what's already there. Now, it's true X has problems but Wayland is fighting every established virtue and ... I have to leave now and can't finish my thought.


----------



## protocelt (Apr 13, 2015)

drhowarddrfine said:


> No. The problem is new people thinking something created in the 80s is old and therefore bad so something new must replace it rather than fixing what's already there. Now, it's true X has problems but Wayland is fighting every established virtue and ... I have to leave now and can't finish my thought.


There is some valid truth to that as well. I agree change just for the sake of change is IMHO stupid, however I don't believe replacing X11 with Wayland would be a mistake. X11 is just too much of a huge mess in so many different ways at this point to fix correctly. Also I am speaking only of X11 vs Wayland here, nothing else, and this is only my personal opinion.


----------



## zspider (Apr 14, 2015)

drhowarddrfine said:


> But he has a point. Wayland is part of Linux effort to become a Windows-like operating system instead of a Unix-like one. Games are a large part of the Wayland effort which is why most Windows users own a computer at all. Porting Wayland to FreeBSD might only attract such people and cause a distraction away from serious computing and put us in the same mess Linux is in now.
> 
> Someone else had a great line, that FreeBSD is like a quiet beach no one knew about and you want to enjoy it before anyone else discovered it and messed it all up.



I agree with that completely.


----------



## getopt (Apr 14, 2015)

drhowarddrfine said:


> No. The problem is new people thinking something created in the 80s is old and therefore bad so something new must replace it rather than fixing what's already there.


No. The problem is "old people" thinking something created in present is too complex and therefore evil.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 14, 2015)

protocelt said:


> I don't believe replacing X11 with Wayland would be a mistake. X11 is just too much of a huge mess in so many different ways at this point to fix correctly.


I agree about X11 and the Intel people even said so but I don't think Wayland's approach is correct and it's too Linux-centric.


----------



## kpa (Apr 14, 2015)

Quoting the great Isaac Asimov from his novel "Nemesis" (spoken by Dr. Tessa Wendel, one of the main characters of the novel):



> Everone's like that, now and then, given certain conditions. I suppose aging scientist are particularly like that. That's why the daring young revolutionaries of science become old fossils after a few decades. Their imaginations harden with encrusted self-love and that's their end. It's now my end.



This is really Asimov himself firing shots at the scientific community he knew himself extremely well.


----------



## getopt (Apr 14, 2015)

drhowarddrfine said:


> I don't think Wayland's approach is correct and it's too Linux-centric.


Won't you share your profound knowledge with us? Opinion is opinion, but there is still something more valuable, isn't it?


----------



## taz (Apr 14, 2015)

This is how I see Wayland: It's written by Linux people for Linux and not by UNIX people for UNIX. And even if Wayland gets ported, and it will eventually, it's going to be a bunch of hacks and glue code to make it work. 

Anyway IMHO if FreeBSD would want to compete with the Windows and Mac in the desktop we should ditch both Xorg and Wayland and create our own graphics stack. Odds for that, IMO, are slim but hey we have Lumina from PC-BSD and maybe in the future there will be a project for out own graphics stack. But for that to happen FreeBSD would have to seriously focus on the desktop, which, well, it probably wont...

Option #2 is for a team of coders to get together and make it happen. But that's also not going to happen since there is no way a team of that caliber is going to form and code it up with out any financing.

Option #3, that actually has the most chance, is that is for some company to recognize that FreeBSD is the coolest thing in world and they decide to make the next coolest desktop OS based on FreeBSD and they decide to keep it open source and give back their work to FreeBSD community.

In the mean time FreeBSD and desktop is going to be status quo. I mean it's 2015 and there is a thread right now on this forum called "Finally a Network Manager for FreeBSD!". Seriously?

