7 ms·

When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to b

When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me." A lot of the features you mention are better served by email, and I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!) There are IRC bots for ticketing/build integration, and they were around long before anyone used Slack! But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom. Centralized network services are increasingly removing our control over how we communicate, and we must reject them for our free software projects. The ethical replacements (not alternatives, because Slack cannot be considered as an option) aren't going to get better if people aren't using them!

susi22 11y ago
Linus Torvalds uses Google+ extensively to communicate.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Linus has never been like... a Stallman-esque bastion of software freedom obsession.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    Linus also spends a lot more time communicating via mailing list. Google+ is like a side thing for him.
    - petepete 11y ago
      Yes, and his G+ posts are seldom Linux-related.
- username223 11y ago
  And I haven't bothered to figure out which parts of my creep-blocking software I need to disable to read whatever he writes, so his "extensive communication" gets ignored.
- solipsism 11y ago
  Have we all voted to give Linus the ability to think for us? If I have a question about anything regarding GNU/Linux (or git, or even C development), by all means, I will take whatever Linus says as gospel. But when it comes to which tools we use and how that relates to freedom, we should all think for ourselves.
- cyphar 11y ago
  Linus has very little to do with the free software movement.
tobz 11y ago
Who is the other side of the conversation you mention in your first paragraph? It seems incredibly reductive to state that using proprietary software, in any way, somehow makes a FOSS project send an implicit message that it... I don't know what you meant, but, disrespects its users? Did I disrespect the users of FOSS projects I worked on by using Windows / Visual Studio?
- davexunit 11y ago
  >Did I disrespect the users of FOSS projects I worked on by using Windows / Visual Studio? No, what you do on your own computer is your business. No one else has to use your proprietary setup. Other people do have to use your Slack channels to talk to you, which is an endorsement and enticement to run proprietary software.
  - saj1th 11y ago
    By the same token, would you consider https://github.com/Debian https://github.com/Debian an endorsement and enticement to run proprietary software ?
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    So if one opensourced a windows program, you would consider this bad because others would have to use the proprietary Windows to run it?
    - mikegerwitz 11y ago
      If that program only worked on Windows, then you should not recommend its use unless that person were already using Windows. If there are Free alternatives, you should recommend them instead; you'd otherwise be forcing users to use proprietary software to communicate with you. In the case of IRC, it doesn't matter if there's a Free Windows client, because there are plenty of alternatives.
      - tobz 11y ago
        So, for the sake of argument: - I'm an author of some FOSS software - I use Slack as the communication platform for said project for XYZ reasons How do you suggest I word the README for my project? Do I tell/advise people to try other, less functional software if that software is subjectively more "open" than mine? Would my project somehow be "better" if I run all of my own infrastructure for it -- chat, bug tracking, etc -- using only FOSS software on FOSS hardware in my basement? I mean, the logical conclusion here is that no FOSS project is really a FOSS project unless Richard Stallman could look at it and say "sure, morally, I have no problem using that project", right? (This is off the path of the blog post in question, but I'm really interested in this sub-conversation.)
jules 11y ago
Not everyone is dogmatic about free software. Slack is better than the alternatives, and denying it out of dogma is not a virtue. Many people are pragmatic and just enjoy programming and getting things done in the most efficient way. Rather than complaining that people are "unethical" (?) for using closed source software, you'd help your cause more by developing an open source alternative that's actually better than Slack.
- davexunit 11y ago
  If the only thing that matters is technical superiority, then you can expect to continue to watch your freedom be stripped away. Sometimes free software is more convenient than proprietary software, sometimes it isn't. We can't be willing to trade freedom (in this case trading free communication tools for proprietary ones) for short-term convenience if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Before 2005 the Linux kernel was managed by BitKeeper, then Git happened and took over the world. The free software folks that were criticizing the usage of BitKeeper for the Linux kernel weren't able to offer alternatives, whereas Git was born from the hands of the same pragmatists that were using BitKeeper. Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name. Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise. Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals. > if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat. Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes. But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
Someone1234 11y ago
> Centralized network services are increasingly removing our control over how we communicate, and we must reject them for our free software projects. So like IRC? Telling everyone to "use Freenode" is no better than Slack, both are centralised. You might have more client choice, but you're still logging into someone else's server.
- rjurney 11y ago
  Wow, you really nailed it. Freenode isn't free.
- davexunit 11y ago
  There are many IRC servers. IRC daemons are available as free software that anyone can run. Freenode is not particularly problematic. It is an organization of servers run by a community, not a company. By asking someone to login to Freenode I do not entice them to use proprietary software like I would if I asked them to use Slack.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I don't understand this "entice" business. The natural way to use Slack is to use it in a web browser, which could easily be an open source web browser. And there are many closed-source IRC clients. I'm no fan of Slack, but I don't get the claimed conflict when using it with an open source project. Would it also be bad to host the project's source code on GitHub, or the web site on IIS?
