5 ms·

I like the idea of this project, but I have several nits/concerns: - De-Google-ify is a poor way of marketing these ideas. Your average web user loves Google

I like the idea of this project, but I have several nits/concerns: - De-Google-ify is a poor way of marketing these ideas. Your average web user loves Google because they are trendy and make everything so convenient. - The site enumerates the pitfalls of cloud-hosted solutions and then proceeds to link to their own cloud-hosted solutions with no explanation of why they're any safer, better, etc. And not limited to this page, but I really wish in general there was a better way to convey the point of free software than the word "free." If every single person immediately misunderstands what you mean, you've already lost.

mwfunk 10y ago
I've long felt that RMS/FSF's very specific and nonintuitive usage of "free" was intended to be misleading. If someone says "free" (which has many, many different meanings, all positive) when they really mean "copyleft" (which has one very complicated meaning), they're not trying to clarify anything, rather they're trying to muddy the waters so that people who don't understand copyleft or the FSF's political philosophy might think it's much simpler and much less specifically (and restrictively) defined than it actually is. Even the phrase "free as in freedom" doesn't actually disambiguate it, as it's a very specific type of very atypically defined freedom. It always felt like a certain type of PR strategy, where the intent is to intentionally mislead people who aren't paying close attention, and that's always rubbed me the wrong way. Source: observing 3 decades of neverending confusion, flamewars, and arguments over this very topic.
- ma2rten 10y ago
  By RMS? Why would he make his message intentionally less clear?
  - woah 10y ago
    Arrogance
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    He does this stuff all the time, he's always used language in a very Orwellian manner. It's much easier to promote "freedom" (which means all sorts of things to different people, all of them positive) than it is to promote copyleft and all that it entails. Everybody loves freedom right? But it is obfuscating, hence the neverending confusion about exactly what he means when he uses terms like "free", "freedom", and "free software". In general, he seems to be almost obsessively sensitive to how the words used to frame ideas can influence someone's feelings towards those ideas ("GNU/Linux"...). Which of course is true, words are very important. However, he channels this obsession with words towards obfuscation rather than clarity. He's very fond of always using derogatory puns for things he doesn't like in his essays, or incorrect acronym expansion. For example, always referring to DRM as "Digital Restrictions Management"- apropos and humorous as it may be, for me it's hard to not feel like he's treating his audience like children and thinks they can be influenced by wordplay. He has expended an utterly tremendous amount of energy over the past 3 decades scolding people for using incorrect terminology, when in fact the confusion over terminology almost entirely comes from him trying to redefine common terms, or him trying to change the term people commonly use to refer to something to another term that carries some sort of loaded meaning. It's a rhetorical technique, but it's a particular type of rhetorical technique that has always raised massive red flags for me, regardless of who is using it or for what purpose.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  My usual goto about "free" software and "free" service: "Free speech is not the same as free beer."
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    Sure, that's a common line. But the fact that such an explanation is necessary at all is a pretty strong indicator that the label "free" is a poor one.
    - jonathankoren 10y ago
      I don't think RMS was being deliberately obtuse, I think he was just trying to be too clever by half, and making stupid puns. Think about it. The same guy that thought, "If we have 'free speech', why not 'free software'?" is the same guy that thought "Not 'copyright', 'copyleft'!", which doesn't even make any sense.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    "Oh I get it now. So how much is a copy of GNU Toolchain?" "Oh it's free." "..." "It's free as in beer."
    - mi100hael 10y ago
      "Support home brewing! The beer is free as in speech, not Gmail"
- mjevans 10y ago
  It's less confusing when you focus on the 'freedom of the users'. Maybe that's the part of the message that's been most lost over the years. Focusing so much on free/libre that the group to which it applies (everyone (else), end users) is forgotten. Freedom for the users is the empowerment to treat ideas and expressions of ideas as simply that. A restoration to the laws of nature which make the cost of copying an idea merely seeing it in action. Yes, that brings hard questions to the table as well. However my answer to those is mostly that works covered as free/libre software should be public works. Common infrastructure that everyone is supposed to have access to. An open and level playing field for the advancement of education and the useful arts of science. They should also provide a useful platform for more transitory productions like games and videos.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    People walking around with smartphones just don't think of themselves as "users of software," though that's exactly what they are. It's unclear wording. It's also not the most immediate and intuitive concept for people outside the industry to wrap their heads around. Think about driving a car. You're driving a car, you need to know about stuff like having a license and gas and insurance and so on, i.e. the things that a "driver" or "motorist" is generally responsible for. Obviously, no license needed for having a smartphone, and all you really need is a charger to keep it going, which is part of why there's nothing nudging people to that conceptual leap of being "a user of software". We could do better, but there's an industry-wide revulsion to finding the right language for communicating with your people, i.e. marketing. I used to be a big advocate of "free software" as distinct from "open source," but after spending a few years in the marketing side of the industry, I don't give a shit at all about that distinction, because neither does anyone who isn't already drowning in the kool aid. Like I said, we could do better.
