11 ms·

When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior

114 points by asymmetric 10y ago

amelius 10y ago
The risk of software not being maintained anymore now or some time in the future is important in most contexts, especially if data formats are specific to the software. This risk is higher with open-source projects, especially if being developed in academia, or by few developers (not a community).
- 50CNT 10y ago
  But what about companies shutting down, axing the project, mismanaging the project and stonewalling fixes, shutting down the APIs, revoking licenses, or any other mishap that can happen to commercial software? I feel like the risk is significant with commercial software as well, and has a more catastrophic failure mode (e.g. with open source and the right license you can fork and continue work on your own, whereas dead commercial software might be truly dead). It could be that dead open-source projects are more public. If a company goes down, it takes its servers with it. Dead open source projects stay on sourceforge or as a gzip on some .edu server.
- vbezhenar 10y ago
  It's exactly the opposite. With open source software there's no risk at all. You can always hire developer to support this unmaintained software, because sources are available, or just to export data. With proprietary software you just can't do it legally and if you want to reverse-engineer it (allowed in some countries), you'll need exceptional expertise.
  - amelius 10y ago
    It depends on the amount of money you can spend on it. For most companies, where money is not an issue, it is better to have commercial support for software.
na85 10y ago
Honestly I grow tired of rms and his Ivory-Tower ideals. I'm sure that if I lived in my office, had no family, and someone paid me a salary to do nothing but give the same talk over and over, then I too would have lots of time to wax poetic about how freedom is more important than actually being able to use the software. But I don't. I have a job, and when I come home I have a family to pay attention to, so I don't have time to hack away at my desktop environment or perhaps my phone's OS. I'll just stick with Android, even though it is not strictly "free", because for me the choice is between nonfree and not having a phone.
- aplummer 10y ago
  I feel you missed the point of the article, they were finding a middle ground - pointing out proprietary software is sometimes better and that's ok.
- BuuQu9hu 10y ago
  http://replicant.us/ http://replicant.us/
- zimpenfish 10y ago
  RMS was "waxing poetic" about freedom long before people were paying him to give the "same talk over and over".
  - douche 10y ago
    MIT pretty much paid him to fool around and tickle his fancies for years before that, though. I'm not knocking it, I wish I had that kind of freedom.
- pavlov 10y ago
  ...for me the choice is between nonfree and not having a phone. Surely it would be better to have the free option too? That would just give you one more choice. That's why RMS takes the idealistic position. If no one does it, the available choices inevitably get watered down to "nonfree or nothing at all", as you put it. It's like human rights: the principled stance is important in itself and must avoid the appearance of corporate or government influence. You wouldn't want the American Civil Liberties Union to be controlled by Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil. For the same reason, we shouldn't want open source to be controlled by Google and Facebook.
_pdp_ 10y ago
Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. It is just software and its quality will largely depend on how much effort the developer is putting into it. Typically some form of commercialization is often a good incentive to improve any type of software but obviously there are plenty of examples that go against this rule. It is common to see these days open source or free software that comes with some form of commercial options and that's very good in my opinion because you get the best of both worlds - still it doesn't mean it is better or worse. Is Gitlab better than Github? It depends who you ask.
- DrJohanson 10y ago
  I don't know about Gitlab but Gogs[0] is as good. [0] https://gogs.io/ https://gogs.io/
- mordocai 10y ago
  > Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment, though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence. FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in (someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained. You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.
  - _pdp_ 10y ago
    I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with some parts of your comment. FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product? In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or services to piggyback on the established success. I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the time it is used.
fermigier 10y ago
This piece looks to me like a major strawman argument example. Let's get back to the sentence that's quoted at the beginning: "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." 1. This sentence is about "open source development method", not "open source software" (two different classes of objects). Software can be open source (if its licence is open source, i.e. acknowledged as such by the OSI) but not developed using the "open source method" (i.e. if, still quoting the initial sentence, it doesn't "harness the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process"). 2. A "promise" is just a promise. Whether it's realised or not is still, to a large part, up to the talent and determination of the developers, or organisations, doing the work on the project. 3. Also, "better", "higher", "more" and "lower" should be defined in the context of which object we're talking about. In this case, this is implicit but I guess the comparison should be with similar software not developed using the open source method, i.e. with not distributed peer review and no transparency of process. 4. Last, I'm sure that both FSF and OSI agree that putting "an end to predatory vendor lock-in" is a good thing. Two bad the FSF doesn't mention it in this text.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- rini17 10y ago