    - davexunit 11y ago
      >The natural way to use Slack is to use it in a web browser, which could easily be an open source web browser. The web browser may be free, but all of the JavaScript you are running is proprietary. >And there are many closed-source IRC clients. But there are many free ones, and there isn't an official client that is proprietary. It's possible to use Slack, more or less, over IRC or XMPP, but they are second-class citizens. The recommended way to use Slack is via their proprietary web interface.
outside1234 11y ago
I think what the previous poster is saying is just that - the free alternatives to Slack are not as good - and therefore they aren't using them. There is no reason that an open source project shouldn't use proprietary software. This isn't a religion.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  To some it is.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
> I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me. Then maybe those other free software projects should get good.
- davexunit 11y ago
  Maybe those free software projects could use some help in the form of users trying it out and giving feedback.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    In all honesty, you're bringing nothing new to the table here. This is the same FOSS-uber-alles pissing match anybody can see and participate in by spending five minutes on 4chan's tech board. It's not interesting and serves no purpose on HN. (earlier comments in furtherance of said pissing match deleted)
  - afarrell 11y ago
    "feedback" isn't enough to make a free software project good enough. I can give plenty of feedback to a project in the form of pointing out user experience problems. It doesn't help. What helps is 1) People who can actually spend the time to do the work of implementing improvements. 2) People who are willing to make user experience a priority over other things. The first requires skilled people to spend a significant amount of time. This is time that those skilled people could be spending with their families, so they usually expect to be paid for it. The supply of skilled time that doesn't cost money is very limited. The second requires incentives to be aligned in favor of getting and keeping inexperienced users. If you aren't willing to delete some code you spent a bunch of time working on in order to improve the user experience, you aren't going to succeed. None of this requires the software to be proprietary. But it does require that it is monetized somehow -- Perhaps through patreon for example, but that is also non-free software.
mmanfrin 11y ago
So this[1] isn't your github profile then? Because publishing FOSS via a proprietary service would be you saying that free software like Gitlab isn't good enough for you. [1] https://github.com/davexunit https://github.com/davexunit
- davexunit 11y ago
  Yes, that is my GitHub profile. I no longer host new projects there as of a couple years ago because I do not support the GitHub monoculture, but I do occasionally use it to send patches and file issues for projects hosted there. I use my own server (running free software, of course) to host my source code now: https://git.dthompson.us/ https://git.dthompson.us/ And I should add that I'm only human, imperfect. There are very few people that never use proprietary software. We all make compromises, myself included, but I do my best to use and promote free software and reject proprietary software as much as I can manage.
  - stephenson 11y ago
    What about the hardware that are used to build your server? Is that an open source platform?
sergiotapia 11y ago
>But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom. That's the crux of it. Some people just don't care and want to communicate. What is easiest to use is the only valid metric for the majority.
solipsism 11y ago
When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me." That makes no sense at all. Firstly, most people working on free software don't make assertions like, "My free software is good enough for you." Most of us are much more realistic and assert something more like "My free software might be good enough for you, here's why you should consider it." Secondly, even if one were making that assertion that one's free software is good enough for others, why would that mean they should believe all free software is good enough for everyone? It just doesn't follow. I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!) This isn't relevant. Your personal communication preferences are not universal. Slack's popularity shows people don't care about this. But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom Most developers aren't as dogmatic as this. You're in an extreme minority. Which is totally fine, and you should try to convince others if you feel they should be convinced, as long as you recognize most of us aren't in your "we". It's not true that I must reject Slack.
lamontcg 11y ago
People use slack because they use it at work and don't want to have two different message clients and want to consolidate. Free software is not meeting the needs of corporate users and has failed them, so they are using Slack or HipChat instead. Your dogmatic stance on "I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!)" is a good example of how open source is failing corporate user. I typo things all the time and want to be able to edit them, and don't care about your philosophical objections. You can try to bludgeon and guilt people into using open source tools, but the problem is fundamentally that the tools that are Open Source are /failing/ a set of users. If you fixed the tools and ran HipChat and Slack out of business with Open Source competition, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Lecturing people about Freedom(tm) and "Devsplaining" to users why they don't want the features they tell you they want isn't going to work. If you want people to get off of Slack write an Open Source alternative that Slack users will freely choose to use instead. Compete in the market and win -- or else you're just pissing into the wind.
st3v3r 11y ago
"When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me."" No you don't. You send the message that you're using what you believe are the best tools for your team.
karmajunkie 11y ago
Its really difficult to take you seriously if your only real argument is "But but FREEDOMMMMMM". Freedom is being able to say "fuggit, I'm using a better product because I effing well can." Its you exercising your freedom to not log in. Its not demanding everybody do things your way so you don't have to do it anyone else's way.