One thing that bothers me thou is why people want to turn FreeBSD into Linux so much? For example there is no native Flash for FreeBSD so we use some Linux compatibility layer bullshit to make it work? Why? Linux obviously dose not care about FreeBSD (they proved it with Wayland) so why should we care about Linux. Instead of trying to be Linux and bitch Linux has this and that accept what you have and if you don't like it take the effort to make it work native on FreeBSD (and yes in know in the case of Flash we can't do much but in that case fuck Flash and if it's a deal breaker move on, FreeBSD is not for you).

Bottom line FreeBSD is server first and then everything else second. And unless options 1,2 or 3 happen it's going to be like that for a long time.

You want Wayland? Then you want Linux and not FreeBSD!


----------



## getopt (Apr 14, 2015)

taz
Well said! But I cannot see any "competition" to the OSes you mentioned. If it were a competition, the Foundation could rise funds more easily. IMO.
Linux kernel drivers were never activated here, nor is there a desire to ever use Flash and the like or other Linux stuff. Problem is that you can hardly work around using Xorg when strictly avoiding MSFT or AAPL products. There is a need for graphical application now and then even for a CLI guy like me. And it is horrible from a security point of view when you need to use it.

To boil it down: There is a need for an Xorg replacement. If there were something done by UNIX people done for FreeBSD it certainly would be the finest what we could get.

Personally I have no problem with that when other than FreeBSD people are helping to get FreeBSD out of the Xorg dependencies. If Wayland developes better than Xorg than so what? 



taz said:


> You want Wayland? Then you want Linux and not FreeBSD!



I disagree as this is propaganda, IMO. The last sentence could have been written better.

I  do want FreeBSD and not Linux. And if I prefered Wayland over Xorg I still do not want Linux. And I dislike manipulation attempts for what I want or not want.


----------



## protocelt (Apr 14, 2015)

Look at it this way; AFAIK, there is no commercial interest in FreeBSD's graphics stack at all. That leaves it up to the community of which there is, last time I've read, a total of 4 developers working on it of which none work on it full time. Contrast that to a lot of commercial interest in the Linux graphics stack on top of hundreds of developers who work on it at various levels. Given the the resources available, while I would really love to see FreeBSD(or really any *BSD) innovate in the graphics area, the reality of the situation right now is there is little recourse but to port and use Wayland or eventually down the line lose the capability to use FreeBSD as a Desktop or Workstation to any worthwhile degree other than possibly development purposes. IMO, this is also a major reason Wayland itself is what some would say "Linux-centric", and technically they're not wrong. In addition, the Wayland developers are not closed to working with other communities and are happy to accept work upstream to make Wayland work better with other UNIX-like operating systems as far as I know.


----------



## taz (Apr 14, 2015)

I agree with you. FreeBSD's problem no.1 is lack of resources. I know that, for example, basically one guy coded and maintains the Atheros drivers and HAL. Which is crazy and I give my thanks to Adrian Chadd. Anyhow no wonder we are so "behind" since basically every project is seriously under powered.

But the question that I often wonder about is how to get more people and by people I mean programmers since this is what we are lacking involved into FreeBSD project? Realistically dose FreeBSD have and any edge over Linux that we can leverage?

IMO currently the best "selling point" for FreeBSD is PC-BSD. But within the PC-BSD project I don't really get why the didn't come up with Lumina years ago. And why are they wasting their resources on maintaining KDE and GNOME instead of focusing on Lumina. KDE and GNOME on FreeBSD will NEVER be what is KDE and GNOME on Linux so why wast time and resources in the first place?


----------



## protocelt (Apr 14, 2015)

taz said:


> I agree with you. FreeBSD's problem no.1 is lack of resources. I know that, for example, basically one guy coded and maintains the Atheros drivers and HAL. Which is crazy and I give my thanks to Adrian Chadd. Anyhow no wonder we are so "behind" since basically every project is seriously under powered.
> 
> But the question that I often wonder about is how to get more people and by people I mean programmers since this is what we are lacking involved into FreeBSD project? Realistically dose FreeBSD have and any edge over Linux that we can leverage?