  You probably missed the part where they say how many sourceforge projects have only one developer. That clearly says something about the development method, and how often are these promises realized.
  - gmluke 10y ago
    I don't think that proves anything at all. If you said to a free software advocate: 'Freedom is pointless because most of us don't exercise most of our freedoms' that would clearly be a nonsense argument. Enumerating open source projects and counting their contributors is barely more coherent than that.
golergka 10y ago
All the product qualities have value only as long as they're important to the customer. "Respecting the users' freedom" referenced here is a thing that most users don't even understand, let alone value. In their eyes, free (or open source) software doesn't have this inherent advantage the author talks about — and for most professional users (as in those who make money using the software) the "free as a beer" isn't that important as well.
nxc18 10y ago
I think a core issue here is that despite being a buzzword, 'free' just isn't all that meaningful or important to most developers, especially since the freedom that is granted to end users is explicitly not given to creators (see GPL). Open source however, especially with something like the MIT license, at the very least gives you access to read and hack at cool source. F is not the meaningful part of FOSS unless you happen to be a lawyer or really enjoy lawyering.
- peller 10y ago
  It's true that the definition of "free" is somewhat overloaded, and means different things to different people. But to say it's not all that meaningful or important is, I think, going way too far. As for your point about creators' freedom with copyleft, that limitation is explicitly to ensure that end users' freedom remains unrestricted. And, by logical extension, that creators are not exploitive of the original authors' efforts. Think of it as "locked open." So yes, it may be less "free" in the strictest sense of "do whatever you want free" - but we as a society have clearly decided that level of freedom is unacceptable (see eg, murder, slavery). GPL has simply chosen to draw the line closer to rights for the people than rights for the ruling class (ie, end users vs corporations, respectively).
- mschaef 10y ago
  > F is not the meaningful part of FOSS unless you happen to be a lawyer or really enjoy lawyering. I'd be careful about diminishing the importance of government and legal processes with respect to software (or anything else). It may not be as interesting to some as the technical aspects of software construction, but it absolutely has an impact on what software gets developed and how it's used. A lack of interest in this fact does not insulate you from its effects.
- type0 10y ago
  Freedom isn't free! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ
jmnicolas 10y ago
> "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary software." IMO open source advocates should stop defending and start making better free software. (most) People use what's good not what's ideologically pure. Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ...
- tbrownaw 10y ago
  Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ... ...it's still better, because it has Xfce. ;)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- davexunit 10y ago
  The "I'll use it when it's better" argument is self-defeating. If we can convince people why this software that may be practically inferior is better for our society and get them to invest in that mission, the missing features and bugs can be addressed more easily.
  - mfukar 10y ago
    If that's not a self-defeating argument, I don't know what is.
    - jpetso 10y ago
      Suggesting a long-term investment instead of a short-term one is a self-defeating argument? Or the suggestion that convincing people about the value of long-term investments is feasible?
      - mfukar 10y ago
        The 'argument' is an infinite regression. At the end of it, if we can convince everyone that FOSS is better for our society, we can make it better for our society. But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better?
yxhuvud 10y ago
From what I can see, the whole > For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a problem to be worked through. is a big unexplained pile of garbage, and without that the whole thing falls.
- mikegerwitz 10y ago
  > is a big unexplained pile of garbage What is unexplained? If it respects your freedoms, then it's a viable replacement for an equivalent program, even if buggy or lacking in certain regards. If it's completely unusable, then obviously that's not practical, but if you reject proprietary software, then the alternative is simple: nothing. A good example that I'm experiencing right now is Replicant. It lacks many features---not to any fault of its own---that require proprietary drivers. The front-facing camera, wifi, bluetooth, GPS, NFC, certain video drivers, etc simply don't work. Consequently, it can't take video or run certain programs like FF/IceCat that require special drivers for rendering. But I can do everything I need to do with the phone except for take videos of my children.
  - yxhuvud 10y ago
