26 ms·

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't achieve the aim of winning more users, even if it is true. The "open source" movement recognised that users d

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't achieve the aim of winning more users, even if it is true. The "open source" movement recognised that users don't care about freedom, but they do care about other aspects. In a choice between 'proprietary and easy' and 'free but slightly-harder' users go with the first option: it's actually worse that this because consumer users are actually willing to go beyond 'zero cost' and actively sell their privacy in return for ease/sociability etc. I think the actual issue with the OSI's marketing is that it turns out these words work for professional users of software and not for general consumers. Professional users such as IT departments care about 'power', 'flexibility', 'maintainability' etc - general consumer users don't think that way. End users (particularly consumer users) care about achieving aims in very straightforward, simple terms! Neither, the FSF or OSI philosophy translate into perceived or real benefit for them. To a large degree I think it's something like this: Developers (care about freedom) <---> professional users (care about attributes) <---> consumers (care about ease of outcome) 'care about attributes' is the wrong word, but professional users tends to care about aspects of the software, they ascribe value to the software itself.

jdright 10y ago
It is more "care about support" than attributes.
- slgeorge 10y ago
  Yes, support is definitely an important one. There are other attributes that some professional users care about more than just a simple functional matrix. For example, I've been in situations where the ability for the professional user to fit the software to their specific requirements over time made FOSS the choice. Even though the initial solution was worse than the equivalent proprietary one. But, the idea that they could develop and improve it over time to meet their specific requirements was powerful.
lucb1e 10y ago
> it doesn't achieve the aim of winning more users Winning more users is not an aim in itself, not to me at least. It's not a cult that I want to win hearts for. But if people see how wrong it is to have a single entity control your computer (and almost everybody's computer), they are definitely welcome to ask for help installing something better (in that regard). I didn't respond to the rest of your post because it builds on that assumption.
- slgeorge 10y ago
  That's fair enough, there are lots of FOSS users who don't care about there being more users. They care about their individual freedoms - it's a perfectly rational view. Perhaps I mis-spoke because I personally do care about there being more users of FOSS. Really, we're trying to discuss how the FSF approaches its aim to "preserve, protect and promote the freedom" ... Do you think that aim is enhanced by spending energy on what I consider to be academic hair-splitting, rather than addressing and explaining the philosophy to wider audiences such as users / academics / policy makers. Or am I misunderstanding how Free Software is promoted by denigrating open source?
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  But people don't see that, because it isn't true. You're conflating the idea of external remote control of software with freedom to do what you want on a computer. They're completely different, unrelated concepts. Of all the operating systems, only Windows does things that it really shouldn't, and resists attempts to keep it from doing those things. macOS puts limits on non-expert users, but if you know what you're doing it lets you work around the limits - so far, at least. Even iOS is easy to open if you know how to install fuse from the command line. You can't run as root, but you can access the file system without having to go through iTunes. Ubuntu meanwhile added links to Amazon that no one really wanted. In theory you could get rid of them by recompiling or using a fork. But creating and maintaining a custom Linux fork is something that is completely beyond the skill of 99% of users, and probably beyond the skills of more than 10% of professional developers. And if you're using someone else's fork, you have no idea what's in the code. We've seen libssl infiltrated, and it wasn't even hard. Who knows what else is in there? In reality access to source code gives you absolutely no protection from bad actors. There are no reliable tests for overall security, and the ecosystem isn't large enough, focused enough, or professional enough to appraise security with any confidence. So the idea that "You can control your computer" is just rhetoric. You can't. You will never be able to. You will always need to rely on an ecosystem of developers, and large parts of that ecosystem will be opaque and closed to everyone for practical reasons.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
"You can change this (if you spend three years becoming an expert on software development)" is a very strange definition of free. If FSF produced software that ordinary consumers could customise and improve with ease, there would be some merit to the argument. If the FSF had sponsored original research towards that goal and driven the industry towards it it would have been a game-changer. But that isn't what happened. The reality is that FSF 'freedom" only applies to the tiny percentage of the population who can use the command line. In practice the FSF has always been perfectly happy with hard-to-use, amateurishly designed, non-performant software. Somehow the idea that it's "free" is supposed to excuse its many faults. Stallman et al have never shown the slightest interest in making their idea of software freedom accessible to the 99% of users who aren't technocrats who dream vi commands.
- saurik 10y ago
  "You can change this (by hiring a developer to fix the issue you are having)." <- There: I removed your infuriating straw man. Also: remember that one way to "hire" a developer is for you and thousands of other people to each contribute only $1; this is something everyone does quite often (by buying software) and for years now has been even easier to pull off (by crowd funding "changes").
- srean 10y ago
  > hard-to-use, amateurishly designed, non-performant software I think you went too far there and that's where I lost you. I sure appreciate that FSF gives me access to a kitchen where I can cook my own dishes. I know how to cook, it would be shame, and extremely infuriating if all chefs were constrained to a shitty one size fits all "Mcdonalds". "Mcdonalds" is plenty good for many, and that's fine, its just that I don't want to eat there for ever after when I know I or someone else can cook up something better at times. Or to give another example, if I know how to handle a slightly more complicated control I would happily buy a car that permits that, rather than some generic blasé Chevy Vega, may be a 911.
aries1980 10y ago
I think users choose what they see every day. FOSS OS distributions does not have the marketing budget to push their product into the face of the everyday user or bribe governments to put their product in use in primary schools to lock-in the next generation.

