The full circle podcast on hacker public radio in this episode, ArcM11 discussion panel.
Welcome to the full circle podcast on hacker public radio.
This is the third of our highlights of last summer's Unconference or Camp 11 held at the
Farnam Maltings in the south of England.
The full circle podcast is the companion to full circle magazine, the independent magazine
for the Ubuntu community.
Find us at full circlemagazine.org forward slash podcast.
Introducing the OCAMP 11 panel discussion.
On the panel we have Dan Lynch of Linux Outlaws, our chairman, Karen Sandler of the Nome Foundation
and ex of the Freedom Software Law Center, Simon Fipps of Ford Rock and the Open Software
Initiative, Stuart Ak Langridge from Canonicals Ubuntu 1 team and ex-log radio presenter
and finally Fabian Scherschel, presenter of Linux Outlaws.
Like every good panel discussion, this all begins with questions from the floor.
All right, so I've done the ultimate lazy thing we've decided to try and get use of
generated content, which you know, we're all eyes on you guys a lot.
So we've got Fabian as a panel of people here and I've got some ideas to topics that we can
discuss as well.
But we really want you guys to ask questions, you know, half of the year a chance to ask
these people questions and so on and we can discuss them and all that kind of stuff.
So let me introduce you to the panel.
So to my left here, we have Kang Sandler, we get a great talk earlier and she's the
excessive director of the Nome Foundation and former lawyer, but you're still a lawyer.
I'm still a lawyer.
I'm still a lawyer.
I'm still a lawyer.
I'm still a lawyer.
I'm still doing pro bono work with the Southbrook Freedom Law Center and so for the Southbrook
Conservancy and General Counsel of Question Coffee Rains still.
Well, okay, so legal questions for Karen and questions are always really boring.
You will have to say this is not legal advice.
This is not constitute legal advice.
This D.K. has to in this country.
Maybe not.
Okay, so obviously, you probably all saw Simon's talk before, so we've got Simon Fitch from
MSI.
We've also got Mr. Stewart Library from Canonical.
It's believed you're working on the policy one and all that goes on.
Yeah.
And some guy on the end, there's a podcast or something.
I don't know who he is, but he seems to work this way up.
But yeah, they've got far as well.
So if anybody's got any questions, as we go, please check in because the wise
going to be sorry.
So the first kind of topic that I wanted to discuss.
And I've asked the guys about this because I knew it could be a bit controversial.
But I should also point out these people who represent themselves and not their companies.
So we all have to get in trouble, aren't you?
Not that you need my help to get in trouble.
Yeah.
We're going to make that clear.
But yeah, something I want to talk about is the future of the desktop, I suppose.
And every time I've been able to subject and stuff, but the future of the Linux desktop,
I see, so I should have got name three, just come out.
And that's going to be valid.
Yeah.
Perhaps right in the name three, sure.
Yeah.
And we've got, well, K-E-4's still going strong.
We've got all these other options and stuff.
And I want to try to get people's ideas for opinions.
I mean, scientists are very about making compromises and so on.
Yeah.
And using the map.
It's up.
So I want to ask you a little bit about what you feel is better.
Maybe about the map interface and stuff like that.
So that's a little extra relevant to the issue.
You want to look down, well, fair enough.
That's good.
That's good, man.
Who's saying I'm trouble in.
And it's a whole lawsuit.
I mean, we go to the cowboy and that's all.
Yeah.
All right.
So let's kick yourself with, I don't know.
I'm going to pick on the parents.
I apologize.
Well, what do you think the future of the next desktop is?
Obviously known three.
Yeah.
I mean, well, it's one of the, if no three is one of the reasons why I decided to go over the notes.
So I've only been, I think, in a foundation for, like, a little bit over a month now.
So it's also pretty new for me, but one of the reasons why I found the job so appealing is that,
you know, it's really a departure and something new.
And, you know, I think that with a redesign, like, you know,
30 has, you know, we can really reach a lot more people.
I mean, it's still early days, but you can sort of see going forward where this is going.
And I think that's really amazing.
I mean, do you think in some ways that, obviously, not in three,
it's, I just say it's a big change.
And we had all the kind of teeth and troubles, okay, before.
Do you think that's happened a little bit with those three now?
You kind of feel your way into it.
You know, I think there will be any time that you do something different.
