[Solved] The Removal of Windows

[KeithZG]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

Yup; the phrase originates apparently with Richard Stallman, clarifying the Free Software movement's position which is a bit weird to explain since the English language word "free" is a bit ambiguous (which creates the "gratis versus libre" issue). He said "Think free as in free speech, not free beer." As Lawrence Lessig puts it,

You can charge whatever you want for free software. But what you can't do is lock up the knowledge that makes it run. Others must be allowed to learn from and tinker with it. No one is permitted a monopoly on the teaching that stands behind it.

Of course then things get a bit meta when you have Open "Source" beer, ie. free-as-in-free-speech beer (referenced in the Wired article I linked to above, and apparently still going strong).

[Telengard]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

Cool, first time I've heard of it. 8)

“Its free as in Free beer, but not as in free beer.
Shame. *hic*”.
Slashdot comment

LOL!

[RealG187]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

So like "Free speech" can cost money, but it's still free in one sense?

[Telengard]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

So like "Free speech" can cost money, but it's still free in one sense?

Well ... maybe.

The ideals of the Free Software Foundation concern your liberties as a user to do whatever you wish with programs on your computer. They emphasize the importance of source code availability, and distribution rights granted to users. If I had to boil it down to one simple (and overly broad) sentence, it would go something like this: Your computer, and the software you use on it, should be yours to do with as you please.

Of course that ideal does not exist in the real world. We have to accept the fact that a large portion of software in existence have various licenses, patents, and copyrights applied to them, all of which are intended to restrict what users can do with the software. Have you ever bothered to read the (unbelievably long and complicated) license agreements included with most Windows programs? Those are the restrictions we're talking about.

So, when we talk about free software, we might be talking about one of two different things:

• Software which costs $0.00
• Software which I am free to do whatever I please with, provided I don't do something that prevents anyone else from doing the same

Considering the specific matter at hand, the non-free version of Sun VirtualBox has a license which places some restrictions on what users are allowed to do concerning the program and its source code. Even though the program costs $0.00 for personal use, the non-free version of Sun VirtualBox can not be called free software according to the FSF's Free Software Definition.

Make sense?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor am I particularly smart, so keep that in mind when weighing the veracity of my statements on the subject.

[RealG187]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

Back to my statement. Like advertising, you can say whatever you want (for the most part) in an advertisement so that's free speech, but it's not $0.00 so it's not free in that sense...

I get regarding "Free software" but I don't get why they used the "free as in beer" analogy. So is beer supposed to represent software?

[Telengard]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

I get regarding "Free software" but I don't get why they used the "free as in beer" analogy. So is beer supposed to represent software?

The short answer is no, the beer is not like the software.

The reason for the analogy is because the phrase free beer has only one commonly understood meaning. If I offer you free beer, then you may accept the beer and expect to pay $0.00. In the opinion of FSF, most reasonable people understand the phrase free beer to mean beer that costs $0.00.

As I explained in my previous RE, the phrase free software may have more than one commonly understood meaning. With software such as the non-free version of Sun VirtualBox, we ought to make clear the distinction between liberty and cost.

Edit: Having re-read this post, I now see that I've chased the rabbit too far down the hole (so to speak). If my explanations make no sense, then please instead read the articles at FSF.org. Those essays reveal more about the Free Software movement in fewer and more eloquent words than I think I can muster. You shouldn't need to read more than two or three essays to get the gist of what they're driving at.

[RealG187]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

I understand what free software is.

I was just confused about the Beer, because beer is not usually free.

I think the analogy compares "free beer" to siftware that costs $0.00 and free speech to open source software.

[Tecumseh]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

If you really need Windows for anything other than video games, then here's the way to run it:

http://www.kubuntuforums.net/index.p...o_show&ida=249

This is put a bit simplified. How about running Design software like Autocad, Inventor, Solidworks, Pro Engineer?

The virtual machines you talk about sadly don't do hardware graphics acceleration. I do know that it's not a mainstream market but there are more reason besides videogames to need windows right now.

Hopefully someday we will be able to run these programs native under *nix.

[Telengard]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

The virtual machines you talk about sadly don't do hardware graphics acceleration.

Sun VirtualBox 3.0.0 does.

4.8. Hardware 3D acceleration (OpenGL and DirectX 8/9)
The VirtualBox Guest Additions contain experimental hardware 3D support for Windows, Linux and Solaris guests.[12]
With this feature, if an application inside your virtual machine uses 3D features through the OpenGL or DirectX 8/9 programming interfaces, instead of emulating them in software (which would be slow), VirtualBox will attempt to use your host's 3D hardware. This works for all supported host platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris), provided that your host operating system can make use of your accelerated 3D hardware in the first place.

Hopefully someday we will be able to run these programs native under *nix.

That would be great, but I would rather have free software programs which could do the job as well or better than their proprietary counterparts.

[dibl]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

Graphics acceleration is done by your graphics GPU and memory, as commanded by the driver. Today's VMs use a "generic" virtual graphics system, and have no awareness of the actual hardware GPU that is in your system. We're a long way from the day when the VM is able to know and control your actual GPU -- don't hold your breath.

[Telengard]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

Tecumseh, sorry if I misunderstood what you meant.

dibl, did you read the quote I posted from the Sun VirtualBox manual? How is it different from the graphics acceleration you are describing? I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction at all

[dibl]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

dibl, did you read the quote I posted from the Sun VirtualBox manual? How is it different from the graphics acceleration you are describing? I'm afraid I don't understand the distinction at all

Yep, it looks like Sun is working on it. But note the caveats:

- experimental
- OpenGL or DirectX 8/9 only
- "will attempt"
- if your host has a working driver with 3D already

So, it's coming -- maybe sooner than I imagined.

However, I can imagine there are large problems to solve, not the least of which is, if the host OS is using the accelerated graphics capability to do some task, what is the ability of the VM guest to share it? In other words, looking at this example:

[img width=400 height=300]http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8599/screenie5jul09.png[/img]

If the Win XP guest on the right wanted to run WOW with 3D, and you see the host is already running Compiz and playing with glxgears, who wins access to the GPU? Or, do they share it somehow (raising the question of what does 50% of accelerated 3D look like? )

[Telengard]

Re: [Solved] The Removal of Windows

If the Win XP guest on the right wanted to run WOW with 3D, and you see the host is already running Compiz and playing with glxgears, who wins access to the GPU? Or, do they share it somehow (raising the question of what does 50% of accelerated 3D look like? )

Good question, and I don't know the answer. I agree it is a difficult problem to solve, but it can be solved. There are many different ways to share hardware resources. I can think of:

• queues (printer like)
• mixing (sound like)
• time sharing (network like)
• preemptive control (multitasking like)

I'm not even saying that one of those ways would necessarily be suitable. I really think the driver, or OS, must already have some facility for managing who has access to the GPU.