jdright 10y ago

It is more "care about support" than attributes.

slgeorge 10y ago
Yes, support is definitely an important one. There are other attributes that some professional users care about more than just a simple functional matrix. For example, I've been in situations where the ability for the professional user to fit the software to their specific requirements over time made FOSS the choice. Even though the initial solution was worse than the equivalent proprietary one. But, the idea that they could develop and improve it over time to meet their specific requirements was powerful.

lucb1e 10y ago

> it doesn't achieve the aim of winning more users Winning more users is not an aim in itself, not to me at least. It's not a cult that I want to win hearts for. But if people see how wrong it is to have a single entity control your computer (and almost everybody's computer), they are definitely welcome to ask for help installing something better (in that regard). I didn't respond to the rest of your post because it builds on that assumption.

slgeorge 10y ago
That's fair enough, there are lots of FOSS users who don't care about there being more users. They care about their individual freedoms - it's a perfectly rational view. Perhaps I mis-spoke because I personally do care about there being more users of FOSS. Really, we're trying to discuss how the FSF approaches its aim to "preserve, protect and promote the freedom" ... Do you think that aim is enhanced by spending energy on what I consider to be academic hair-splitting, rather than addressing and explaining the philosophy to wider audiences such as users / academics / policy makers. Or am I misunderstanding how Free Software is promoted by denigrating open source?
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
But people don't see that, because it isn't true. You're conflating the idea of external remote control of software with freedom to do what you want on a computer. They're completely different, unrelated concepts. Of all the operating systems, only Windows does things that it really shouldn't, and resists attempts to keep it from doing those things. macOS puts limits on non-expert users, but if you know what you're doing it lets you work around the limits - so far, at least. Even iOS is easy to open if you know how to install fuse from the command line. You can't run as root, but you can access the file system without having to go through iTunes. Ubuntu meanwhile added links to Amazon that no one really wanted. In theory you could get rid of them by recompiling or using a fork. But creating and maintaining a custom Linux fork is something that is completely beyond the skill of 99% of users, and probably beyond the skills of more than 10% of professional developers. And if you're using someone else's fork, you have no idea what's in the code. We've seen libssl infiltrated, and it wasn't even hard. Who knows what else is in there? In reality access to source code gives you absolutely no protection from bad actors. There are no reliable tests for overall security, and the ecosystem isn't large enough, focused enough, or professional enough to appraise security with any confidence. So the idea that "You can control your computer" is just rhetoric. You can't. You will never be able to. You will always need to rely on an ecosystem of developers, and large parts of that ecosystem will be opaque and closed to everyone for practical reasons.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

"You can change this (if you spend three years becoming an expert on software development)" is a very strange definition of free. If FSF produced software that ordinary consumers could customise and improve with ease, there would be some merit to the argument. If the FSF had sponsored original research towards that goal and driven the industry towards it it would have been a game-changer. But that isn't what happened. The reality is that FSF 'freedom" only applies to the tiny percentage of the population who can use the command line. In practice the FSF has always been perfectly happy with hard-to-use, amateurishly designed, non-performant software. Somehow the idea that it's "free" is supposed to excuse its many faults. Stallman et al have never shown the slightest interest in making their idea of software freedom accessible to the 99% of users who aren't technocrats who dream vi commands.

saurik 10y ago
"You can change this (by hiring a developer to fix the issue you are having)." <- There: I removed your infuriating straw man. Also: remember that one way to "hire" a developer is for you and thousands of other people to each contribute only $1; this is something everyone does quite often (by buying software) and for years now has been even easier to pull off (by crowd funding "changes").
srean 10y ago
> hard-to-use, amateurishly designed, non-performant software I think you went too far there and that's where I lost you. I sure appreciate that FSF gives me access to a kitchen where I can cook my own dishes. I know how to cook, it would be shame, and extremely infuriating if all chefs were constrained to a shitty one size fits all "Mcdonalds". "Mcdonalds" is plenty good for many, and that's fine, its just that I don't want to eat there for ever after when I know I or someone else can cook up something better at times. Or to give another example, if I know how to handle a slightly more complicated control I would happily buy a car that permits that, rather than some generic blasé Chevy Vega, may be a 911.

aries1980 10y ago

I think users choose what they see every day. FOSS OS distributions does not have the marketing budget to push their product into the face of the everyday user or bribe governments to put their product in use in primary schools to lock-in the next generation.