You make a departure.
You try something new.
You're going to, you can't make everybody have the other time.
And since number is, it's going to take some time for people to get used to it.
Some people are going to decide not to use it.
I hope that more people do decide to use it.
And, you know, I think part of the point of the, you know,
free redesign was to reach less technical users.
Although I do know a lot of highly technical users have been happy with,
you know, we were just talking about it.
I was just talking about it.
I was just talking about it.
I mean, it should be a piece of number three.
I hope you've learned to find them how to use it.
But no, I know a bunch of hackers are really using them for improvement.
So I think that's, that's pretty cool.
But as I said, you know, some of the things are still new.
And there's still things to work out.
And I think even with that being said,
we're going to be in a similar situation where it's going to be.
I mean, I think thatliness moves to skill and what we're especially with.
So I think I think this is one of the things that we're just going to see.
We're going to have to live with it.
Hope that we can improve and learn from.
Okay, so I mean, that sounds to me like it's one of the great things.
I think it's kind of like a double-edged sword.
We have a lot of choices.
But at the same time, does that divide the, you know,
develop and the resources and stuff.
And then it's starting, what's your favorite Linux desktop and what do you think about it?
The moment I'm in love with my honeycomb tablet.
Okay.
So my life in the future for Linux desktop is the tablet.
I think it's a very stable.
You know, it's interesting here.
I think that the Linux has had its chance to be on the desktop.
And it's done a damn good job of being on the desktop for a lot of people.
But unfortunately, the desktop is going away.
I think that Linux might well be, well, may well become even more popular on the desktop.
But by percentage of the hundred people using a desktop is going to go way down.
And most people will be attracted to Linux through some other interface.
How many, how much of an interactive panel do you want this to be?
There you go.
That's how it is like that.
As much as possible.
Man of a man of a man of a man of a man.
I previously did the way that we're computing is changed.
I was changed, but I think that it's a very sensational,
the state of the desktop is going away with it.
Anyway, we need to generate content of any kind or wants to sit in for a really long amount of computer use,
where I think we'll want to sit in a comfortable seat with the big screen,
and a comfortable keyboard or some other way of inputting.
And I think that it's a little bit sensational.
I mean, it's changing.
And the way that we are but placing the interact with each other,
and maybe we're going for a modular thing.
But I still think the desktop is an important long term.
Well, maybe if we're already a really exciting time where there's more sorts than just things
that are designed to be really complicated desktop systems.
So we've got Chrome OS coming, where your desktop is going to be a browser.
We've got honeycomb, where your desktop is a haptic surface.
We've got taking it and doing the traditional stuff.
We've got Microsoft training to innovate in the tool.
We've got Apple on the verge of time, turning active with people.
There's all this stuff happening on there.
And I think that the feeling that the future of the desktop has got,
but you like the history of the desktop, I think, is the problem.
Because I think there's going to be a whole lot of people,
because only experience of a computer is going to be through a Chrome browser system.
And there's going to be a whole lot of people who has only experienced the computer
who are active, the tablet screen is disappeared.
And probably there's got people who cannot use the tablet screen in the internet.
And all of these options, and the thing that really excites me about,
is so many of them have got free software underneath them within them,
and the software for freedom is preserved for freedom.
I think that's fantastic about what's going on.
Consciously I want to leave the other guys.
Yes.
So what's your feelings on the future of the games?
It's interesting what Simon says, the idea of software freedom is
based in body by turning my computer into a dancer,
but I'll have you do it all over my days.
Thanks a lot for that.
I'm sorry.
It's so funny that it isn't going to be wrong.
But I'm sorry.
It's not being the same.
The software is going to be the defining characteristic of this thing.
The other thing, I think it's interesting is,
when you say Microsoft having innovated in anybody,
you need to think Microsoft to agree.
Yeah.
I've used Windows, but it might have been a hyperbolic
at the end of the year.
Yeah.
The last thing that I was writing,
it's, I've used Windows 97,
and I think it's quantitative.
Now, I have nothing to mention of using it on a family,
because it requires the best of the ones to start,
which I don't have, because now,
it's strange that if I can't quite software for it,
I'm going to have it not interesting.
But what they actually done, which I thought was interesting,
is genuinely the internet.
And very much as I use it every day,
and I think it's good and everything.