It would be nice to see a company like iXsytems put some resources if available into this given they fund the PC-BSD project, which I think is a great project. . FreeBSD has a lot of leverage in regards to server usage and as expected development shows. Not such much in the desktop space unfortunately.

Other than a large increase in funding directed to the FreeBSD Foundation or more commercial interest in this, I don't really see how things could change at this point of time. At this point of time, IMO, it largely boils down to "money talks".


----------



## abishai (Apr 14, 2015)

taz said:


> Bottom line FreeBSD is server first and then everything else second. And unless options 1,2 or 3 happen it's going to be like that for a long time.
> You want Wayland? Then you want Linux and not FreeBSD!


FreeBSD is universal system. For example, I use it on my gaming PC as the only OS and I definitely see how Wayland would benefit here. X protocol is used on 20%, other 80 is deprecated stuff no one using now.


----------



## taz (Apr 14, 2015)

protocelt said:


> It would be nice to see a company like iXsytems put some resources if available into this given they fund the PC-BSD project, which I think is a great project. . FreeBSD has a lot of leverage in regards to server usage and as expected development shows. Not such much in the desktop space unfortunately.
> 
> Other than a large increase in funding directed to the FreeBSD Foundation or more commercial interest in this, I don't really see how things could change at this point of time. At this point of time, IMO, it largely boils down to "money talks".



Se my post edit for PC-BSD.


----------



## getopt (Apr 14, 2015)

taz said:


> But within the PC-BSD project I don't really get why the didn't come up with Lumina years ago. And why are they wasting their resources on maintaining KDE and GNOME instead of focusing on Lumina. KDE and GNOME on FreeBSD will NEVER be what is KDE and GNOME on Linux so why wast time and resources in the first place?


Well money follows strategic marketing. KDE and GNOME are known widely. So people ask themselves why should I run/want Lumina (WTF is that?) on PC-BSD? I think KDE and GNOME are attractors used like "oh, well I can run such resource eating KDE on PC-BSD too". Those people unfortunately have to go through several installations for finding out that they might better want Lumina.


----------



## taz (Apr 14, 2015)

getopt said:


> Well money follows strategic marketing. KDE and GNOME are known widely. So people ask themselves why should I run/want Lumina (WTF is that?) on PC-BSD? I think KDE and GNOME are attractors used like "oh, well I can run such resource eating KDE on PC-BSD too". Those people unfortunately have to go through several installations for finding out that they might better want Lumina.



Ok, yes KDE and GNOME are known widely but what I'm trying to say that when PC-BSD started if they started with "Lumina" back then today it would not be "WTF is Lumina" it would have been "Lumina is PC-BSDs DE" and and it would have been "our brand" just like KDE and GNOME are "Linux brands" so to speak. I think that this is a much more stronger "selling point" than the fact that PC-BSD "is multi DE" because in the end if you actually want KDE/GNOME on FreeBSD you can have that with or with out PC-BSD. Plus I do not think that people that came from Linux to PC-BSD or where already familiar with KDE/GNOME came because they could have switched between KDE and GNOME they came for some other reasons and I think they would have welcome a "native BSD DE" more than what they already knew. 

The way I see it, and this is just my personal opinion, Windows, Mac, Linux they are all looking after them self. And I think FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/DragonflyBSD should start doing the same and produce stuff that is *BSD native (so to speak). Otherwise it's just going to keep lagging behind. Lumina is a great step in that direction I just wish it had been done sooner and that they ditch KDE and GNOME when it's production ready. (also note that I'm talking about desktop)


----------



## getopt (Apr 14, 2015)

taz said:


> I think FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD/DragonflyBSD should start doing the same and produce stuff that is *BSD native (so to speak). Otherwise it's just going to keep lagging behind ... (also note that I'm talking about desktop)


Yes, good point. That is certainly everyone wants to advocate here. We should and could stop lagging behind by doing our own agenda. 

