3 ms·

You seem to be dismissing FOSS, despite that it has taken over the world when it comes to servers and smartphones. > OSS doesn't really solve the usefulness pr

You seem to be dismissing FOSS, despite that it has taken over the world when it comes to servers and smartphones. > OSS doesn't really solve the usefulness problem. Most Linux kernel devs are paid professionals, making improvements that have value to their employer, and making the improvements available to all (a triumph of copyleft). It's not just hobbyists tinkering in ways they find interesting. Hasn't been that way for decades. > It's good at producing software that's appealing to people who like using and tinkering with OSS software - but no one else really cares unless it's handed to them inside a product which has been assembled to be useful. I have the choice of several different FOSS browsers, text-editors, C++ compilers. FOSS is quite capable of producing a 'finished product' that just works. > even then it's about the product, not about a largely imaginary "freedom" which is inaccessible to most users because it specialised skills, advanced knowledge, and plenty of free time It's not just developers who are affected by issues like tracking, intrusive telemetry, and even just unskippable ads in DVDs. It's true that developers are more aware of these issues.

quanticle 6y ago
You seem to be dismissing FOSS, despite that it has taken over the world when it comes to servers and smartphones. I think that dismissal is correct. While both may be open-source, neither is "free" in the sense of the term that Stallman is using. Cloud services may run on Linux, but it's a very TiVo-ized form, where the free core is wrapped in many layers of proprietary code that serve to negate the freedoms that Stallman is pushing for. Similarly, Android, while it is open-source, is nowadays so dependent on Google Play Services (which is proprietary) that it seems hardly fair to call it free software in the same way that one would call a Linux desktop free software.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  You have a point about smartphones, but I'm not convinced about cloud virtual servers. You can use proprietary managed services from AWS, or whoever, but if you just want a GNU/Linux server, you still have that option. Indeed, there's never been a better time for it.
  - quanticle 6y ago
    That's fair, but I would respond by saying, if you just want a generic GNU/Linux VM, there's really no reason to choose AWS. You can get one from someone like Linode or Digital Ocean for less. The advantage of AWS is that your GNU/Linux server has access to all the proprietary AWS goodies, like S3, DynamoDB, Route53 DNS, etc. etc.
    - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      I tend to do my Linux dabbling on the cloud. I rarely make use of the fancy services available on AWS, but that's not the only advantage of AWS, as they also do a fine job with the basic abstractions relating to EC2 instances. One example is firewalls. I'd expected Linode and Digital Ocean to offer cloud firewalls the way EC2 does, but no. When I create a new Linode instance, all ports are open to the world. On EC2, I can easily restrict new instances so that incoming connections are only permitted from my IP. That gives me protection against flaws in the SSH server. I think it makes good sense to handle this at the cloud level, rather than configuring a firewall inside the instance. Another example is that Linode and Digital Ocean will charge me the full hourly rate for an instance even when it's switched off. To avoid this, you have to manually create an image of your instance, then later restore it. Not so on EC2, where they've really thought through all the abstractions.

quanticle 6y ago

You seem to be dismissing FOSS, despite that it has taken over the world when it comes to servers and smartphones. I think that dismissal is correct. While both may be open-source, neither is "free" in the sense of the term that Stallman is using. Cloud services may run on Linux, but it's a very TiVo-ized form, where the free core is wrapped in many layers of proprietary code that serve to negate the freedoms that Stallman is pushing for. Similarly, Android, while it is open-source, is nowadays so dependent on Google Play Services (which is proprietary) that it seems hardly fair to call it free software in the same way that one would call a Linux desktop free software.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
You have a point about smartphones, but I'm not convinced about cloud virtual servers. You can use proprietary managed services from AWS, or whoever, but if you just want a GNU/Linux server, you still have that option. Indeed, there's never been a better time for it.
- quanticle 6y ago
  That's fair, but I would respond by saying, if you just want a generic GNU/Linux VM, there's really no reason to choose AWS. You can get one from someone like Linode or Digital Ocean for less. The advantage of AWS is that your GNU/Linux server has access to all the proprietary AWS goodies, like S3, DynamoDB, Route53 DNS, etc. etc.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    I tend to do my Linux dabbling on the cloud. I rarely make use of the fancy services available on AWS, but that's not the only advantage of AWS, as they also do a fine job with the basic abstractions relating to EC2 instances. One example is firewalls. I'd expected Linode and Digital Ocean to offer cloud firewalls the way EC2 does, but no. When I create a new Linode instance, all ports are open to the world. On EC2, I can easily restrict new instances so that incoming connections are only permitted from my IP. That gives me protection against flaws in the SSH server. I think it makes good sense to handle this at the cloud level, rather than configuring a firewall inside the instance. Another example is that Linode and Digital Ocean will charge me the full hourly rate for an instance even when it's switched off. To avoid this, you have to manually create an image of your instance, then later restore it. Not so on EC2, where they've really thought through all the abstractions.