It's hard to make the case that it's not a frame of the rate of files.
Windows 97 is genuinely different.
I think it's genuinely unethical.
No one gives a shit.
So, perhaps.
They actually set them on a let's build,
and create a phone system.
No one's going to use it, because they missed the plan.
But Microsoft announced it in a week or week,
but in the week count with innovations,
but nobody listens.
What I think it's interesting is,
when it's about the future of the free desktop,
or the future of the desktop, or whatever,
the problem is not doing technical innovation,
because they're actually quite good,
and the problem is,
it's how we can get people to pay attention.
And I think that's the critical question to us,
because I think that I interviewed the delays
of working on web OS, for a huge pack-up,
when it was over the last couple months,
and they've got a fantastic technology.
It's awesome.
You know what I said?
8.0 desktop, they're using no.js for the system services.
You can write system applications in JavaScript.
The thing is awesome.
But the problem they've got is that,
to get to market, they've got to leverage some sort of ecosystem.
And they decided they're going to be able to get the opening.
So, cool.
Goodbye, Web OS.
And this is the problem that I think we've got a face
when it comes to the software freedom dimension,
which is, we've got all of it in this room persuaded.
We haven't got all the rest of their fans persuaded,
and we haven't worked out how we did it did that yet.
Sorry.
I was going to give Faber chance to talk about that.
I was going to quickly read it.
Yeah, a little bit.
Well, I'm sure that wasn't last too long.
I'm sorry, mate.
I'll do just a second.
I'm going to have to make point classes.
So, if you've got a point,
by the way, and you want to grow up saying,
you should be hand up on some of your mind, eventually.
I think it's all.
Can I make it wrong?
Anyway, so a couple of interesting things I was going to do.
I'll just start with some of the things
that I was attempting to tweak,
and there weren't some kind of activities.
So, I'm going to say the Microsoft isn't
in a way to get to all.
It's just bizarre when they're the only company
that can act.
And advocacy.
We don't spend seven years.
We don't spend five years.
I think they're born by the way.
They're born the company, which was innovating.
And now they have the name.
Yeah.
So, but there's some amazing things
that could happen.
But now to those kinds of technology.
Stewart was mentioned in Google,
and making the desktop book,
I don't know having everything in the cloud.
Well, you know,
OK, you can do personal plans at home,
and you can go back to the web or where.
So, that's exactly what I mean.
I mean, it's your mobile desktop book.
You still want stuff in the web.
You know, all the cloud.
Even in the interwebs on the web.
So, I just find some of the viewpoints that I'm hearing.
Can't quite.
I should be clear.
I think stuff in terms of brains, actually.
I think it's a great idea.
I don't have a problem with it at all.
I just find an interesting tip here.
Simon, talk about software free demand,
storing everything on someone else's server.
He's the same breath.
So, we've got a challenge in the working on software free
to meet the cloud.
And the great question is,
how are we going to project?
To those principles into the cloud?
I think the answer has got to have a lot to do with federated software.
I don't think there's any problem with the cloud.
What I have a problem with is all of my identity and data
beyond the control of somebody who's only related to it with me
as a terms of service.
I don't have the time to read.
And I think that I'm very keen to get off.
I don't want to get off Google.
What I want to do is I want to get on something else
federation with Google.
So, on the days they're evil,
which will all turn up Tuesdays.
I can flick a switch on the music,
my federated service instead of their central service.
That's what I think.
The sort of place I think we've got to go to.
Okay, so far before you see that.
I think I'm always scared.
And this is interesting because I love Android.
I've been in Android for a long time.
I'm really scared that if the desktop's dead
and Android is our future, our computers.
Android is barely free software.
And in some cases, as in cases of Nintendo,
it's not even our source yet apparently.
I don't know.
That kind of really scared me.
If the desktop is dead, we have lost.
Because I think it's awesome to talk about
yeah, we're federated cloud services,
but the reality is all these companies.
They have no interest in doing that.
Google has no interest whatsoever
in federating with anybody.
Because they make their money from all we know today.
But they think it's kind of comparable to the argument that
DRM that going without DRM was not an interest
of any companies, but because music buyers and the public
were choosing to go with services that didn't have DRM
than Apple had.
The DRM users had to check away from it.
That we as consumers really have a lot of
say and as if we are after our money.
