4 ms·
I think this is pretty great analysis, really. Sobering, so to say. I know all of this, but tend to ignore quite often. This is because (unlike Stallman) I don'
by krick 10y ago
I think this is pretty great analysis, really. Sobering, so to say. I know all of this, but tend to ignore quite often. This is because (unlike Stallman) I don't think I'm fighting a war, I'm just living the way I think is "right". But is it really not my war? In the and, I do believe it would be a better world if some goals of Stallman have been achieved.
However, this analysis has the same flaws it points out in the movement of stallmanism: pointing out the problem is not the same as proposing a solution. Take this Gmail example. I absolutely hate it and would love it to disappear, but expressing it the usual way — as pointed out — is useless, if not harmful. Why people use Gmail or Google Docs? Because it's handy, obviously. They need something that does something like these services do, and google products simply happen to be better than alternatives. And they seem free too.
So what should I do instead of demonstratively avoiding them? Propose something better not only for myself, but for other people too. Give them a better option. Obviously. But the truth is I can't do that. I do not have any "smart solution" and Gmail is "free" not because it costs nothing to operate it, but because Google has shitload of money.
And the same is true for nearly every popular service and non-trivial piece of software. We may bring up Linux and Blender all we want, but the sad truth is free software just sucks. There is no open-source alternative for AutoCAD or Native Instruments, because it requires way too much domain-knowledge for your typical Finnish CS student to make one. Making this stuff is expensive as in "money". And "making money" a.k.a "business" is dirty game, so you don't make it easy for your competition to copy stuff you wasted your money to make. Blender is an exception that does not prove the rule.
Fighting for FOSS is basically fighting for communism. People outside of USA tend to agree this is nice idea, but we still haven't seen working implementations of that.
So, if I don't have a better war strategy, how can I complain? Do I think it would be better if Stallman was not fighting this silly war of his own? I guess I don't. Even if "normal people" tend to make fun of him, at least they know about him and this FOSS stuff. Well, at least some of them do.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago"Fighting for FOSS is basically fighting for communism." Communism is an economic system of physical goods and services, digital and intellectual things aren't either so I don't think it's useful to equate the two. Digital media is easily obtained by anyone so is made with a lock to which the key is sold. The keys are usually some form of digital media, so a central authority is needed to validate the keys. The validation process is also digital, so laws get made to threaten anyone that tries to bypass that process and, instead of preventing attacks on ships, those laws get used to mess up peoples lives that usually don't deserve it. Software is just a big, messy math function, and trying to sell it is just as silly as trying to sell addition. Sell goods; sell services (even the service of writing software); but trying to sell the software itself is pretty much insane; the only way to win at it is to treat your customers like no-good, lying thieves.
- jcora 10y ago> Communism is an economic system of physical goods and services, digital and intellectual things aren't either so I don't think it's useful to equate the two. This is a very confused definition of communism. The proper definition is a classless, stateless, and moneyless society (although I prefer marketless). What that almost certainly implies, is a form of goal-oriented economic coordination in the form of central planning of production. The problem you're trying to describe is called commodification. It is harder to commodify digital goods than physical ones. But this is merely a pragmatic issue for the capitalists, as they have commodified and will commodify pretty much any facet of life.