    So your problem is that some totally separate pieces of code are not open source. Yeah, well, that is not the fault of open source. Whoever wrote Replicant could just as well have written it in GPL and it would have made absolutely no difference unless some of the driver makers chose to distribute Replicant. Open source is friendlier for gradual adoption of openness, and that can make the process a lot simpler. It also allows users to have mixed stacks which adds a whole new set of people that can contribute code.
    - mikegerwitz 10y ago
      > So your problem is that some totally separate pieces of code are not open source. Yeah, well, that is not the fault of open source. No, I don't have a problem. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is until someone develops a viable replacement. My understanding is that the Android version in Replicant 6 will solve many outstanding issues. In any case, it's the fault of the developers of those drivers.
lucb1e 10y ago
I think the article makes a good point. Most comments complain about some technicalities, like using the word "open source software development" vs. "open source software", or mention that "no it isn't inferior!" (which is true, but not the point). A few months after meeting me, my girlfriend wanted to try a Linux system and I was happy to help her install it. In the end she didn't see what I thought was better about it. I thought I never said it was better, but apparently I gave off that impression, leading to a false expectation. And it's true, Linux desktops are still notorious despite being actually very stable these days. Open source programs like Firefox, Chromium and Telegram all work the same; and some others like the average file explorer is functionally equivalent too. It's just not better, at least not for most people. It might even eat more battery because of inferior drivers. The inherent advantage of free software being free (as in freedom) is what the article is about, and that is a good point.
- g00gler 10y ago
  You could sit your girlfriend down and do the "advanced configuration" on Windows 10, then she'll understand why Linux is better.
  - criley2 10y ago
    You could sit your girlfriend down with nothing but terminal, the man pages for a printer or video card driver, and the root user password, and she'll understand why Windows is better.
    - abpavel 10y ago
      mmc, regedit, powershell, sure this could cascade much further, but I think maybe op had the default privacy options in mind, which enable windows to use the camera and microphone feeds as the os sees fit.
      - g00gler 10y ago
        Yes, this exactly. If anyone cared to check out the advanced configuration it is pretty much exclusively turning off security vulnerabilities. One of them is "Automatically trust WiFi connections my contacts trust", a bunch of others are sending data to Microsoft. It's been a few months since I turned on a new Windows 10 PC but I was completely turned off by the advanced configuration. The #3 story on HN right now is "Windows 10 in-place upgrades are a severe security risk" I thought this was a good read the other day https://www.brokenbrowser.com/abusing-of-protocols/ https://www.brokenbrowser.com/abusing-of-protocols/ It just seems terrible security wise, the OS itself is spyware. That is to say, I was excited to be trying out a sexy new Asus Ultrabook with Ubuntu mixed in but didn't care to try after setting it up.
alephu5 10y ago
I respect that ethical motivations of free software in an age of mass surveillance, retail tracking and the copyright war but I routinely use proprietary software. In practice when a free clone lacks a feature or has a bug that stops me, I have no choice. I seldom have the skills and time to pop the hood and fiddle with the code. If I need to read a document typed in MS Word that is unreadable in libre office, I'm going to download MS office viewer...
- rglullis 10y ago
  You "may not have a choice" at the exact moment that you need to do something that only a proprietary solution can provide, but those that really want to support free software can still adopt a strategy to avoid such moments: every time one "consumes" proprietary solutions, take a percentage of the value spent and donate to a free alternative. Imagine if every graphic designer that "has no other choice than Photoshop" decided to donate $10/year to Gimp, and that took one hour week to use it, provide bug reports, feature requests, etc. Imagine if every web developer that uses Apple "because it is a better desktop than Linux" decided to donate 5% of that to Canonical (or Fedora, or Arch) and took a few hours every month just to try to get their issues sorted out. Imagine that every company that is so invested in AWS (or GCS or Azure) realized that there are cloud providers that are based on free software solutions and have no lock-in, and that they made a commitment to make quarterly donations to them.
  - mfukar 10y ago
    No, that's not the way it works. Consumers pay for services rendered, not for R&D.
    - rglullis 10y ago
      First, I am not telling all consumers to do it, but the ones that "really want to support free software" Besides, with software (and free software even more so), services rendered is R&D.
      - 10y ago
grigjd3 10y ago
I think one has to be fairly pedantic to hear the open source argument and not realize that some open source projects are better than others. That said, the philosophy is a bit dated. Good, solid software often comes from having a large user base. With lots of people using a tool, issues get identified quickly and there is more motivation to fix those issues. What can make the open source method so powerful is that it opens the door for numerous people to improve the software. For important projects, like cpython or boost, this often means having significantly more resources than proprietary software. Its not an absolute rule, but it can often play out that way.