I don't think I think the business wants to have
we will try to think that I just want to have had
in the months, which is more of a tight
possibility stuff.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm going to show you.
You'll take it out.
Yeah.
There was a problem.
Yeah.
I used Google for it.
It's just about everything.
And I'm very popular on saying,
I'm not really scared about it.
Because I don't think Google wants my data.
They want to educate us all our data.
They don't want to sell me specifically.
I mean, they're not like sending me emails.
Hey, Fred.
You like ads.
What do you want to buy this hat?
Right?
They try to get angry and stuff.
But that's just as long as they're doing that.
I mean, at the point where they have my data,
they could decide tomorrow or next Tuesday,
the debut.
Yeah.
Okay.
We're going to go to the points from the ground.
So we've got gentlemen.
Hey.
I'm not the one who doesn't think on desktop today.
Cheers.
Yeah.
One of the things I do worry about is the kind of death
I don't feel like I'm saying we're all using these kind of
I'm using Unity.
None of them.
Three.
They make me use a lot of metadata to the way
Put them in.
And it's gay.
Again, history over time.
I'm making things a lot more relevant,
which is awesome for us.
But when my girlfriend uses it for the first time,
it doesn't have a message.
It doesn't have a history.
And everything is really hard to discover.
I mean, how do we address that?
Because when she goes in and stuff,
looking to see what apps are there,
it's a really complicated approach.
Like the next thing I'll use to do, you can see if I can.
Okay.
So the question in that seems to be how do we address that,
which is a hell of a question.
So he wants to try to tackle that one.
I'm going to pick on someone who you don't know what is there.
I think we can do that.
I think we act and do that.
I think the cloud is actually answered to that.
At the point where we get the cloud,
where we plan our control of data,
we can put this data in the cloud,
and then share that out.
Like if we get a new machine,
you know,
and do that.
I think it isn't.
My concern isn't that we can make that happen.
Because I think we can really do a really good job
of solving that problem.
Because I think walking you'll go
for every one some time now.
And they know well about it.
Why don't you take a movie,
and then you go for it?
They don't know why I think that's well.
Why am I afraid?
The problem is that the problem is
what you do when you don't want them to know what you're doing.
You know, all these old fashion technologies
that aren't aware of people who are using them.
They're going to go away.
We'll only be using technologies
that are aware of the context in which they're fully facing.
And the question is,
who's going to provide that context on more terms?
And I think that's the reason why Google wants
to tackle your data as it passes through their service.
They don't want to limit.
They just want to have been loaded in for a few moments.
And the real question is,
what are they going to do with that experience?
And are you going to get to decide what they use it for?
That's the real concern about what we're going to do.
But that's a technical point.
You come back to the fact that I want things to be personal to me.
I don't want to use a system which is identical.
But I want you to adapt to what I do to work with what I think.
To work exactly the way I want.
And to be honest,
I don't want to be happy to outsource working all that stuff out to someone else
because I can't be bothered.
So, there's something I don't want to do.
Some people will absolutely think,
no, I don't want any third part.
You don't want any company making those decisions for me.
I want to make it all myself.
I'm prepared to be kind up for me.
I'm prepared for better people.
Let's customize, I'm prepared to have to do more setting up.
I'm prepared to have to treat things myself.
And that's probably your absolutely liberty to do that.
We want to avoid a situation like,
I'm unable to make that choice.
But I think we do any reasonable job of avoiding that.
No one's obliged to go.
Everyone chooses to be because it's good.
But I think you're not going to really realize
that there's a connection between targeted advertising
and integrated screens and surveillance.
And I think we started to talk about it more.
And I know that this is one of the things that we're still trying to do.
You have tactics.
There have been government issues.
We have states in elsewhere.
We're not trying to raise awareness about this.
But for me, the most important thing is to make these choices
very clear and very active as soon as you start using anything.
And making it clear and outgoing.
Because right now, I don't see ads.
So I don't really, but those people tell me that they want to see ads.
And not that they want to see ads.
They want to see really targeted ads.
To me, that's crazy.
But they never think about the implications aside.
They never think about the fact that if we do facial recognition,
for example, you know, in train our photos and train Facebook,
you know, you're going to be able to publish a picture of a protest
and have the government be able to identify everyone's there.
