High Priority Free Software Projects(fsf.org)
fsf.org
High Priority Free Software Projects
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects
8 comments
Octave should be higher, program is really far off from being any kind of competitor to Matlab. Even the installation is daunting on OSX. Language has a lot of idiosyncrocies to matlab. With ML/Computer vision becoming bigger, could help a wave of new startups.
when I needed a free version of matlab, I switched to python and have never looked back. better for me in every way. I think that python is a much better direction for that type of computing anyways.
Those are my thoughts, but I also want to learn some more R as well. (I hear stories of people going from Python, to R, back to Python, but I don't see why one couldn't use both.) When you have two such powerful tools that can both be extended and embedded fairly easily, why would one need Matlab anymore?
1) There are tons of libraries for Matlab. Sure, you could rewrite them in Python, but most people just want to get their work done.
2) It is deeply ingrained in the academic world.
2) It is deeply ingrained in the academic world.
Any suggestions for good resources for learning how to use python to replace matlab (scipy, numpy, etc)?
Are there any idiosyncrasies besides the ones detailed here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MATLAB_Programming/Differences_...
I say this because I'm learning Octave mainly to get familiar with the Matlab-ish world (kinds of coding used in real world academia) and I wonder what I'm missing.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/MATLAB_Programming/Differences_...
I say this because I'm learning Octave mainly to get familiar with the Matlab-ish world (kinds of coding used in real world academia) and I wonder what I'm missing.
"Some of the most important projects on our list are replacement projects. These projects are important because they address areas where users are continually being seduced into using nonfree software by the lack of an adequate free replacement."
Why is having a free program that solves a problem that's already solved more important than creating programs that solve new problems, but that also happen to be free?
I find it hard to believe that the most important free software project in the world is a player for passively consuming content in a proprietary format (Flash), that is A) dying and B) more for eye candy than anything useful.
Why is having a free program that solves a problem that's already solved more important than creating programs that solve new problems, but that also happen to be free?
I find it hard to believe that the most important free software project in the world is a player for passively consuming content in a proprietary format (Flash), that is A) dying and B) more for eye candy than anything useful.
Because lack of such free software can hinder people who might be otherwise interested in switching to a free operating system from actually doing so.
A free replacement for Flash is likely to become less useful in this situation, as other non-proprietary solutions are becoming prevalent.
A free replacement for Flash is likely to become less useful in this situation, as other non-proprietary solutions are becoming prevalent.
The point is that a clone makes it so people "can" switch, if they want.
A "unique to free software" solution makes it so people want and need to switch.
Between the two, I think creating incentives is more powerful than removing obstacles. (Given strong enough motivation, people will overcome obstacles. Lacking strong motivation, why bother?)
A "unique to free software" solution makes it so people want and need to switch.
Between the two, I think creating incentives is more powerful than removing obstacles. (Given strong enough motivation, people will overcome obstacles. Lacking strong motivation, why bother?)
[deleted]
>Why is having a free program that solves a problem that's already solved more important than creating programs that solve new problems, but that also happen to be free?
Because their goals include that everything possible should be possible for to do with free software. It is by definition a game of catch-up.
Because their goals include that everything possible should be possible for to do with free software. It is by definition a game of catch-up.
Agreed - It shows tremendous lack of vision and leadership on the part of the FSF to continually push for "clones". The pursuit of mediocrity that is endemic in open source originates from them.
Let's innovate people...
Let's innovate people...
I think that's vastly overgeneralized. By that logic we'd have no free compiler, no free kernel, no free userspace. It's all clones. True innovation is rare (and it certainly does happen as free software).
The goal of the FSF is to promote the use of free software. If people won't or can't use free software because they need some proprietary program, then the goal of the FSF becomes to eliminate that need.
Sometimes this involves writing software that is better than proprietary equivalents (c.f. emacs and gcc in their early days). Sometimes it means just cloning what's there so you have something to use (most of coreutils falls into this category).
The goal of the FSF is to promote the use of free software. If people won't or can't use free software because they need some proprietary program, then the goal of the FSF becomes to eliminate that need.
Sometimes this involves writing software that is better than proprietary equivalents (c.f. emacs and gcc in their early days). Sometimes it means just cloning what's there so you have something to use (most of coreutils falls into this category).
The difference is that there were no high-quality free C compilers available before gcc, so it filled a real need. Lots of people couldn't afford to pay hundreds of dollars for a compiler. However, an open source version of Flash would be replacing software that any Linux user can already get for free (and would probably be of inferior quality to Flash, at least for the first several releases).
Another project I would like to be high priority is GIMP.
Photoshop is the misruler and needs to be dethroned. It's a terrible piece of software that, more or less, forces people to use non-free operative systems. It has to be replaced and/or get some real competition that would force Adobe to get their act straight.