slgeorge 10y ago
This article is an example of what over ~20 years has steadily turned me away from the FSF. How does this article do any good? At the bottom of the page it says: "Our mission is to preserve, protect and promote the freedom ..." And yet, they're endlessly stuck dividing the world into smaller and smaller cohorts of purity. It's 15 years since the OSI. Open Source as a term has done more to get FOSS into business than anything else: Open Source is the Heineken of Free Software whose slogan was "reaching the parts that others can't"! And yet, they still don't get it! There is value in being controversial as it makes headlines and spreads the word. But, they're too insular - arguably, at a time when the values of FOSS needs more positive explanation and engagement, given the direction of software and technology today. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  >There is value in being controversial as it makes headlines and spreads the word. But, they're too insular - arguably, at a time when the values of FOSS needs more positive explanation and engagement, given the direction of software and technology today. What direction are you referring to? As I see it, Open Source has won. The shift to cloud based solutions means more people are using at least some open source than ever before, whether it's portions of their browser to massive Linux or BSD server farms, they are engaging with open source. Companies that once sold proprietary systems are moving more and more to open source solutions (e.g. Microsoft). The irony is, of course, that as open source software has won, freedom has actually been damaged.
  - slgeorge 10y ago
    I feel like FOSS is growing/winning for developers and shrinking/losing for users. FOSS is used a lot by the major SaaS companies to deliver their solutions, but none of their solutions are themselves FOSS. For example: Google search, Google email (I mean why not?) Facebook E-bay Amazon SalesForce LinkedIN All of these companies now believe in Open Source for developers, and not for users. And I think that division has firmed up over time, a new generation of Web-centric developers have come through. Challenger app developers are highly in favour of FOSS for infrastructure, but I don't think they even consider it for the application [0]. For example, Asana, <and a bunch of stuff I don't use> If anything, I think the steady move towards apps/closed-gardens is a big risk to FOSS as a vision for users, though the vision for developers continues to grow. [0] what everyone is doing may well be rational from their perspective, we've learnt since the 90's that open source is a development methodology not a business model.
YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
>> Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. [1] More to the point, some of them are regular contributors to free (and open source) software projects: http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-source-2016-9 http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-source-2... [1] Says rms; gee, thanks Doc.
danschumann 10y ago
I use a lot of open source, but there are definitely times I prefer to write something myself because it's faster than learning how someone else implemented it, and needing to hack a lot for special customizations. My favorite open source project is probably three.js.
simonh 10y ago
So if I'm reading this right, the freedom that in principle someone could make the software better is more valuable than actually having better software? So the freedom isn't valuable because of what it achieves, it's just valuable intrinsically by existing in principle. That's not completely bonkers. I've never been to Arbroath in Scotland, but I could if I wanted to. That freedom has value right? But only if I can actually exercise it in practice.
prions 10y ago
It feels as though the open source community (I'm talking about the Linux Desktop space here) is being pulled in two different directions at the same time. On one hand, there's a strong desire to have a closer to the metal experience, allowing more veteran users to quickly adapt and modify the software to how they see fit. On the other hand, there's a push to bring new users in and create a more beginner friendly environment. Frequently these two objectives clash with each other, especially when trying to find solutions for common problems. It's pretty common to see senior members complaining that the user is at fault for not reading the appropriate doc/guide (not to say the user is totally absolved from reading them), or seeking an "easier" solution that doesn't involve applying advanced terminal commands to people who have rarely used one before. After using Debian based distros for a while, I switched to Arch. Installing wasn't too bad except for a few weird hiccups. The amount of looping from the help forums to the Arch Wiki, which doesn't contain your issue, would make your head spin.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  But those two objectives don't have to clash with each other. MacOS is able to support both objectives quite harmoniously.
ns8sl 10y ago
I once was on an elevator with Richard Stallman at MIT with my 14 year old son. He turned to my son and asked him what OS he used. My son replied 'Windows', because it's free. Stallman might have lost his mind at this point, but instead smiled and said 'Windows isn't free and free software isn't free'. This post reminds me of that exchange.
- antonplus 10y ago
  Then what did he do?
- acedinlowball 10y ago
  I was with my son and my wife and the same thing happened to me.