You know, it's a really easy to draw this connection.
But it's not something we're thinking about.
And we don't have choices right from the beginning.
Yeah.
So it's all about building up a factory of traps as well.
So most of us have an experience of Google.
It means that we've got a factory of traps.
We don't think they're going to use the data they've got.
Whereas, yes, they all Facebook, I found that,
by agreeing to have it seek contacts with our thought meant
at my friend's phone, that was to my critical call, my phone.
Facebook, we're actually sucking my entire contact
and it's down on my phone and story on Facebook for future use.
Now, that means that I've got a very,
very fragmented fabric of traps.
Which is a whole lot better than it was before.
I think that overall the key here is the transparency
by the service provider and the ability for us to make conscious choices.
But at the big strategies,
I'm going to come for choices or choices that may for us.
And it is exactly the same discussion that Karen,
how we're having off for you, my talk.
Okay, I'm currently cutting, because I'm very good at bringing people in here.
So we've got a gentleman there with the microphones to say something.
You can change the topic as well, by the way.
We don't have to keep this goes in the middle.
So this was from the earlier conversation.
The final one is surely less than an issue for software freedom
more than an issue for data freedom.
Which we don't touch on, we don't explore diversity.
I don't want to go somewhere.
I want my data, so I can speak it.
It's always in software or my own.
I don't need principles for data freedom as well as software freedom.
Well, if you have software freedom in the cloud,
if you have an ADPL piece of software,
that you can run yourself.
I think the point is that you have to choice
and then to run it yourself.
I think it comes with, as long as you have Google's data center.
That doesn't point you anything.
That's completely useless, do you?
So if I don't say okay, I can store my data
and maybe teach it between it.
On Google.com.
Or I can handle software on my own server.
Still isn't it?
I've got data portability.
I'll talk.
At least you know what they're doing.
I'm going to get something.
Yeah.
That's the path level.
I don't know.
But I disagree that that's actually not to regret that.
Okay, so we got a gentleman in the red shirt.
I'm going to go back for a comment.
I'm going to play it over here on the screen.
And I think that's the problem.
Okay, this is where I go.
And the resource is getting that straight.
So we don't have that yet.
And hopefully, software quality.
If we allow that to be owned by the proprietary engineers,
we'll have another.
Okay.
And so, as I said, when it was about anyone going to think so long then,
it's just a bit of a status group.
Sorry.
Sorry, yeah, it's a little bit of a free group.
And so as I said, if you're got any of the topics you want to discuss as well,
don't feel free.
It doesn't have to be free software related.
Okay, here we go.
So if the desktop is dying, we're all going to tablets.
How many of you reckon that being told be dead outside the server?
It is.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Well, how many of you have got tablets?
I mean, Simon's problem.
And Fab, when you've got one there, I haven't got one at all.
Do you have a tablet?
Can you do it?
I can do it.
No.
So there you go.
So the majority of people on this stage have not got tablets.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't want to follow that guy.
I don't want to.
No, I didn't say that.
I don't think it's the answer.
I have a tablet.
And it's not the answer.
Unless they've been some kind of blasts.
It's not effective.
I think this much is.
But the patriotic thought is that what the topic does,
it means it's up to you.
You've probably got two devices in your life.
And you're no longer satisfied with your data only being on one side.
Because you probably, whatever device happens to be the one in front of you,
to be the one that knows about you and can help you.
And I think that's the writing difference that having tablets means.
And this was the huge difference that the iPad made for a lot of people.
They suddenly discovered the computer with the chair in front of it in the mouse,
wasn't the only place they could do stuff.
And that was an awakening that just changed the way that things were going to work.
So I think that there isn't about doing everything on the tablet.
It's about the ones you realise that tablets are actually not just something
for your kids to draw on your children.
You discover a world where the desktop isn't the only thing you can do.
And then you begin to ask questions about what else could I do somewhere.
I'm feeling that chair.
And that's the revolution.
So the thing is, you don't have to use proprietary service to have cloud storage.
I mean, there are a lot of things.
I know they're not really able to speed it.
But there are things like Sparkles share that are promised.
But the same time, it seems to be about 10 different projects all competing
to be the same thing.
And then I quite have some things with this, because you kind of could see it in the same field.
They're all trying to make an Android app.