Photoshop is the misruler and needs to be dethroned. It's a terrible piece of software that, more or less, forces people to use non-free operative systems. It has to be replaced and/or get some real competition that would force Adobe to get their act straight.
The only problem I have with making a GIMP replacement is, I wouldn't know what to build. All of my image editing needs are filled by programs that shipped with my OS. I have used the GIMP before it was confusing(which would probably be resolvable if I spent time learning the app), but capable of what I needed. Yet every time I see it brought up it is usually called inadequate, with most of the problems called out looking like "doesn't work exactly like Photoshop so I am not even going to try it" sort of problems.
So my question is: Is there something actually wrong with the GIMP other than the fact that it is ugly? I don't consider the fact that it works differently from Photoshop a problem worth fixing.
So my question is: Is there something actually wrong with the GIMP other than the fact that it is ugly? I don't consider the fact that it works differently from Photoshop a problem worth fixing.
One of the biggest drawbacks of GIMP is its lack of adjustment layers.
IMO the lack of layer groups is a second big drawback that I find myself working around as a regular GIMP user (lots of merging layers and hiding their source layers).
My (inadequate) understanding was that it could not process above 16 bit color spaces. Photoshop could manipulate the 24 and 32 bit spaces, hence heavy use in the professions.
IIRC this is supposed to be resolved in the foreseeable future with the change to use GEGL as a backend. I think that's also supposed to enable adjustment layers as well, although I don't know what the timeframe is exactly.
I've been using linux (and GIMP) for three years now, and adjustment layers have been just around the corner this whole time. I haven't read anything recently to have a better understanding of the current timeframe.
The piece of software that forces people like me to use non-free operative systems is not Photoshop, but Gimp. And more horribly, Inkscape.
That sounds backward. How could some software that is merely available for free drive you away from something? Also, have you tried alternatives? There is not just GIMP...
There are no serious alternatives to GIMP, and GIMP in turn is not a serious alternative to Photoshop. GIMP is an astonishingly user-hostile piece of software--though to their credit it appears the developers have finally begun to realize this and make changes with people who actually use graphics software, not people who write graphics software, in mind.
However, even despite these new-ish developments, there is just no real open-source answer to Photoshop (and Inkscape is only a partial one to Illustrator).
However, even despite these new-ish developments, there is just no real open-source answer to Photoshop (and Inkscape is only a partial one to Illustrator).
can you elaborate? I see people constantly bashing GIMP, and though it isn't without problems it's good enough for me for all web stuff, and good enough for a bit of print stuff.
A free alternative to Oracle Forms? That's a pretty neat idea since in my opinion OF actually serves the developers instead of enslaving them.
I'm kind of dismayed at the lack of innovation, or even appreciation for innovation, in this list. It seems a waste to spend good developers time cloning something like Google Earth, which is marginally useful to begin with, already free (as in beer), just so that it can also be free (as in speech).
Instead, why not spend time working on projects that will attract people to free software because it's only available as free software?
Instead, why not spend time working on projects that will attract people to free software because it's only available as free software?
Agreed.
The free software approach seems to assume that what a computer should be and do has already been decided and they just need to make free versions of everything. Like there's a certain set of programs that defines a complete system and their goal is just to get from 60% or wherever they are now to 100%.
Apple, on the other hand, reinvents computing every 5 years or so (yes, that's hyperbolic). If a FOSS advocate had created the iPad, the most popular device in computing today would be FOSS. The most popular computers and electronics in the world aren't Apple products because Apple made an Apple version of everything. The most popular computers and electronics in the world are Apple products because Apple innovated.
The free software approach seems to assume that what a computer should be and do has already been decided and they just need to make free versions of everything. Like there's a certain set of programs that defines a complete system and their goal is just to get from 60% or wherever they are now to 100%.
Apple, on the other hand, reinvents computing every 5 years or so (yes, that's hyperbolic). If a FOSS advocate had created the iPad, the most popular device in computing today would be FOSS. The most popular computers and electronics in the world aren't Apple products because Apple made an Apple version of everything. The most popular computers and electronics in the world are Apple products because Apple innovated.
The free software approach seems to assume that what a computer should be and do has already been decided and they just need to make free versions of everything.
When you you look at their goals, they are by definition playing catch-up. You're also glossing over every single innovation that has come out of the open-source space.
The most popular computers and electronics in the world aren't Apple products because Apple made an Apple version of everything.
Actually, the fact their operating system is just an Apple version of unix is the primary reason I even considered purchasing my mac. The same rings true for most of the technical people I know who have macs.
When you you look at their goals, they are by definition playing catch-up. You're also glossing over every single innovation that has come out of the open-source space.
