4 ms·

> Unfortunately, the fundamentalist FOSS mentality we encountered on Reddit is still alive and well. This is incredibly rude. You may not like it, but GNU/Linu

by mattl 8y ago

> Unfortunately, the fundamentalist FOSS mentality we encountered on Reddit is still alive and well. This is incredibly rude. You may not like it, but GNU/Linux was built by people for user freedom, not for proprietary email clients. Instead of using words like “fundamentalist” please instead consider that you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system and a large number of the long-term users. A little understanding would go a long way.

gandreani 8y ago
I welcome it It's just impractical to have high quality software for every niche be built by the FOSS community. Even non-niche products (like, let's say email) leave a lot to be desired If I could pay companies for these products I would. But I don't because they don't make products for Linux because they think we only want FOSS programs Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares. They're not the market. The users of the OS are the market. And I want high quality software, free or not, source be dammed!
- mattl 8y ago
  There’s no reason free software can’t be paid for either. I agree that not every type of software will be built by community efforts alone, which is why many companies are contributing to free software. Out of interest, what free software would you like to see?
  - gandreani 8y ago
    Oh man where do I begin? So I can't confidently say I've tried it all but when I booted up Ubuntu within the last year it was hard to find... - simple email client with good html template support and conversation threading (thunderbird was meh) - simple pdf viewer - pdf editor - an oscilliscope app that works with those usb oscilliscopes - image editor (gimp is a slow nightmare to use) - Microsoft Office suite replacement (Open/Libre Office is also a UI nightmare) - A diagram app ala draw.io (Admittedly I haven't looked too hard for this one) - Music library organizer (Also didn't look too hard) I guess now would also be a good time to mention apps that are great - Desktops shells (Gnome/KDE/Xfce) - VLC - Firefox/Chrome - Package managers - Music players (generally bearable)
- justin66 8y ago
  > Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares. Linus Torvalds was pretty widely quoted as saying If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won. I'm pretty sure he was being sincere. The guy has praised PowerPoint, of all things. The GNU fundamentalists are a noisy minority. That's not intended as a commentary on their usefulness or the correctness of their position, it's just a statement of fact.
jerguismi 8y ago
If you consider "fundamentalist" a rude adjective to descibe the said behaviour, what would be a better adjective then? I don't have anything against that kind of attitude, it's great and I approve those guys though I myself also like to buy software. "Fundamentalism" IMO describes it pretty well and I don't see the negative connotation.
- windows_tips 8y ago
  "fundamentalist" is used as a slur by some people (c.f. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fundamentalist https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fundamentali...). The slur assumes things that don't exist in the word itself, so it's not obvious the word incorporates them.
  - hyder_m29 8y ago
    I think the difference between the slurred fundamentalist (connoting a terrorist-like figure) and a tech fundamentalist is objectively clear.
    - dhimes 8y ago
      Perhaps "purist" is a better word here?
      - windows_tips 8y ago
        I think the original usage was fine, it just doesn't mean what some are trying to add on.
    - simias 8y ago
      Fundamentalism implies a religion-like devotion to your principles, it's definitely pejorative used outside of this context. FLOSS is not a religion. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism : > The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts. Using such a strong word to define your adversary's position is a way to discredit them.
wendy0x2 8y ago
This isn't rude at all. He was describing a situation in the Linux community where a large number of users have an aversion to paid software. It's a real problem and one of the main reason osx was able to eclipse desktop software usage on linux in such a short amount of time. Responses like yours are the real problem. If you want linux desktop software to grow, there needs to be room for proprietary software.
- mattl 8y ago
  I don’t want “Linux desktop software” to grow. I want computer users to have zero-proprietary software. The problem with thinking of GNU/Linux in the same way as Windows and Mac OS X is that it assumes a world where proprietary software is the norm, or is okay. I believe that is isn’t okay, and that it is harmful.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Harmful is wanting to be paid for their work while expecting others to give their work for free. It is plain impossible to live from selling desktop software with source code available, without having others in the first week come around and re-bundle it, Sourceforge style.
    - mattl 8y ago
      Most of the GNU/Linux desktop stuff is GNOME, and a lot of GNOME developers work at Red Hat, but not exclusively. If you want to work on free software desktop applications, I would consider working at a company like that. A lot of desktop software is commodity stuff — mail clients, office suites, browsers, photo editing and the like. But there are some areas where we need to be better, such as video editing.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        I gave up on that dream long time ago, I rather have paying customers.
      - 8y ago
throwaway23948 8y ago
How is telling people what is good for them, like you just did, not fundamentalism? Almost every server and smart phone install of Linux uses proprietary software, that is clearly part of how people wants to use it. You yourself are communicating through many layers of proprietary software right now. This is exactly why people don't want to do open source. Because increasingly it isn't about culture, doing it better or making things happen. It is about telling people what to do and for people to enforce all sort of informal moral codes to protect their own position.
- mattl 8y ago
  I’m not telling people what is good for them. I’m describing the reasons for the creation of the GNU/Linux operating system. What proprietary software is being used on servers? I believe most Android users don’t know about user freedom, and those that do would greatly prefer a more generic, “pure” Android experience vs the poor quality applications installed by default on most non-Google phones. You’re confusing the initial ideas that were attributed to open source — seperating the software from the campaign for user freedom — with the free software community. Open source and free software are different movements with common results. The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing, and those founding principles of user freedom are attacked by proprietary software.
  - toopsss 8y ago
    > The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing. Please find someone that worked in the field during the 70s. They hopefully will kindly re-educate you on this BS. Also if you’re talking about the OSI of the late 90s I’d argue that gnu/Linux was not long before that. Those initiatives pretty much grew together.
    - mattl 8y ago
      I’m not talking about a community of sharing and improving software. That existed and is the reason Stallman started the free software movement and GNU. I’m talking about the creation of the Open Source Initiative in 1998 and their initial distancing of software freedom from any practical benefits of the software created by the free software movement.
amyjess 8y ago
> Linux was built by people for user freedom > not welcomed by the creators of the operating system No, it wasn't. Linux was created because Linus Torvalds was in love with the OS running on the VAX at his university and wanted something just like it that he can run on his desktop at home. > you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system The DFSG and the OSD both prohibit discriminating against fields of endeavor, so the ability to run proprietary software on open-source operating systems is essential to the OS actually being open-source.
- mattl 8y ago
  Linux is a kernel. GNU is an operating system, and so GNU/Linux is what most people are actually using. The DFSG and OSD are criteria for evaluating free and open source software and more specifically their licensing terms. The discrimination against fields of endeavor means you can’t make a license that says “the government can’t use my software” or “no military use” and call it free software or open source software. It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to run non-free software.
  - toopsss 8y ago
    My field of endeavor involves running non-free software. So which is it? Is it non-discrimatory or am I doing something against the creators wishes?
    - mattl 8y ago
      Your field of endeavor has nothing to do with a free software license. A piece of free software cannot say nobody using proprietary software cannot use it, however proprietary software is against the wishes of the original developers of what is best described as GNU/Linux.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
the8472 8y ago
> fundamentalist > relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. I think it's fair to say that the gospel of saint ignucius is interpreted strictly in some circles.
mikegerwitz 8y ago
The fact that this comment was flagged is deeply troubling to me.