And they're all trying to make an iPhone app.
They're all trying to be everywhere and do everything.
But I think I'm a succeed when you've got someone like Google,
they've already got all of this space.
You've got Amazon and Amazon in a massive business space as well.
People know those names.
Will they give someone else a profit?
I'm an English actor.
And then you're in this business.
Okay.
Okay.
Alright.
I'm a little bit about the cloud stuff.
They're speaking less.
Someone who works for me to run is therefore competitive in these things.
I don't think that's part of my work.
That's a great one.
What are you in a more general point there?
It's been started there at 10.
In the same way that there are 10 videos.
And so on.
And a bunch of people say, no, I think that's because it's about choice.
It's important.
But equally, what we end up with is everything very authentic.
So this, to my mind, plays back into your book.
A word of silence is dirty, which is trust.
One of the things I...
You're looking at things like adding, you know, which is three shell, large.
You have a bunch of people playing basically about how stuff it changed.
And it wasn't right.
We had exactly the same thing with Unity.
And you get a lot of...
It's a lot of trusting.
They can help them develop.
It's about trusting.
The ability to do things wrong.
And we don't have that.
We don't have that sense of trust.
Everyone seems to think that, no, they know better.
The people who are actually doing this.
And what it means is we end up eating our own young.
We've got...
There's...
It's not what it's got.
Jonathan...
Well, I think his name is Cody Bryant.
So that's my name.
Yeah.
And...
It's a pressure game.
Right?
Because I think it's a poor brain to let us.
And so, personally, it's better to say,
I want to do this.
But I've never used this before.
So I need to know how to do a bunch of simple game things.
Like, how do I change the mouse acceleration?
How do I trap the mouse in the box?
How do I play one sound and then play another sound?
On top of it, at the same time, it makes them up and down.
Just simple stuff.
You need to know how to go.
And you have 342 different answers.
From people say, Unity is like, I allow Unity's answer.
No, you need to use RSA's for.
And everyone hates it.
Everyone else.
And then agrees with all of the other answers.
And in the end, you say, if you know what, the hell is this?
If you guys can't get it together and come up with an answer,
why the hell should we pay attention?
And I think a lot of that's because we've done trust
the people who are doing something.
Did they do it right?
They've done it right.
They've done it right.
I'll do a different one.
Yeah, but at the same time, that's the freedom that we have in the end end to do that.
I mean, the alternative is what everybody used to react to.
That's the way.
Yeah.
We have a lot of users that actually totally trust each other.
Love everything he does.
And just, you know, just love that.
And I, you know, as somebody who doesn't, I hate that.
Which is not the thing, okay.
So the question that then becomes easy to possible.
Easy to possible.
Easy to reach the goal for this massive variety of unfinished stuff.
We have the choice, the truth, any of these unfinished things.
Is actually going to get us the success that we like.
I think I'm not sure about that.
Maybe maybe not.
But it's quite possible.
I think perhaps the future of Linux is us.
We're not going to get into the mainstream.
They cause, we think choice is more important.
Yeah.
I'm going to do that.
I'm going to do that.
I'm going to do that.
I've changed my mind.
On that.
What?
And over a few years.
I think you're probably right.
I think the lyrics is probably not the future.
Everybody has the user on the desktop.
And I actually think we shouldn't embrace that.
And we wouldn't be better in some ways.
If we figured out that we don't get anybody, we don't get all of the people to use it.
But I think, I mean, it's going back to my talk from earlier.
I think we is like a society.
Are going to be kind of screwed.
We don't move towards freedom, open, search, software, solutions and freedom of platforms.
Because this is all like life and society can go stuff.
I mean, this is basically how we're living our lives and how we're doing it together.
So, while I think that, you know, it's right that, to some extent, we is technically
oriented people are going to be going starting a step forward.
I think it would be a mistake if we just said, we should embrace that.
And limit ourselves and not look to the outside, not look to everyone.
I mean, that's one of the things to not believe is trying to do is bring, you know,
new Linux more to the everyday person.
And I always put that.
But I would actually say that one of the ways that we can handle this trust issue is
to focus a lot on the non-profit development.
You know, help, I mean, I'm coming from Gnome, so I'm a little biased.
But I mean, I don't know, I'm dedicated.
I make considerably less money now than I did in the beginning sector.