When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me." A lot of the features you mention are better served by email, and I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!) There are IRC bots for ticketing/build integration, and they were around long before anyone used Slack! But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom. Centralized network services are increasingly removing our control over how we communicate, and we must reject them for our free software projects. The ethical replacements (not alternatives, because Slack cannot be considered as an option) aren't going to get better if people aren't using them!

susi22 11y ago

Linus Torvalds uses Google+ extensively to communicate.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
Linus has never been like... a Stallman-esque bastion of software freedom obsession.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Linus also spends a lot more time communicating via mailing list. Google+ is like a side thing for him.
  - petepete 11y ago
    Yes, and his G+ posts are seldom Linux-related.
username223 11y ago
And I haven't bothered to figure out which parts of my creep-blocking software I need to disable to read whatever he writes, so his "extensive communication" gets ignored.
solipsism 11y ago
Have we all voted to give Linus the ability to think for us? If I have a question about anything regarding GNU/Linux (or git, or even C development), by all means, I will take whatever Linus says as gospel. But when it comes to which tools we use and how that relates to freedom, we should all think for ourselves.
cyphar 11y ago
Linus has very little to do with the free software movement.

tobz 11y ago

Who is the other side of the conversation you mention in your first paragraph? It seems incredibly reductive to state that using proprietary software, in any way, somehow makes a FOSS project send an implicit message that it... I don't know what you meant, but, disrespects its users? Did I disrespect the users of FOSS projects I worked on by using Windows / Visual Studio?