by mattl 8y ago

gandreani 8y ago

I welcome it It's just impractical to have high quality software for every niche be built by the FOSS community. Even non-niche products (like, let's say email) leave a lot to be desired If I could pay companies for these products I would. But I don't because they don't make products for Linux because they think we only want FOSS programs Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares. They're not the market. The users of the OS are the market. And I want high quality software, free or not, source be dammed!

mattl 8y ago
There’s no reason free software can’t be paid for either. I agree that not every type of software will be built by community efforts alone, which is why many companies are contributing to free software. Out of interest, what free software would you like to see?
- gandreani 8y ago
  Oh man where do I begin? So I can't confidently say I've tried it all but when I booted up Ubuntu within the last year it was hard to find... - simple email client with good html template support and conversation threading (thunderbird was meh) - simple pdf viewer - pdf editor - an oscilliscope app that works with those usb oscilliscopes - image editor (gimp is a slow nightmare to use) - Microsoft Office suite replacement (Open/Libre Office is also a UI nightmare) - A diagram app ala draw.io (Admittedly I haven't looked too hard for this one) - Music library organizer (Also didn't look too hard) I guess now would also be a good time to mention apps that are great - Desktops shells (Gnome/KDE/Xfce) - VLC - Firefox/Chrome - Package managers - Music players (generally bearable)
justin66 8y ago
> Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares. Linus Torvalds was pretty widely quoted as saying If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won. I'm pretty sure he was being sincere. The guy has praised PowerPoint, of all things. The GNU fundamentalists are a noisy minority. That's not intended as a commentary on their usefulness or the correctness of their position, it's just a statement of fact.

jerguismi 8y ago

If you consider "fundamentalist" a rude adjective to descibe the said behaviour, what would be a better adjective then? I don't have anything against that kind of attitude, it's great and I approve those guys though I myself also like to buy software. "Fundamentalism" IMO describes it pretty well and I don't see the negative connotation.