And it's well worth it because I'm working as something I care about.
And we all kind of work together.
It's a way to bring just for companies into one decision making body.
I think that's really valuable.
This is just a comment too.
In the point where this decision has reached right now, when somebody
mentioned the word success, and in Dormon, we know, well, it will be absolutely
one freedom of choice or costs or success.
The two are not necessarily automatic at all the time, compatible.
So you have to decide which way you're going.
And then the absolute compromise between those non-necessaries
that they're always possible.
So you can't talk to it as you make great.
I've come back to the cloud discussion earlier on.
I have to say that I am seriously concerned by the fact that a lot of
over-source people and freedom sort of advocates seem to be embracing
the current cloud movement and quite wholeheartedly.
Without what I feel is enough questioning of the openness of the entire concept.
Very few people seem to be asking, well, am I allowed to, and can I write an application
which will talk to such and such concepts?
Well, no, because actually they use, in most circumstances,
a period they protocol, which we don't know about when we don't understand.
And they won't really let you write something that just goes
at the different cloud services.
So as far as I'm concerned, really, a protocol level and another full-on level,
there's a massive amount of think about the ability and closeness
about which I think should be really concerning.
This brings to the question of my mind and I'm going to explain this about now.
Can I write a claim for a built-in one myself?
Yes.
Yes.
And it's all documented.
Absolutely.
There are two bits to a built-in one.
Data and files.
The data stuff is all captured based.
A batch of objects.
Or it exists.
Perfectly reasonable things to give.
The file stuff we use is buying a new protocol to talk to our file server,
which we get to talk about.
Basically, it's essentially interesting.
But it's all documented.
And the clients will have a tool.
We are going to find circles.
The server end is in the background.
So I just wanted to kind of drive for that a little bit.
So I think I was the only one who had the problem.
Yeah.
So we need to kind of go for it.
Because if you've got any other topics and stuff, it was running.
So far away.
All right.
We were just trying to find success for with-exnotes or systems.
My definition of success is it works for me.
And I don't really mind too much how many other people use it
as long as it works for me.
And so I think that's how we should define that success.
The other thing I wanted to bring up is this whole idea of how we get it
into more people's standard everyday machine.
It's just that we're being too noise about it.
Shouldn't we be getting a bit more in people's face about the idea?
Okay.
Computer liberation front.
We have hit the liberal computer.
How else are the people?
This is part of why I realized that I had to start talking about my profession.
Even though it's not something that I would have typically wanted to have said
in a public place that I'm a 30-bit.
But I think thinking about the fact that my life accounts on the software
that it's not being reviewed.
And that I've kind of even seen the software that's in my body.
Sort of like takes this issue to an emotional place.
But also, you know, one of those critical places.
And I think that discussions like this and why are we going to count on our software?
So we can see in those situations.
You know, when we had problems with the deep old voting machines.
You know, when you start to see how we count on our software,
you sort of understand why it needs to be safer and why it needs to be reviewed.
And software freedom is an essential component to that.
So I actually think that we're really real strong and advocacy here.
And everything in this room who's here because they care about these issues,
we need to start talking about it.
And so I think we should get in people's faces,
but not necessarily in aggressive negative way,
just in a we want our software to be safe.
And we should start choosing solutions that are.
Okay. I think people must do well.
Yeah, I want to come back to a point that was made earlier about whether this is for us or for everyone
for, you know, nerds or just the average person.
And it alarms me the idea that the free software should be just for the enlightened like us.
My full year-old son uses free software.
He's his touch pain. He absolutely loves it.
He can print something and use all the ink in my printer.
Very capable.
Using legs.
And I would not want him to be deprived from having the opportunity to use free software.
And if we only went down the road of, don't certainly,
everyone else comes in and out.
Then I don't want to be a part of it.
Which is it?
Thank you.
The chapter I want you to remind me of that.
Don't you want to remind us.
No, no, no.
And yeah, my dad's absolutely fine with it.
He loves it.
He doesn't have a problem with it.
I don't want it to be just for us.
I know.
But then that can't attack you back to the point though.
If the notion of freedom of choice being the all-the-trumping,
most important thing, is limiting it to just us.
Then how much of that event you owe it to better sacrifice?
In all of it, my dad can use it.