  - tbrownaw 10y ago
    No, it's really not. If I'm an end-user who wants to do something, and you tell me that what I want isn't available for my own good (because anyone who built it would be violating my freedom), I'm going to at best think you're being disingenuous. And might want to punch you in the face a bit.
- Fnoord 10y ago
  > very specific and nonintuitive usage of "free" Supposedly it is because the word libre isn't recognized well enough in English. Quoting: "To emphasize that “free software” refers to freedom and not to price, we sometimes write or say “free (libre) software,” adding the French or Spanish word that means free in the sense of freedom. In some contexts, it works to use just “libre software.”" And: "We stand for freedom, and we show it every time—by saying “free” and “libre”— or “free (libre)”." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html Perhaps liberty software or liberal software would work...
  - drivingmenuts 10y ago
    > Perhaps liberty software or liberal software would work Parts of both of those terms have negative connotations in the US. They'd probably be fine everywhere else, but in the US, they'd be really damn polarizing.
tscs37 10y ago
I might add that their services seem to default to French locale for some reason (I guess they're french) with no obvious way to change that. The average internet user is probably going to understand French as well as they understand the philosophical implications of eating a slice of toasted bread with butter on it.
- makapuf 10y ago
  Having seeing them talk at a local event, that's the point. Not to replace Google with their service. To replace Google with many, anyone's service interchanging data. Having another Google is not the point. Having many isp that also host decentralized services are, tailored to their locale and habits. Like, er the Internet.
babuskov 10y ago
> Your average web user loves Google Many average users I know think Google is the Internet. 10 years ago, they thought that Internet Explorer is the Internet. They don't really care, the same way most people don't care what's the manufacturer of the bus that takes them to work every morning. They just want to get stuff done, get information they need and go on with their lives. Whether Google makes some money with their data, or nobody makes money because it's all open source, wouldn't change a thing. Even if such change happened, the average user would just say: Okay. And go on with their life as before.
- tormeh 10y ago
  This. You know why Microsoft made Windows 10 auto-update? Because people like my father would put off updating forever. Because they don't care about security or privacy from hackers, let alone Google/MS/FB or the government. They just don't care. You know how some developers end up making big balls of mud because they don't care and they just want to solve the current Jira issue right now? That's how your relatives's PCs got so shit. They just want to do a thing with the computer right now, and don't care about the long-term consequences or the bigger picture.
  - BipolarElsa 10y ago
    Yeah but Windows 10 is a bloat-ware loaded, ad whoring piece of everloving shit compared to Windows 7, so I really can't blame anyone from wanting to keep Windows 7. And honestly with Apple locking in users from keeping Windows 7 is a clear cut case of Windows pushing their shit-tier software on everyone without putting in any effort into it. I'd rather pay 300 for a license than get a free update for a POS adware """OS"""...
- jrnichols 10y ago
  > Many average users I know think Google is the Internet. yep. i mention this a lot, but it's scary how well Google has done in the education market these days. Kids (at least all of the 0-6th graders I know) equate all things Google with "the internet." They know nothing that isn't Gmail. To them, "Gmail" IS email. They know no video sites besides YouTube. They go for Google Maps. Even on mobile devices where Google is the default search engine, it still feeds you Google services before anything else. Notice how on the iPhone, you can't copy & paste an address from a web search into Maps? Nope. It opens web version of Google Maps and prompts you to download the app. The average user is going to say, and often times because they have no idea how to leave. Google is keeping them there.
vegabook 10y ago
Your average user does not love Google. They love accuracy. Yes, the result is the same (GOOG lockdown), but that does not mean there isn't concern about the homogenization of the Internet. Most non-coder people I know have become forcibly aware of the fact that a Google search sees a correlated ad barrage for the subsequent week. Thus if somebody can compete technically (hard, I know), then there is a very real opportunity here. Going even further, arguably this is becoming a political issue. If that is the case, then there is a case to take some of Google's knowledge and socialize it. After all, the information from the network effects, may well belong to society, not to a private corporation.
mikevin 10y ago
I also feel like we should perhaps be grateful that it's Google that's powerful here. I know they are know longer the company that 100% embraces "Don't be evil" but I still believe they are trying. It's just that this amount of success, their market(s) and political pressure will steer any company towards "profit > privacy". If you accept this, Google might be one of the better companies to experience this from as some of the other contenders like Yahoo, Microsoft seem to go through this process more rapidly and without much consideration. To sum up my thoughts: while I don't like the direction they seem to be going i'm glad they're the one leading.
posterboy 10y ago
>The site enumerates the pitfalls of cloud-hosted solutions and then proceeds to link to their own cloud-hosted solutions with no explanation of why they're any safer, better, etc. perhaps they don't track