windows_tips 8y ago
"fundamentalist" is used as a slur by some people (c.f. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fundamentalist https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fundamentali...). The slur assumes things that don't exist in the word itself, so it's not obvious the word incorporates them.
- hyder_m29 8y ago
  I think the difference between the slurred fundamentalist (connoting a terrorist-like figure) and a tech fundamentalist is objectively clear.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    Perhaps "purist" is a better word here?
    - windows_tips 8y ago
      I think the original usage was fine, it just doesn't mean what some are trying to add on.
  - simias 8y ago
    Fundamentalism implies a religion-like devotion to your principles, it's definitely pejorative used outside of this context. FLOSS is not a religion. From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism : > The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts. Using such a strong word to define your adversary's position is a way to discredit them.

wendy0x2 8y ago

This isn't rude at all. He was describing a situation in the Linux community where a large number of users have an aversion to paid software. It's a real problem and one of the main reason osx was able to eclipse desktop software usage on linux in such a short amount of time. Responses like yours are the real problem. If you want linux desktop software to grow, there needs to be room for proprietary software.

mattl 8y ago
I don’t want “Linux desktop software” to grow. I want computer users to have zero-proprietary software. The problem with thinking of GNU/Linux in the same way as Windows and Mac OS X is that it assumes a world where proprietary software is the norm, or is okay. I believe that is isn’t okay, and that it is harmful.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Harmful is wanting to be paid for their work while expecting others to give their work for free. It is plain impossible to live from selling desktop software with source code available, without having others in the first week come around and re-bundle it, Sourceforge style.
  - mattl 8y ago
    Most of the GNU/Linux desktop stuff is GNOME, and a lot of GNOME developers work at Red Hat, but not exclusively. If you want to work on free software desktop applications, I would consider working at a company like that. A lot of desktop software is commodity stuff — mail clients, office suites, browsers, photo editing and the like. But there are some areas where we need to be better, such as video editing.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      I gave up on that dream long time ago, I rather have paying customers.
    - 8y ago

throwaway23948 8y ago

How is telling people what is good for them, like you just did, not fundamentalism? Almost every server and smart phone install of Linux uses proprietary software, that is clearly part of how people wants to use it. You yourself are communicating through many layers of proprietary software right now. This is exactly why people don't want to do open source. Because increasingly it isn't about culture, doing it better or making things happen. It is about telling people what to do and for people to enforce all sort of informal moral codes to protect their own position.

mattl 8y ago
I’m not telling people what is good for them. I’m describing the reasons for the creation of the GNU/Linux operating system. What proprietary software is being used on servers? I believe most Android users don’t know about user freedom, and those that do would greatly prefer a more generic, “pure” Android experience vs the poor quality applications installed by default on most non-Google phones. You’re confusing the initial ideas that were attributed to open source — seperating the software from the campaign for user freedom — with the free software community. Open source and free software are different movements with common results. The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing, and those founding principles of user freedom are attacked by proprietary software.
- toopsss 8y ago
  > The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing. Please find someone that worked in the field during the 70s. They hopefully will kindly re-educate you on this BS. Also if you’re talking about the OSI of the late 90s I’d argue that gnu/Linux was not long before that. Those initiatives pretty much grew together.
  - mattl 8y ago
    I’m not talking about a community of sharing and improving software. That existed and is the reason Stallman started the free software movement and GNU. I’m talking about the creation of the Open Source Initiative in 1998 and their initial distancing of software freedom from any practical benefits of the software created by the free software movement.

amyjess 8y ago

> Linux was built by people for user freedom > not welcomed by the creators of the operating system No, it wasn't. Linux was created because Linus Torvalds was in love with the OS running on the VAX at his university and wanted something just like it that he can run on his desktop at home. > you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system The DFSG and the OSD both prohibit discriminating against fields of endeavor, so the ability to run proprietary software on open-source operating systems is essential to the OS actually being open-source.

mattl 8y ago
Linux is a kernel. GNU is an operating system, and so GNU/Linux is what most people are actually using. The DFSG and OSD are criteria for evaluating free and open source software and more specifically their licensing terms. The discrimination against fields of endeavor means you can’t make a license that says “the government can’t use my software” or “no military use” and call it free software or open source software. It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to run non-free software.
- toopsss 8y ago
  My field of endeavor involves running non-free software. So which is it? Is it non-discrimatory or am I doing something against the creators wishes?
  - mattl 8y ago
    Your field of endeavor has nothing to do with a free software license. A piece of free software cannot say nobody using proprietary software cannot use it, however proprietary software is against the wishes of the original developers of what is best described as GNU/Linux.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

the8472 8y ago

> fundamentalist > relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of scripture. I think it's fair to say that the gospel of saint ignucius is interpreted strictly in some circles.

mikegerwitz 8y ago

The fact that this comment was flagged is deeply troubling to me.