114 points by asymmetric 10y ago

The risk of software not being maintained anymore now or some time in the future is important in most contexts, especially if data formats are specific to the software. This risk is higher with open-source projects, especially if being developed in academia, or by few developers (not a community).

50CNT 10y ago
But what about companies shutting down, axing the project, mismanaging the project and stonewalling fixes, shutting down the APIs, revoking licenses, or any other mishap that can happen to commercial software? I feel like the risk is significant with commercial software as well, and has a more catastrophic failure mode (e.g. with open source and the right license you can fork and continue work on your own, whereas dead commercial software might be truly dead). It could be that dead open-source projects are more public. If a company goes down, it takes its servers with it. Dead open source projects stay on sourceforge or as a gzip on some .edu server.
vbezhenar 10y ago
It's exactly the opposite. With open source software there's no risk at all. You can always hire developer to support this unmaintained software, because sources are available, or just to export data. With proprietary software you just can't do it legally and if you want to reverse-engineer it (allowed in some countries), you'll need exceptional expertise.
- amelius 10y ago
  It depends on the amount of money you can spend on it. For most companies, where money is not an issue, it is better to have commercial support for software.

na85 10y ago

Honestly I grow tired of rms and his Ivory-Tower ideals. I'm sure that if I lived in my office, had no family, and someone paid me a salary to do nothing but give the same talk over and over, then I too would have lots of time to wax poetic about how freedom is more important than actually being able to use the software. But I don't. I have a job, and when I come home I have a family to pay attention to, so I don't have time to hack away at my desktop environment or perhaps my phone's OS. I'll just stick with Android, even though it is not strictly "free", because for me the choice is between nonfree and not having a phone.

aplummer 10y ago
I feel you missed the point of the article, they were finding a middle ground - pointing out proprietary software is sometimes better and that's ok.
BuuQu9hu 10y ago
http://replicant.us/ http://replicant.us/
zimpenfish 10y ago
RMS was "waxing poetic" about freedom long before people were paying him to give the "same talk over and over".
- douche 10y ago
  MIT pretty much paid him to fool around and tickle his fancies for years before that, though. I'm not knocking it, I wish I had that kind of freedom.
pavlov 10y ago
...for me the choice is between nonfree and not having a phone. Surely it would be better to have the free option too? That would just give you one more choice. That's why RMS takes the idealistic position. If no one does it, the available choices inevitably get watered down to "nonfree or nothing at all", as you put it. It's like human rights: the principled stance is important in itself and must avoid the appearance of corporate or government influence. You wouldn't want the American Civil Liberties Union to be controlled by Wal-Mart and ExxonMobil. For the same reason, we shouldn't want open source to be controlled by Google and Facebook.

_pdp_ 10y ago

Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. It is just software and its quality will largely depend on how much effort the developer is putting into it. Typically some form of commercialization is often a good incentive to improve any type of software but obviously there are plenty of examples that go against this rule. It is common to see these days open source or free software that comes with some form of commercial options and that's very good in my opinion because you get the best of both worlds - still it doesn't mean it is better or worse. Is Gitlab better than Github? It depends who you ask.

DrJohanson 10y ago
I don't know about Gitlab but Gogs[0] is as good. [0] https://gogs.io/ https://gogs.io/
mordocai 10y ago
> Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by definition. Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment, though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence. FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in (someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained. You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.
- _pdp_ 10y ago
  I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with some parts of your comment. FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product? In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or services to piggyback on the established success. I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the time it is used.

fermigier 10y ago

This piece looks to me like a major strawman argument example. Let's get back to the sentence that's quoted at the beginning: "Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in." 1. This sentence is about "open source development method", not "open source software" (two different classes of objects). Software can be open source (if its licence is open source, i.e. acknowledged as such by the OSI) but not developed using the "open source method" (i.e. if, still quoting the initial sentence, it doesn't "harness the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process"). 2. A "promise" is just a promise. Whether it's realised or not is still, to a large part, up to the talent and determination of the developers, or organisations, doing the work on the project. 3. Also, "better", "higher", "more" and "lower" should be defined in the context of which object we're talking about. In this case, this is implicit but I guess the comparison should be with similar software not developed using the open source method, i.e. with not distributed peer review and no transparency of process. 4. Last, I'm sure that both FSF and OSI agree that putting "an end to predatory vendor lock-in" is a good thing. Two bad the FSF doesn't mention it in this text.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rini17 10y ago
You probably missed the part where they say how many sourceforge projects have only one developer. That clearly says something about the development method, and how often are these promises realized.
- gmluke 10y ago
  I don't think that proves anything at all. If you said to a free software advocate: 'Freedom is pointless because most of us don't exercise most of our freedoms' that would clearly be a nonsense argument. Enumerating open source projects and counting their contributors is barely more coherent than that.