The most popular computers and electronics in the world aren't Apple products because Apple made an Apple version of everything.
Actually, the fact their operating system is just an Apple version of unix is the primary reason I even considered purchasing my mac. The same rings true for most of the technical people I know who have macs.
> The free software approach seems to assume that what a computer should be and do has already been decided and they just need to make free versions of everything.
That's really not the case.
> The most popular computers and electronics in the world are Apple products because Apple innovated.
That's part of it, but there were also huge quantities of marketing and money involved.
No technology wins on its own merits.
That's really not the case.
> The most popular computers and electronics in the world are Apple products because Apple innovated.
That's part of it, but there were also huge quantities of marketing and money involved.
No technology wins on its own merits.
The most popular computers and electronics in the world are Apple products because Apple polished everything to a sheen.
Sure apple created some cool stuff, but the open source world created some pretty darn cool stuff too. Remember, the first web browser was open source.
Sure apple created some cool stuff, but the open source world created some pretty darn cool stuff too. Remember, the first web browser was open source.
Great example, but that was a long time ago. The argument being made here is that there isn't enough innovation in the free software space in recent years.
What about the massive strides that Chrome/Mozilla/WebKit are making? What about the innovations in programming languages such as Clojure and Arc and Erlang? What about the innovations in frameworks such as node.js and sproutcore?
I could go on all day. IMO, it's a lot easier to find innovation in the open source world than it is in the commercial world which seems to be more about copy & polish than it does about innovation.
If you were arguing that open source lacked polish, I would agree with you. But innovation? Hardly.
I could go on all day. IMO, it's a lot easier to find innovation in the open source world than it is in the commercial world which seems to be more about copy & polish than it does about innovation.
If you were arguing that open source lacked polish, I would agree with you. But innovation? Hardly.
> The most popular computers and electronics in the world are Apple products because Apple innovated.
I wonder on what basis you're saying this. When I look around me, I see very few Apple products. Maybe that depends on what part of the world you live in.
I wonder on what basis you're saying this. When I look around me, I see very few Apple products. Maybe that depends on what part of the world you live in.
If a FOSS advocate had created the iPad...
Well, there was the Linux-based CrunchPad before the iPad was even announced. Who knows what the world may be like if Fusion Garage hadn't severed ties with Arrington and released the overpriced Joojoo.
Well, there was the Linux-based CrunchPad before the iPad was even announced. Who knows what the world may be like if Fusion Garage hadn't severed ties with Arrington and released the overpriced Joojoo.
There's a lot of innovation in open source software: most University projects are all about doing new things, and a relatively large percentage of University projects are open source.
But what you're asking for is nonsensical. This list is the list of things that are preventing people from going "fully free". I'm not prevented from switching to free software because something that does not exist is not free software.
But what you're asking for is nonsensical. This list is the list of things that are preventing people from going "fully free". I'm not prevented from switching to free software because something that does not exist is not free software.
Every piece of software we use today will eventually be obsolete anyway. Photoshop, Google Earth, even BIOSes will eventually look old-fashioned and quaint. If you (in the impersonal sense, not you personally) want to get converts, make the software that makes today's software obsolete. If you don't make it, someone else will, and when they do, your FOSS version will be obsolete as well.
But that's one of the major benefits of free software. The software that makes today's software obsolete will be able to do everything that today's software can do, and more.
Sometimes that's through new paradigms, but more often that's through incremental evolution.
Have a great idea for a spreadsheet? To implement it competitively you'll spend 99% of your time reinventing Excel and 1% of your time on your great idea. Or you can add it to gnumeric.
More likely you'll release an Excel plug-in, but what do you do if Excel doesn't have the right API hooks?
Sometimes that's through new paradigms, but more often that's through incremental evolution.
Have a great idea for a spreadsheet? To implement it competitively you'll spend 99% of your time reinventing Excel and 1% of your time on your great idea. Or you can add it to gnumeric.
More likely you'll release an Excel plug-in, but what do you do if Excel doesn't have the right API hooks?
I do not think it is likely that the software that makes today's software obsolete will be able to do everything that today's software can do and more.
Adding more is only one way to innovate. You can also innovate by changing things or by taking things away, thus bringing what remains into sharper focus.
A car does not do everything a horse can do and more, but cars still made horses obsolete for transportation. Cars can't jump over obstacles or reproduce, but apparently these features weren't really that important.
An iPad can't even compile Hello World in C, but apparently that isn't that important to a lot of people.
Nick Cernis innovated in the "to-do" space not by doing everything other to-do systems could do but by replacing software with a pencil-and-paper system that serves some people better (see: http://todoodlist.com/).