If it does not match the allocation of resources agenda of the FreeBSD Foundation, maybe we should start thinking about separate funding native *BSD-Projects that are still terribly neglected but needed?

In mean time I certainly would use Wayland too if it were available.


----------



## protocelt (Apr 14, 2015)

taz said:


> Lumina is a great step in that direction I just wish it had been done sooner and that they ditch KDE and GNOME when it's production ready. (also note that I'm talking about desktop)


 Respectfully disagree with this statement. Choice is one of the hallmarks of open source. I have no personal desire to turn FreeBSD into Windows or OS X.

I'm out before taz makes edit #42.


----------



## teo (Apr 14, 2015)

The BSD politics from its beginnings, have been the servers.  Linux is pointer on servers. FreeBSD was wrong in leave the desktop graphic to a derivative, the PC-BSD has no architecture for 32 bits and it is a project of 10 years ago. Technology is moving toward the quantum and we'll see what happens in the future.


----------



## taz (Apr 14, 2015)

getopt said:


> Yes, good point. That is certainly everyone wants to advocate here. We should and could stop lagging behind by doing our own agenda.
> 
> If it does not match the allocation of resources agenda of the FreeBSD Foundation, maybe we should start thinking about separate funding native *BSD-Projects that are still terribly neglected but needed?
> 
> In mean time I certainly would use Wayland too if it were available.



I don't think that separate funding would make much of a difference since I keep track of what is the Foundation doing and I think that they are investing the money wisely. It's just that probably there is not that much money to invest in all areas (server, desktop, embedded). For example the Foundation founded the the Intel KMS which was really needed. Our problem is lack of resources, community is really small and until we grow in numbers no foundation is going to help since there wont be sufficient number of people to donate.



> Respectfully disagree with this statement. Choice is one of the hallmarks of open source. I have no personal desire to turn FreeBSD into Windows or OS X.
> 
> I'm out before taz makes edit #42.



Right but if PC-BSD where to be "Lumina only" you would still have a choice to install just FreeBSD and then play with KDE/GNOME/MATE/...I think that users looking at PC-BSD as an option are more concerned with the fact whether it "just simply works" than whether is it KDE/GNOME/MATE... 

I have tried PC-BSD couple of times since it first started and that is all, just tried. Because every time I try it wasn't stable enough for me to put it on my laptop for example and use it for every day multimedia stuff. And my opinion is if they went with a native DE from the beginning by now it would have been rock solid just as FreeBSD. Right now they are just playing catch with Ubuntu and the same thing will happen with Wayland. By the time Wayland "1.0" is ported to FreeBSD, Linux users will have Wayland "3.0" and personaly I would rather stay in CLI than use some glued/hacked Linux code.

Also sorry about the million edits.


----------



## taz (Apr 15, 2015)

Also for anyone interested in the FreeBSD graphics stack here is a nice video:


----------



## getopt (Apr 15, 2015)

taz said:


> and personaly I would rather stay in CLI than use some glued/hacked Linux code.


Now, if you stay in CLI, how are you watching the "nice video" above?


----------



## taz (Apr 15, 2015)

getopt said:


> Now, if you stay in CLI, how are you watching the "nice video" above?



Heh 

I'm not in CLI as in no Xorg at all...but I try to keep my system as much CLI based as possible (so no gtk or qt is the goal). I don't run any DE. 
I need to have a browser  so I'm watching it from a browser but I do not use linux emualtion to enable Flash, only HTML5 videos. But it's also no problem to go with a combination youtube-dl + mplyer streaming.

In fact the browser is my biggest issue currently for my "perfect" setup since I can't avoid Chrome/Firefox/... and by that I have to use gtk/qt. My idea is to switch to NETSurf on framebuffers but still hadn't had time to play with that and I know that their JavaScript support is very limited for now, but it is in development.