golergka 10y ago

All the product qualities have value only as long as they're important to the customer. "Respecting the users' freedom" referenced here is a thing that most users don't even understand, let alone value. In their eyes, free (or open source) software doesn't have this inherent advantage the author talks about — and for most professional users (as in those who make money using the software) the "free as a beer" isn't that important as well.

nxc18 10y ago

I think a core issue here is that despite being a buzzword, 'free' just isn't all that meaningful or important to most developers, especially since the freedom that is granted to end users is explicitly not given to creators (see GPL). Open source however, especially with something like the MIT license, at the very least gives you access to read and hack at cool source. F is not the meaningful part of FOSS unless you happen to be a lawyer or really enjoy lawyering.

peller 10y ago
It's true that the definition of "free" is somewhat overloaded, and means different things to different people. But to say it's not all that meaningful or important is, I think, going way too far. As for your point about creators' freedom with copyleft, that limitation is explicitly to ensure that end users' freedom remains unrestricted. And, by logical extension, that creators are not exploitive of the original authors' efforts. Think of it as "locked open." So yes, it may be less "free" in the strictest sense of "do whatever you want free" - but we as a society have clearly decided that level of freedom is unacceptable (see eg, murder, slavery). GPL has simply chosen to draw the line closer to rights for the people than rights for the ruling class (ie, end users vs corporations, respectively).
mschaef 10y ago
> F is not the meaningful part of FOSS unless you happen to be a lawyer or really enjoy lawyering. I'd be careful about diminishing the importance of government and legal processes with respect to software (or anything else). It may not be as interesting to some as the technical aspects of software construction, but it absolutely has an impact on what software gets developed and how it's used. A lack of interest in this fact does not insulate you from its effects.
type0 10y ago
Freedom isn't free! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ

jmnicolas 10y ago

> "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary software." IMO open source advocates should stop defending and start making better free software. (most) People use what's good not what's ideologically pure. Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ...

tbrownaw 10y ago
Example : you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ... ...it's still better, because it has Xfce. ;)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
davexunit 10y ago
The "I'll use it when it's better" argument is self-defeating. If we can convince people why this software that may be practically inferior is better for our society and get them to invest in that mission, the missing features and bugs can be addressed more easily.
- mfukar 10y ago
  If that's not a self-defeating argument, I don't know what is.
  - jpetso 10y ago
    Suggesting a long-term investment instead of a short-term one is a self-defeating argument? Or the suggestion that convincing people about the value of long-term investments is feasible?
    - mfukar 10y ago
      The 'argument' is an infinite regression. At the end of it, if we can convince everyone that FOSS is better for our society, we can make it better for our society. But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better?

yxhuvud 10y ago

From what I can see, the whole > For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a problem to be worked through. is a big unexplained pile of garbage, and without that the whole thing falls.

mikegerwitz 10y ago
> is a big unexplained pile of garbage What is unexplained? If it respects your freedoms, then it's a viable replacement for an equivalent program, even if buggy or lacking in certain regards. If it's completely unusable, then obviously that's not practical, but if you reject proprietary software, then the alternative is simple: nothing. A good example that I'm experiencing right now is Replicant. It lacks many features---not to any fault of its own---that require proprietary drivers. The front-facing camera, wifi, bluetooth, GPS, NFC, certain video drivers, etc simply don't work. Consequently, it can't take video or run certain programs like FF/IceCat that require special drivers for rendering. But I can do everything I need to do with the phone except for take videos of my children.
- yxhuvud 10y ago
  So your problem is that some totally separate pieces of code are not open source. Yeah, well, that is not the fault of open source. Whoever wrote Replicant could just as well have written it in GPL and it would have made absolutely no difference unless some of the driver makers chose to distribute Replicant. Open source is friendlier for gradual adoption of openness, and that can make the process a lot simpler. It also allows users to have mixed stacks which adds a whole new set of people that can contribute code.
  - mikegerwitz 10y ago
    > So your problem is that some totally separate pieces of code are not open source. Yeah, well, that is not the fault of open source. No, I don't have a problem. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is until someone develops a viable replacement. My understanding is that the Android version in Replicant 6 will solve many outstanding issues. In any case, it's the fault of the developers of those drivers.