Some people may say, well, if that means, though,
oh, he nerds you folks, I'm fine with that.
I don't think it's a nerd geek, I don't want you to be with you.
I think when I say it, we have to figure out that we can't get everybody to use it.
What I mean is, for example, my parents take a level about the same for both of them.
My father used windows, my mother used this fit or actually.
And my father just doesn't use Linux because he doesn't care.
Like, people have different people care about different things.
There are people who don't care about them with choice.
And there are people who don't care about their data being free and other people who do it.
They don't have to necessarily have to be geeks.
They're just monkeys that care about pretty heavy color like it.
I don't really think so.
For example, my mother used this, she's much like me.
If you give her a match, it would write for insane that you can't drag the bar and the top somewhere else.
That she can't change stuff.
And she's not a geek. Do you just want to have control over how she uses her computer?
Okay, so we got to look like an athlete.
Jen, just to go back to the success or feeling a question.
One of the things we've mentioned earlier was the desktop that may go away under your place by an aspect screen.
The keyboard that you can pair up, optionally, how you can set it from your big screen.
Why will that work this time? Because I've got a couple of web TV boxes sitting up on my loft.
It didn't work quite in everybody's applications were on the client.
I've got a price deal of walks and it didn't work whenever the applications were going to be able to do it until the years ago.
Why is it going to be different this time?
Well, okay, it was stuck a lot when it was going to be different this time.
I don't think that the problem is that it didn't work last time.
We tend to swing from centralizing everything for efficiency.
And then someone says, now we should decentralize it because it's cool.
And then we will say, but there's a benefit to centralizing.
So you have my inference, which had nothing but down terminals.
And everyone, I tell you what we actually want there.
We want to put about applications on a computer on their desk.
And then try to move everything back to the way again.
So it's just every time you're in one of these positions, you just decentralize it.
Actually, you can see the benefits of decentralization.
So we went through this, they took a lot of stuff being on the web.
And now we're starting to see prices getting pushed out to your browser game.
This is what a lot of the stuff in HTML5 is about.
About allowing the work to happen.
Out-of-the-down terminal level.
And I'm sure of five or six years from now.
Someone will come up with some neat down centralized.
They don't want to always start flocking to that again.
It's just a way in the industry.
Well, I don't think it's back.
And so much is they're overtaking by a new power.
It's a big sign on this.
So we went and went.
And the price of those pressed out.
And there was Web TV, so this is the third time.
No.
Yeah.
You know things you can see the third time, really.
Third time.
Not what's going to be due to it, they're all beautiful.
But there was a lot of you in the buying sprues.
There was an interesting effect on you discover, which is,
once something has gone really wrong publicly a couple of times,
the people who are tempted the next time learn from those mistakes.
I think what we're going to see this time is not so much a dedicated big screen
whose only role in life is to sit there being the place that the big eye looks at me from.
But rather that one of your alternatives is going to be to
plug something or connect to something so that the environment that you're using is now
shareable with lots of people who are just on a bigger screen.
I'm already kind of in that space.
I've got a really big screen on my desk.
I have a tiny little screen in the background here.
And I've got all the same stuff because I'm using free software because I'm using
Web Budget Services to hold the data.
I think that's the reason it's going to work this time is that it isn't just about
being the one big screen, it's about the hardware environment where there's shared
data that's a compromise between centralised and localized.
I don't know, I'm pretty obsessed.
But yeah, I like my pressed up a lot.
They might have a minute of the screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, camp is a joint venture organised by those lovely podcasters
from the Linux Outlaws and Ubuntu UK podcasters.
We've more highlights of our camp coming up on the full circle podcast.
Very soon, including Andy Piper and Laura Chakovsky.
For now, I'm Robin Catling.
Thank you for listening and goodbye.
You have been listening to Hector Public Radio at Hector Public Radio.
We are a community podcast network that release the shows every week
day and one day for Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by a HPR listener like yourself.
If you ever consider recording a podcast, then visit our website to find out how easy it really is.
Hector Public Radio is founded by the Digital.com and the Information Computer Club.
HPR is founded by the binary revolution at binref.com.
All binref projects are crowded sponsored by linear pages.
From shared hosting to custom private clouds, go to lunar pages.com for all your hosting needs.
Onless otherwise stages, today's show is released on your creative comments.
At reviews show, share a like.