mwfunk 10y ago

I've long felt that RMS/FSF's very specific and nonintuitive usage of "free" was intended to be misleading. If someone says "free" (which has many, many different meanings, all positive) when they really mean "copyleft" (which has one very complicated meaning), they're not trying to clarify anything, rather they're trying to muddy the waters so that people who don't understand copyleft or the FSF's political philosophy might think it's much simpler and much less specifically (and restrictively) defined than it actually is. Even the phrase "free as in freedom" doesn't actually disambiguate it, as it's a very specific type of very atypically defined freedom. It always felt like a certain type of PR strategy, where the intent is to intentionally mislead people who aren't paying close attention, and that's always rubbed me the wrong way. Source: observing 3 decades of neverending confusion, flamewars, and arguments over this very topic.

ma2rten 10y ago
By RMS? Why would he make his message intentionally less clear?
- woah 10y ago
  Arrogance
- mwfunk 10y ago
  He does this stuff all the time, he's always used language in a very Orwellian manner. It's much easier to promote "freedom" (which means all sorts of things to different people, all of them positive) than it is to promote copyleft and all that it entails. Everybody loves freedom right? But it is obfuscating, hence the neverending confusion about exactly what he means when he uses terms like "free", "freedom", and "free software". In general, he seems to be almost obsessively sensitive to how the words used to frame ideas can influence someone's feelings towards those ideas ("GNU/Linux"...). Which of course is true, words are very important. However, he channels this obsession with words towards obfuscation rather than clarity. He's very fond of always using derogatory puns for things he doesn't like in his essays, or incorrect acronym expansion. For example, always referring to DRM as "Digital Restrictions Management"- apropos and humorous as it may be, for me it's hard to not feel like he's treating his audience like children and thinks they can be influenced by wordplay. He has expended an utterly tremendous amount of energy over the past 3 decades scolding people for using incorrect terminology, when in fact the confusion over terminology almost entirely comes from him trying to redefine common terms, or him trying to change the term people commonly use to refer to something to another term that carries some sort of loaded meaning. It's a rhetorical technique, but it's a particular type of rhetorical technique that has always raised massive red flags for me, regardless of who is using it or for what purpose.
rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
My usual goto about "free" software and "free" service: "Free speech is not the same as free beer."
- mi100hael 10y ago
  Sure, that's a common line. But the fact that such an explanation is necessary at all is a pretty strong indicator that the label "free" is a poor one.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    I don't think RMS was being deliberately obtuse, I think he was just trying to be too clever by half, and making stupid puns. Think about it. The same guy that thought, "If we have 'free speech', why not 'free software'?" is the same guy that thought "Not 'copyright', 'copyleft'!", which doesn't even make any sense.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  "Oh I get it now. So how much is a copy of GNU Toolchain?" "Oh it's free." "..." "It's free as in beer."
  - mi100hael 10y ago
    "Support home brewing! The beer is free as in speech, not Gmail"
mjevans 10y ago
It's less confusing when you focus on the 'freedom of the users'. Maybe that's the part of the message that's been most lost over the years. Focusing so much on free/libre that the group to which it applies (everyone (else), end users) is forgotten. Freedom for the users is the empowerment to treat ideas and expressions of ideas as simply that. A restoration to the laws of nature which make the cost of copying an idea merely seeing it in action. Yes, that brings hard questions to the table as well. However my answer to those is mostly that works covered as free/libre software should be public works. Common infrastructure that everyone is supposed to have access to. An open and level playing field for the advancement of education and the useful arts of science. They should also provide a useful platform for more transitory productions like games and videos.
- Frondo 10y ago
  People walking around with smartphones just don't think of themselves as "users of software," though that's exactly what they are. It's unclear wording. It's also not the most immediate and intuitive concept for people outside the industry to wrap their heads around. Think about driving a car. You're driving a car, you need to know about stuff like having a license and gas and insurance and so on, i.e. the things that a "driver" or "motorist" is generally responsible for. Obviously, no license needed for having a smartphone, and all you really need is a charger to keep it going, which is part of why there's nothing nudging people to that conceptual leap of being "a user of software". We could do better, but there's an industry-wide revulsion to finding the right language for communicating with your people, i.e. marketing. I used to be a big advocate of "free software" as distinct from "open source," but after spending a few years in the marketing side of the industry, I don't give a shit at all about that distinction, because neither does anyone who isn't already drowning in the kool aid. Like I said, we could do better.
- tbrownaw 10y ago
  No, it's really not. If I'm an end-user who wants to do something, and you tell me that what I want isn't available for my own good (because anyone who built it would be violating my freedom), I'm going to at best think you're being disingenuous. And might want to punch you in the face a bit.
Fnoord 10y ago
> very specific and nonintuitive usage of "free" Supposedly it is because the word libre isn't recognized well enough in English. Quoting: "To emphasize that “free software” refers to freedom and not to price, we sometimes write or say “free (libre) software,” adding the French or Spanish word that means free in the sense of freedom. In some contexts, it works to use just “libre software.”" And: "We stand for freedom, and we show it every time—by saying “free” and “libre”— or “free (libre)”." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html Perhaps liberty software or liberal software would work...
- drivingmenuts 10y ago
  > Perhaps liberty software or liberal software would work Parts of both of those terms have negative connotations in the US. They'd probably be fine everywhere else, but in the US, they'd be really damn polarizing.