lucb1e 10y ago

I think the article makes a good point. Most comments complain about some technicalities, like using the word "open source software development" vs. "open source software", or mention that "no it isn't inferior!" (which is true, but not the point). A few months after meeting me, my girlfriend wanted to try a Linux system and I was happy to help her install it. In the end she didn't see what I thought was better about it. I thought I never said it was better, but apparently I gave off that impression, leading to a false expectation. And it's true, Linux desktops are still notorious despite being actually very stable these days. Open source programs like Firefox, Chromium and Telegram all work the same; and some others like the average file explorer is functionally equivalent too. It's just not better, at least not for most people. It might even eat more battery because of inferior drivers. The inherent advantage of free software being free (as in freedom) is what the article is about, and that is a good point.

g00gler 10y ago
You could sit your girlfriend down and do the "advanced configuration" on Windows 10, then she'll understand why Linux is better.
- criley2 10y ago
  You could sit your girlfriend down with nothing but terminal, the man pages for a printer or video card driver, and the root user password, and she'll understand why Windows is better.
  - abpavel 10y ago
    mmc, regedit, powershell, sure this could cascade much further, but I think maybe op had the default privacy options in mind, which enable windows to use the camera and microphone feeds as the os sees fit.
    - g00gler 10y ago
      Yes, this exactly. If anyone cared to check out the advanced configuration it is pretty much exclusively turning off security vulnerabilities. One of them is "Automatically trust WiFi connections my contacts trust", a bunch of others are sending data to Microsoft. It's been a few months since I turned on a new Windows 10 PC but I was completely turned off by the advanced configuration. The #3 story on HN right now is "Windows 10 in-place upgrades are a severe security risk" I thought this was a good read the other day https://www.brokenbrowser.com/abusing-of-protocols/ https://www.brokenbrowser.com/abusing-of-protocols/ It just seems terrible security wise, the OS itself is spyware. That is to say, I was excited to be trying out a sexy new Asus Ultrabook with Ubuntu mixed in but didn't care to try after setting it up.

alephu5 10y ago

I respect that ethical motivations of free software in an age of mass surveillance, retail tracking and the copyright war but I routinely use proprietary software. In practice when a free clone lacks a feature or has a bug that stops me, I have no choice. I seldom have the skills and time to pop the hood and fiddle with the code. If I need to read a document typed in MS Word that is unreadable in libre office, I'm going to download MS office viewer...

rglullis 10y ago
You "may not have a choice" at the exact moment that you need to do something that only a proprietary solution can provide, but those that really want to support free software can still adopt a strategy to avoid such moments: every time one "consumes" proprietary solutions, take a percentage of the value spent and donate to a free alternative. Imagine if every graphic designer that "has no other choice than Photoshop" decided to donate $10/year to Gimp, and that took one hour week to use it, provide bug reports, feature requests, etc. Imagine if every web developer that uses Apple "because it is a better desktop than Linux" decided to donate 5% of that to Canonical (or Fedora, or Arch) and took a few hours every month just to try to get their issues sorted out. Imagine that every company that is so invested in AWS (or GCS or Azure) realized that there are cloud providers that are based on free software solutions and have no lock-in, and that they made a commitment to make quarterly donations to them.
- mfukar 10y ago
  No, that's not the way it works. Consumers pay for services rendered, not for R&D.
  - rglullis 10y ago
    First, I am not telling all consumers to do it, but the ones that "really want to support free software" Besides, with software (and free software even more so), services rendered is R&D.
    - 10y ago

grigjd3 10y ago

I think one has to be fairly pedantic to hear the open source argument and not realize that some open source projects are better than others. That said, the philosophy is a bit dated. Good, solid software often comes from having a large user base. With lots of people using a tool, issues get identified quickly and there is more motivation to fix those issues. What can make the open source method so powerful is that it opens the door for numerous people to improve the software. For important projects, like cpython or boost, this often means having significantly more resources than proprietary software. Its not an absolute rule, but it can often play out that way.