----------



## Beastie7 (Apr 17, 2015)

Apple won the UNIX desktop war a long time ago. Who cares. No matter how you slice it, the motive of the BSDs has always been the backend of things. Wayland is insignificant, and the developers have more important things to focus on for the community and customers (Yes, FreeBSD has customers - take a look at the donors list). Any open source attempt so far has been a mere clone of what Apple has already done years ago. Oh, but "Apple is proprietary!". That's business, get over it. It's still good software. So just use it.

Creating a good desktop and ecosystem around it is terribly complicated and expensive (just look at how huge The Cocoa and Quartz framework is, for example). Why does this matter? because users like "easy, shiny" things, and developers want a financial incentive to even make apps for a platform, period. Just look at windows phone for example. With all the resources Microsoft has, it's still a stagnated platform with a severely small market share.

As state before the server has always been the motive here, and until there's a shift in purpose "the open source BSD desktop" will continue to be a small niche.

my two cents


----------



## getopt (Apr 17, 2015)

Beastie7 said:


> Yes, FreeBSD has customers - take a look at the donors list.
> my two cents


Interesting. Your point is the developers are working on that what they are paid for. And the FreeBSD Foundation is allocationg the revenues for their customers intentions. That's business.

If it were like that, the Foundation would be used for tax avoidance and the promotion of Open Source could be deceitfulness? 

Still compensation and donations is not the same. If you think that there is no distinction, ask the IRS.

I cordially hope that your views are just fiction.


----------



## John Call (Apr 25, 2015)

Here's my opinion on Wayland.

Yeah, X sucks. It's full of cruft and bloat. But it's been the window system of UNIX for so long, it will never be able to be replaced, because simply too many applications are for X.

Okay, Wayland may be used with GNOME and KDE users, but the rest of us (I prefer GTK+2, Xaw, and Motif) will not be able too. It may be a simpler X like system, but it's not compelling enough, and it's not the UNIX way either.

The UNIX way windows system already exists. They call it rio.

The Wayland devs made a mistake of trying to mount their window system on UNIX. They need to go the way OS X, BeOS/Haiku, and Plan 9 did, use a new platform for your new system rather than smashing and fragmenting the system that already exists.

Wayland will die, it seems. No one will use it. If anything, it will only pronounce the gap between FLOS Linuxers and UNIX Linuxers.

Here in FreeBSD, we need not care about that. I just watch with mild curiosity, because I use, in addition to FreeBSD, Slackware, Plan 9, and Gentoo (don't judge me).


----------



## John Call (Apr 25, 2015)

Beastie7 said:


> Oh, but "Apple is proprietary!". That's business, get over it. It's still good software. So just use it.



Not having the freedom to study and modify the code of the software I use is unacceptable for me. I sometimes feel alone in that regard in the BSD community.


----------



## BSDBernd (Apr 25, 2015)

John Call said:


> Not having the freedom to study and modify the code of the software I use is unacceptable for me. I sometimes feel alone in that regard in the BSD community.


I am not so certain that you are alone. For me, I love for example Mac OSX, but the fact that it is not completely open source drives me more and more to open source UNIX like OSes like the brilliant FreeBSD or even Linux. I prefer the BSD-licensing. That an open source OS can be successful can be seen when you look at Android, which has beaten even iOS. I have nothing against 'closed software', but I am a customer who prefers his software to be open .


----------



## John Call (Apr 26, 2015)

BSDBernd said:


> I am not so certain that you are alone. For me, I love for example Mac OSX, but the fact that it is not completely open source drives me more and more to open source UNIX like OSes like the brilliant FreeBSD or even Linux. I prefer the BSD-licensing. That an open source OS can be successful can be seen when you look at Android, which has beaten even iOS. I have nothing against 'closed software', but I am a customer who prefers his software to be open .


No, no, no, what I was saying was that I consider it my right to do whatever the hell I want with my software. If a piece software is not like that, I usually don't consider it. So I'm not a customer who prefers his software be open, I'm a citizen that demands his software be free.