davexunit 11y ago
>Did I disrespect the users of FOSS projects I worked on by using Windows / Visual Studio? No, what you do on your own computer is your business. No one else has to use your proprietary setup. Other people do have to use your Slack channels to talk to you, which is an endorsement and enticement to run proprietary software.
- saj1th 11y ago
  By the same token, would you consider https://github.com/Debian https://github.com/Debian an endorsement and enticement to run proprietary software ?
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  So if one opensourced a windows program, you would consider this bad because others would have to use the proprietary Windows to run it?
  - mikegerwitz 11y ago
    If that program only worked on Windows, then you should not recommend its use unless that person were already using Windows. If there are Free alternatives, you should recommend them instead; you'd otherwise be forcing users to use proprietary software to communicate with you. In the case of IRC, it doesn't matter if there's a Free Windows client, because there are plenty of alternatives.
    - tobz 11y ago
      So, for the sake of argument: - I'm an author of some FOSS software - I use Slack as the communication platform for said project for XYZ reasons How do you suggest I word the README for my project? Do I tell/advise people to try other, less functional software if that software is subjectively more "open" than mine? Would my project somehow be "better" if I run all of my own infrastructure for it -- chat, bug tracking, etc -- using only FOSS software on FOSS hardware in my basement? I mean, the logical conclusion here is that no FOSS project is really a FOSS project unless Richard Stallman could look at it and say "sure, morally, I have no problem using that project", right? (This is off the path of the blog post in question, but I'm really interested in this sub-conversation.)

jules 11y ago

Not everyone is dogmatic about free software. Slack is better than the alternatives, and denying it out of dogma is not a virtue. Many people are pragmatic and just enjoy programming and getting things done in the most efficient way. Rather than complaining that people are "unethical" (?) for using closed source software, you'd help your cause more by developing an open source alternative that's actually better than Slack.

davexunit 11y ago
If the only thing that matters is technical superiority, then you can expect to continue to watch your freedom be stripped away. Sometimes free software is more convenient than proprietary software, sometimes it isn't. We can't be willing to trade freedom (in this case trading free communication tools for proprietary ones) for short-term convenience if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Before 2005 the Linux kernel was managed by BitKeeper, then Git happened and took over the world. The free software folks that were criticizing the usage of BitKeeper for the Linux kernel weren't able to offer alternatives, whereas Git was born from the hands of the same pragmatists that were using BitKeeper. Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name. Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise. Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals. > if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat. Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes. But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.

Someone1234 11y ago

> Centralized network services are increasingly removing our control over how we communicate, and we must reject them for our free software projects. So like IRC? Telling everyone to "use Freenode" is no better than Slack, both are centralised. You might have more client choice, but you're still logging into someone else's server.

rjurney 11y ago
Wow, you really nailed it. Freenode isn't free.
davexunit 11y ago
There are many IRC servers. IRC daemons are available as free software that anyone can run. Freenode is not particularly problematic. It is an organization of servers run by a community, not a company. By asking someone to login to Freenode I do not entice them to use proprietary software like I would if I asked them to use Slack.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I don't understand this "entice" business. The natural way to use Slack is to use it in a web browser, which could easily be an open source web browser. And there are many closed-source IRC clients. I'm no fan of Slack, but I don't get the claimed conflict when using it with an open source project. Would it also be bad to host the project's source code on GitHub, or the web site on IIS?
  - davexunit 11y ago
    >The natural way to use Slack is to use it in a web browser, which could easily be an open source web browser. The web browser may be free, but all of the JavaScript you are running is proprietary. >And there are many closed-source IRC clients. But there are many free ones, and there isn't an official client that is proprietary. It's possible to use Slack, more or less, over IRC or XMPP, but they are second-class citizens. The recommended way to use Slack is via their proprietary web interface.

outside1234 11y ago

I think what the previous poster is saying is just that - the free alternatives to Slack are not as good - and therefore they aren't using them. There is no reason that an open source project shouldn't use proprietary software. This isn't a religion.

st3v3r 11y ago
To some it is.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

> I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me. Then maybe those other free software projects should get good.