slgeorge 10y ago

This article is an example of what over ~20 years has steadily turned me away from the FSF. How does this article do any good? At the bottom of the page it says: "Our mission is to preserve, protect and promote the freedom ..." And yet, they're endlessly stuck dividing the world into smaller and smaller cohorts of purity. It's 15 years since the OSI. Open Source as a term has done more to get FOSS into business than anything else: Open Source is the Heineken of Free Software whose slogan was "reaching the parts that others can't"! And yet, they still don't get it! There is value in being controversial as it makes headlines and spreads the word. But, they're too insular - arguably, at a time when the values of FOSS needs more positive explanation and engagement, given the direction of software and technology today. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...

stinkytaco 10y ago
>There is value in being controversial as it makes headlines and spreads the word. But, they're too insular - arguably, at a time when the values of FOSS needs more positive explanation and engagement, given the direction of software and technology today. What direction are you referring to? As I see it, Open Source has won. The shift to cloud based solutions means more people are using at least some open source than ever before, whether it's portions of their browser to massive Linux or BSD server farms, they are engaging with open source. Companies that once sold proprietary systems are moving more and more to open source solutions (e.g. Microsoft). The irony is, of course, that as open source software has won, freedom has actually been damaged.
- slgeorge 10y ago
  I feel like FOSS is growing/winning for developers and shrinking/losing for users. FOSS is used a lot by the major SaaS companies to deliver their solutions, but none of their solutions are themselves FOSS. For example: Google search, Google email (I mean why not?) Facebook E-bay Amazon SalesForce LinkedIN All of these companies now believe in Open Source for developers, and not for users. And I think that division has firmed up over time, a new generation of Web-centric developers have come through. Challenger app developers are highly in favour of FOSS for infrastructure, but I don't think they even consider it for the application [0]. For example, Asana, <and a bunch of stuff I don't use> If anything, I think the steady move towards apps/closed-gardens is a big risk to FOSS as a vision for users, though the vision for developers continues to grow. [0] what everyone is doing may well be rational from their perspective, we've learnt since the 90's that open source is a development methodology not a business model.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

>> Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. [1] More to the point, some of them are regular contributors to free (and open source) software projects: http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-source-2016-9 http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-source-2... [1] Says rms; gee, thanks Doc.

danschumann 10y ago

I use a lot of open source, but there are definitely times I prefer to write something myself because it's faster than learning how someone else implemented it, and needing to hack a lot for special customizations. My favorite open source project is probably three.js.

simonh 10y ago

So if I'm reading this right, the freedom that in principle someone could make the software better is more valuable than actually having better software? So the freedom isn't valuable because of what it achieves, it's just valuable intrinsically by existing in principle. That's not completely bonkers. I've never been to Arbroath in Scotland, but I could if I wanted to. That freedom has value right? But only if I can actually exercise it in practice.

prions 10y ago

It feels as though the open source community (I'm talking about the Linux Desktop space here) is being pulled in two different directions at the same time. On one hand, there's a strong desire to have a closer to the metal experience, allowing more veteran users to quickly adapt and modify the software to how they see fit. On the other hand, there's a push to bring new users in and create a more beginner friendly environment. Frequently these two objectives clash with each other, especially when trying to find solutions for common problems. It's pretty common to see senior members complaining that the user is at fault for not reading the appropriate doc/guide (not to say the user is totally absolved from reading them), or seeking an "easier" solution that doesn't involve applying advanced terminal commands to people who have rarely used one before. After using Debian based distros for a while, I switched to Arch. Installing wasn't too bad except for a few weird hiccups. The amount of looping from the help forums to the Arch Wiki, which doesn't contain your issue, would make your head spin.

st3v3r 10y ago
But those two objectives don't have to clash with each other. MacOS is able to support both objectives quite harmoniously.

ns8sl 10y ago

I once was on an elevator with Richard Stallman at MIT with my 14 year old son. He turned to my son and asked him what OS he used. My son replied 'Windows', because it's free. Stallman might have lost his mind at this point, but instead smiled and said 'Windows isn't free and free software isn't free'. This post reminds me of that exchange.

antonplus 10y ago
Then what did he do?
acedinlowball 10y ago
I was with my son and my wife and the same thing happened to me.