5 ms·

I am not pro-proprietary-software. I am pro-software. Software and technology are empowering and fascinating, especially to bright young kids. Now, free softwa

I am not pro-proprietary-software. I am pro-software. Software and technology are empowering and fascinating, especially to bright young kids. Now, free software is more empowering than proprietary software. And kids need exposure to software they can tinker with. But if you meet a kid who is a little intimidated by the thought of learning coding, but loves playing Minecraft, then you're really going to tell them to stop playing Minecraft and use some weird GNU programs? Versus getting them going on Minecraft Portable Edition on a Raspberry Pi and working through some Python tutorials so that they can make something awesome? That's making the perfect the enemy of the good. I'm all for software freedom, but you need to hook a fish before you can reel it in.

mikegerwitz 11y ago
> But if you meet a kid who is a little intimidated by the thought of learning coding, but loves playing Minecraft, then you're really going to tell them to stop playing Minecraft and use some weird GNU programs? I'm not going to tell them to stop playing, no; that's not going to work. What I am going to do in that situation is explain what free software is, its social benefits, and the problems with proprietary software. I'll introduce him/her to a free operating system like GNU/Linux and introduce him/her to the world of free software. Maybe hack a few programs, and show him/her how transparent the operating system is. Hopefully then he/she will continue to explore that. If not, that's unfortunate, but hopefully it provides some benefit. By allowing children to grow up without recognizing proprietary software, you are setting them up to be okay with a world where sharing is a privilage, companies and developers are in control of everything they do. Companies make effort to lock in children and get them dependent on their software---e.g. Windows providing their software gratis to educational institutions. Free software in this case serves a broader social cause. You might argue that this is teaching them reality. Yes, that's a reality that others permitted to happen. The goal is to _change_ that. https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html
- solipsism 11y ago
  It's not the goal of most people, because most people don't agree with you. Including most of us developers who love and use free software. This idea that we have to infantalize users by "protecting them" from developers who "deny them their freedom" is radical, to most of us silly, and to many of us offensive. Most of us will teach our children about free software while not demonizing proprietary software or its developers.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    What do you consider to be the benefit of free software then? If it is freedom, then why are you watching a child give away their freedom? If it is any other "practical" reason then I urge you to reconsider your ethics. Given the fact that we know free software companies exist, then there's no valid justification (on a level of "there's no other way to survive selling my software") for selling proprietary software. The ethics questions become important when you consider the fact that most proprietary software developers do mistreat their users and the users are powerless to do anything about it. Now, I'm not sure what the right way of introducing a child to this concept is (I'm still a teenager, so I have no parenting experience). I believe that topics like this should become relevant when the child is much older, mainly because social interaction is much more important than ethics about software at a young age. But I personally feel worried about the fact that many children are now growing up in an age when Google has always existed and they have Google accounts from a young age (it pangs of the children in 1984 that don't know a time before Ingsoc and that planes were not invented by the Party).
    - solipsism 11y ago
      You're worried based on what? What is the concrete problem you're so worried about? Using proprietary software is not giving away one's freedom, no matter what the free software prophets teach. When one joins the military one is signing away one's freedom (rightly or wrongly), because one cannot change one's mind after signing without being subject to penalty. When I use proprietary software I'm not shackled to it. I wonder, when you eat at a restaurant do you demand to know the recipe? I can understand having a right to know the ingredients, because of health concerns, but do you insist that the chef publish his or her secret? If you eat a bite of that culinary delight, have you lost something? The ethics questions become important when you consider the fact that most proprietary software developers do mistreat their users and the users are powerless to do anything about it This is a ludicrous statement, unless you take the FSF's view that any distribution of any non-free software is in itself mistreating users. I'd ask for some kind of evidence for the claim that most software developers mistreat their users, but I know there exists no such evidence. The restaurant/recipe example is a good one because health codes are important. Most people think it's important to have some rules and regulations in place to protect the consumer. But most people also think these have to be kept at a minimum, because overly strict rules and regulations take away people's freedom, in a real way. Any problems you think exist regarding software can be fixed in a much more judicious manner than a blunt and heavy-handed "MAKE IT ALL FREE!" declaration. This is the sad irony of the FSF's position. They want to restrict freedom. They want to restrict my freedom to sell (or even give away!) closed-source software. They want to restrict my freedom to purchase (or even receive for free!) closed-source software. And in the name of the preservation of freedom! It's absurd!