davexunit 11y ago
Maybe those free software projects could use some help in the form of users trying it out and giving feedback.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  In all honesty, you're bringing nothing new to the table here. This is the same FOSS-uber-alles pissing match anybody can see and participate in by spending five minutes on 4chan's tech board. It's not interesting and serves no purpose on HN. (earlier comments in furtherance of said pissing match deleted)
- afarrell 11y ago
  "feedback" isn't enough to make a free software project good enough. I can give plenty of feedback to a project in the form of pointing out user experience problems. It doesn't help. What helps is 1) People who can actually spend the time to do the work of implementing improvements. 2) People who are willing to make user experience a priority over other things. The first requires skilled people to spend a significant amount of time. This is time that those skilled people could be spending with their families, so they usually expect to be paid for it. The supply of skilled time that doesn't cost money is very limited. The second requires incentives to be aligned in favor of getting and keeping inexperienced users. If you aren't willing to delete some code you spent a bunch of time working on in order to improve the user experience, you aren't going to succeed. None of this requires the software to be proprietary. But it does require that it is monetized somehow -- Perhaps through patreon for example, but that is also non-free software.

mmanfrin 11y ago

So this[1] isn't your github profile then? Because publishing FOSS via a proprietary service would be you saying that free software like Gitlab isn't good enough for you. [1] https://github.com/davexunit https://github.com/davexunit

davexunit 11y ago
Yes, that is my GitHub profile. I no longer host new projects there as of a couple years ago because I do not support the GitHub monoculture, but I do occasionally use it to send patches and file issues for projects hosted there. I use my own server (running free software, of course) to host my source code now: https://git.dthompson.us/ https://git.dthompson.us/ And I should add that I'm only human, imperfect. There are very few people that never use proprietary software. We all make compromises, myself included, but I do my best to use and promote free software and reject proprietary software as much as I can manage.
- stephenson 11y ago
  What about the hardware that are used to build your server? Is that an open source platform?

sergiotapia 11y ago

>But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom. That's the crux of it. Some people just don't care and want to communicate. What is easiest to use is the only valid metric for the majority.

solipsism 11y ago

When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me." That makes no sense at all. Firstly, most people working on free software don't make assertions like, "My free software is good enough for you." Most of us are much more realistic and assert something more like "My free software might be good enough for you, here's why you should consider it." Secondly, even if one were making that assertion that one's free software is good enough for others, why would that mean they should believe all free software is good enough for everyone? It just doesn't follow. I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!) This isn't relevant. Your personal communication preferences are not universal. Slack's popularity shows people don't care about this. But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom Most developers aren't as dogmatic as this. You're in an extreme minority. Which is totally fine, and you should try to convince others if you feel they should be convinced, as long as you recognize most of us aren't in your "we". It's not true that I must reject Slack.

lamontcg 11y ago

People use slack because they use it at work and don't want to have two different message clients and want to consolidate. Free software is not meeting the needs of corporate users and has failed them, so they are using Slack or HipChat instead. Your dogmatic stance on "I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!)" is a good example of how open source is failing corporate user. I typo things all the time and want to be able to edit them, and don't care about your philosophical objections. You can try to bludgeon and guilt people into using open source tools, but the problem is fundamentally that the tools that are Open Source are /failing/ a set of users. If you fixed the tools and ran HipChat and Slack out of business with Open Source competition, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Lecturing people about Freedom(tm) and "Devsplaining" to users why they don't want the features they tell you they want isn't going to work. If you want people to get off of Slack write an Open Source alternative that Slack users will freely choose to use instead. Compete in the market and win -- or else you're just pissing into the wind.

st3v3r 11y ago

"When you, as a free software project maintainer, rely on proprietary software for your infrastructure, you send a bad message of "I expect my free software to be good enough for you, but your free software is not good enough for me."" No you don't. You send the message that you're using what you believe are the best tools for your team.

karmajunkie 11y ago

Its really difficult to take you seriously if your only real argument is "But but FREEDOMMMMMM". Freedom is being able to say "fuggit, I'm using a better product because I effing well can." Its you exercising your freedom to not log in. Its not demanding everybody do things your way so you don't have to do it anyone else's way.