There doesn't seem to be many people like us in the BSD community. That said, I prefer the BSD license because I think the choice to preserve freedom should be a personal, ethical choice, so it means something. Making your software open source because the GPL says you have to rather than because you care about your users will not stay.


----------



## Beastie7 (Apr 26, 2015)

Then I suggest you throw away every piece of consumer electronics you have, or appliance that uses proprietary software. Because you certainly won't have access to it's source.

Now I agree with you when it comes to enterprise software. Proprietary web servers, databases, etc is a huge no no to me. But a lot of us BSD users understand the pragmatism behind proprietary software.

It's extremely hard to grow a consumer business on open source software. Then you have to consider the viability of an open source consumer company from a business standpoint to begin with. I highly doubt canonical makes money off of Ubuntu Desktop,  at least compared to their more recent cloud/enterprise endeavors.

IMO, an open source phone/desktop isn't as important. Consumers wouldn't care either.

On the other hand, I'm an open source militant for enterprise stuff that serves as the backbone for everything.


----------



## getopt (Apr 26, 2015)

Beastie7 said:


> Then I suggest you throw away every piece of consumer electronics you have, or appliance that uses proprietary software. Because you certainly won't have access to it's source.


Nice try for a little provocation. But actually it is none. Smart people have no need for i.e. smartphones. They drop it in the recycling box or try to do reversal engineering. Not being able to be called can be truly luxury. Wealth can be measured by the time not being easy reached.



> Now I agree with you when it comes to enterprise software. Proprietary web servers, databases, etc is a huge no no to me. But a lot of us BSD users understand the pragmatism behind proprietary software.



Instead of referring fuzzy to "a lot of us BSD users" you should elaborate your point. Do you mean "a lot of us are understanding", but you do not understand, therefore you are not belonging to us? What is this pragmatism you are talking about? Is it like there is no living being an open source programmer? Or is it DRM is a technology the world needs? Or is it I want my copyright being protected so that I can pass it on to my beneficiary?



> It's extremely hard to grow a consumer business on open source software. Then you have to consider the viability of an open source consumer company from a business standpoint to begin with. I highly doubt canonical makes money off of Ubuntu Desktop,  at least compared to their more recent cloud/enterprise endeavors.


On what exactly are you lamenting? That others cannot make money or that you cannot make money? As an entrepreneur or freelancer or employee or as a person that may want but is lacking resources?



> IMO, an open source phone/desktop isn't as important.


Well, that's just your opinion. There is no need to share it. It's just as easy claiming a new law for mandatory open source desktops.


> Consumers wouldn't care either.


Now this a statement that is highly likely a misjudgment. When generalizing one should not let it go into the undefined. It has a sound of hubris too. Huge efforts are being made to explore consumers cause there is no such thing of a dull standard consumer. This exploration even has come to an extent that consumers are becoming aware that they are subject for getting exploited by dotcoms, dotgovs and dotcrims and all intersections of those.



> On the other hand, I'm an open source militant for enterprise stuff that serves as the backbone for everything.


What ever image of consumers you might have, don't they have the right to demand this quality for the stuff they use too?

Don't take it personally. It's just an attempt for discussion.


----------



## drhowarddrfine (Apr 26, 2015)

getopt Note that everything you're supporting is also your opinion, too. 

Consumers don't care about open source because they don't know what it is and, even if you explained it to them, and they like the concept, within seconds they've forgotten everything you said cause they really don't care or understand it all. Otherwise, Windows wouldn't dominate the desktop. There is no emotional connection to the idea.


----------



## protocelt (Apr 26, 2015)

Yep, agreed. The majority of consumers use whatever is widely known, advertised, and/or popular or a status symbol at any given time. They only care that it works. The technology involved in making it work is largely irrelevant to them. For example, Android seems to be the most widely used smartphone OS in the world. How many Android users know that it is built on Linux or even care? Not very many I would assume. It is popular, heavily advertised, and just works. That is all that matters to them.


----------



## wblock@ (Apr 28, 2015)

Thread closed.


----------