mikegerwitz 11y ago

> But if you meet a kid who is a little intimidated by the thought of learning coding, but loves playing Minecraft, then you're really going to tell them to stop playing Minecraft and use some weird GNU programs? I'm not going to tell them to stop playing, no; that's not going to work. What I am going to do in that situation is explain what free software is, its social benefits, and the problems with proprietary software. I'll introduce him/her to a free operating system like GNU/Linux and introduce him/her to the world of free software. Maybe hack a few programs, and show him/her how transparent the operating system is. Hopefully then he/she will continue to explore that. If not, that's unfortunate, but hopefully it provides some benefit. By allowing children to grow up without recognizing proprietary software, you are setting them up to be okay with a world where sharing is a privilage, companies and developers are in control of everything they do. Companies make effort to lock in children and get them dependent on their software---e.g. Windows providing their software gratis to educational institutions. Free software in this case serves a broader social cause. You might argue that this is teaching them reality. Yes, that's a reality that others permitted to happen. The goal is to _change_ that. https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html

solipsism 11y ago
It's not the goal of most people, because most people don't agree with you. Including most of us developers who love and use free software. This idea that we have to infantalize users by "protecting them" from developers who "deny them their freedom" is radical, to most of us silly, and to many of us offensive. Most of us will teach our children about free software while not demonizing proprietary software or its developers.
- cyphar 11y ago
  What do you consider to be the benefit of free software then? If it is freedom, then why are you watching a child give away their freedom? If it is any other "practical" reason then I urge you to reconsider your ethics. Given the fact that we know free software companies exist, then there's no valid justification (on a level of "there's no other way to survive selling my software") for selling proprietary software. The ethics questions become important when you consider the fact that most proprietary software developers do mistreat their users and the users are powerless to do anything about it. Now, I'm not sure what the right way of introducing a child to this concept is (I'm still a teenager, so I have no parenting experience). I believe that topics like this should become relevant when the child is much older, mainly because social interaction is much more important than ethics about software at a young age. But I personally feel worried about the fact that many children are now growing up in an age when Google has always existed and they have Google accounts from a young age (it pangs of the children in 1984 that don't know a time before Ingsoc and that planes were not invented by the Party).
  - solipsism 11y ago
    You're worried based on what? What is the concrete problem you're so worried about? Using proprietary software is not giving away one's freedom, no matter what the free software prophets teach. When one joins the military one is signing away one's freedom (rightly or wrongly), because one cannot change one's mind after signing without being subject to penalty. When I use proprietary software I'm not shackled to it. I wonder, when you eat at a restaurant do you demand to know the recipe? I can understand having a right to know the ingredients, because of health concerns, but do you insist that the chef publish his or her secret? If you eat a bite of that culinary delight, have you lost something? The ethics questions become important when you consider the fact that most proprietary software developers do mistreat their users and the users are powerless to do anything about it This is a ludicrous statement, unless you take the FSF's view that any distribution of any non-free software is in itself mistreating users. I'd ask for some kind of evidence for the claim that most software developers mistreat their users, but I know there exists no such evidence. The restaurant/recipe example is a good one because health codes are important. Most people think it's important to have some rules and regulations in place to protect the consumer. But most people also think these have to be kept at a minimum, because overly strict rules and regulations take away people's freedom, in a real way. Any problems you think exist regarding software can be fixed in a much more judicious manner than a blunt and heavy-handed "MAKE IT ALL FREE!" declaration. This is the sad irony of the FSF's position. They want to restrict freedom. They want to restrict my freedom to sell (or even give away!) closed-source software. They want to restrict my freedom to purchase (or even receive for free!) closed-source software. And in the name of the preservation of freedom! It's absurd!