tscs37 10y ago

I might add that their services seem to default to French locale for some reason (I guess they're french) with no obvious way to change that. The average internet user is probably going to understand French as well as they understand the philosophical implications of eating a slice of toasted bread with butter on it.

makapuf 10y ago
Having seeing them talk at a local event, that's the point. Not to replace Google with their service. To replace Google with many, anyone's service interchanging data. Having another Google is not the point. Having many isp that also host decentralized services are, tailored to their locale and habits. Like, er the Internet.

babuskov 10y ago

> Your average web user loves Google Many average users I know think Google is the Internet. 10 years ago, they thought that Internet Explorer is the Internet. They don't really care, the same way most people don't care what's the manufacturer of the bus that takes them to work every morning. They just want to get stuff done, get information they need and go on with their lives. Whether Google makes some money with their data, or nobody makes money because it's all open source, wouldn't change a thing. Even if such change happened, the average user would just say: Okay. And go on with their life as before.

tormeh 10y ago
This. You know why Microsoft made Windows 10 auto-update? Because people like my father would put off updating forever. Because they don't care about security or privacy from hackers, let alone Google/MS/FB or the government. They just don't care. You know how some developers end up making big balls of mud because they don't care and they just want to solve the current Jira issue right now? That's how your relatives's PCs got so shit. They just want to do a thing with the computer right now, and don't care about the long-term consequences or the bigger picture.
- BipolarElsa 10y ago
  Yeah but Windows 10 is a bloat-ware loaded, ad whoring piece of everloving shit compared to Windows 7, so I really can't blame anyone from wanting to keep Windows 7. And honestly with Apple locking in users from keeping Windows 7 is a clear cut case of Windows pushing their shit-tier software on everyone without putting in any effort into it. I'd rather pay 300 for a license than get a free update for a POS adware """OS"""...
jrnichols 10y ago
> Many average users I know think Google is the Internet. yep. i mention this a lot, but it's scary how well Google has done in the education market these days. Kids (at least all of the 0-6th graders I know) equate all things Google with "the internet." They know nothing that isn't Gmail. To them, "Gmail" IS email. They know no video sites besides YouTube. They go for Google Maps. Even on mobile devices where Google is the default search engine, it still feeds you Google services before anything else. Notice how on the iPhone, you can't copy & paste an address from a web search into Maps? Nope. It opens web version of Google Maps and prompts you to download the app. The average user is going to say, and often times because they have no idea how to leave. Google is keeping them there.

vegabook 10y ago

Your average user does not love Google. They love accuracy. Yes, the result is the same (GOOG lockdown), but that does not mean there isn't concern about the homogenization of the Internet. Most non-coder people I know have become forcibly aware of the fact that a Google search sees a correlated ad barrage for the subsequent week. Thus if somebody can compete technically (hard, I know), then there is a very real opportunity here. Going even further, arguably this is becoming a political issue. If that is the case, then there is a case to take some of Google's knowledge and socialize it. After all, the information from the network effects, may well belong to society, not to a private corporation.

mikevin 10y ago

I also feel like we should perhaps be grateful that it's Google that's powerful here. I know they are know longer the company that 100% embraces "Don't be evil" but I still believe they are trying. It's just that this amount of success, their market(s) and political pressure will steer any company towards "profit > privacy". If you accept this, Google might be one of the better companies to experience this from as some of the other contenders like Yahoo, Microsoft seem to go through this process more rapidly and without much consideration. To sum up my thoughts: while I don't like the direction they seem to be going i'm glad they're the one leading.

posterboy 10y ago

>The site enumerates the pitfalls of cloud-hosted solutions and then proceeds to link to their own cloud-hosted solutions with no explanation of why they're any safer, better, etc. perhaps they don't track