A spreadsheet is a means to an ends. If you have a great idea for a spreadsheet, what you really have is a great idea for something people need a better way to do that you think could be implemented in a spreadsheet. Instead of reinventing Excel, you might come up with an alternate way to get to the same end.
The point is that innovation comes in many forms.
Adding more is only one way to innovate. You can also innovate by changing things or by taking things away, thus bringing what remains into sharper focus.
A car does not do everything a horse can do and more, but cars still made horses obsolete for transportation. Cars can't jump over obstacles or reproduce, but apparently these features weren't really that important.
An iPad can't even compile Hello World in C, but apparently that isn't that important to a lot of people.
Nick Cernis innovated in the "to-do" space not by doing everything other to-do systems could do but by replacing software with a pencil-and-paper system that serves some people better (see: http://todoodlist.com/).
A spreadsheet is a means to an ends. If you have a great idea for a spreadsheet, what you really have is a great idea for something people need a better way to do that you think could be implemented in a spreadsheet. Instead of reinventing Excel, you might come up with an alternate way to get to the same end.
The point is that innovation comes in many forms.
Software is only obsoleted by some other software getting adopted in its place. How well adopted a piece of software is is only vaguely related to how innovative it is, how technically sound it is, etc.
You're reducing a complex problem too far.
You're reducing a complex problem too far.
> you (in the impersonal sense, not you personally)
The word you're looking for is "one".
The word you're looking for is "one".
Usually, I'd agree with you, but it reads really bad in this case:
If one wants to get converts, one should make the software that makes today's software obsolete. If one doesn't make it, someone else will, and when they do, one's FOSS version will be obsolete as well.
If one wants to get converts, one should make the software that makes today's software obsolete. If one doesn't make it, someone else will, and when they do, one's FOSS version will be obsolete as well.
As a Chrome developer, I'm biased, but I think a lot of very important and innovative work is happening on the web platform, and virtually all of it is open source.
Stallman and the FSF are approaching this from an philosophical standpoint (closed source is harmful, free software is liberating, etc.) so their efforts aren't often very strategic or even practical to most of us. And when trying to provide people alternatives to closed source software they are not going to be doing the kind of innovation you are thinking of, they are instead dedicating so many resources just trying to catch up.
That being said, I don't know why Google Earth is in there. I understand applications like Flash and Skype but on a list of top items I can think of quite a few more things that are more useful than Google Earth.
That being said, I don't know why Google Earth is in there. I understand applications like Flash and Skype but on a list of top items I can think of quite a few more things that are more useful than Google Earth.
What a weird list:
- Flash is slowly dying, so is Gnash really that high a priority? Also, Gnash seems to be far from being a good flash replacement; by the time it will be, flash will be irrelevant. I'd argue work spent on Gnash is mostly wasted.
- GNU Octave is far behind Python + Numpy/Scipy/Matplotlib. Better abandon it and focus on the succesful platform.
- Flash is slowly dying, so is Gnash really that high a priority? Also, Gnash seems to be far from being a good flash replacement; by the time it will be, flash will be irrelevant. I'd argue work spent on Gnash is mostly wasted.
- GNU Octave is far behind Python + Numpy/Scipy/Matplotlib. Better abandon it and focus on the succesful platform.
For people who only know how to use Matlab, Octave is one less reason to go non-free.
I disagree. It's one reason for them to try a free software package, decide that it sucks (it lacks most of the interesting libraries), and go back to using Matlab forever.
If on the other hand they were introduced to the python stack, which has a superior language and a lot of neat libraries (though not yet on par with Matlab), they might have a chance of sticking to it.
If on the other hand they were introduced to the python stack, which has a superior language and a lot of neat libraries (though not yet on par with Matlab), they might have a chance of sticking to it.
Porting Matlab code to Octave is much easier -- including more libraries.
It's OpenStreetMap. Not Open Street Maps. You can use as reference the domain http://www.openstreetmap.org/, the logo with the word OpenStreetMap, or the title element of the page, which says (wait for it) OpenStreetMap. Maybe cut and paste that text, or line the browser windows up to reference.
/end ragefest. But come on, guys. It's not 'The Wikipedias'
/end ragefest. But come on, guys. It's not 'The Wikipedias'
Regarding Skype, you're not going to get Skype users over to a free alternative by making your own voice-chat program; you need to actually reverse-engineer the protocol and make your own client so they can switch without having to convince other people.
(Of course, someone did reverse engineer Skype however-long-ago-it-was-now, but looking it up, apparently it might have been done by decompilation and so of questionable legality, which is why nobody's making a Pidgin plugin to use it. Annoying.)
(Of course, someone did reverse engineer Skype however-long-ago-it-was-now, but looking it up, apparently it might have been done by decompilation and so of questionable legality, which is why nobody's making a Pidgin plugin to use it. Annoying.)