5 ms·

I know this is hard for some to grasp - but not everyone wants to learn how to code! I have no problem advocating that when teaching about computers open sourc

by EricE 6y ago

I know this is hard for some to grasp - but not everyone wants to learn how to code! I have no problem advocating that when teaching about computers open source software makes sense. However, blanket advocation that there is zero value in proprietary software is just plain nuts and bordering on religious zealotry. Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term.

pessimizer 6y ago
You don't have to learn to code to use FOSS. > Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term. This is the moderation fallacy.
- criddell 6y ago
  > This is the moderation fallacy. Yeah? Go on... Without elaboration it sounds like the fallacy fallacy.
  - solarman5000 6y ago
    Better explained here: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=moderation+fallacy https://lmgtfy.com/?q=moderation+fallacy
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
    - criddell 6y ago
      Fallacy fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
      - murgindrag 6y ago
        Yeah, that just didn't happen here. Pessimizer pointed out the moderation fallacy. For an argument from fallacy to have happened, he would have needed to use that to invalidate some conclusion from that argument.
ryukafalz 6y ago
Free software has value far beyond just computing education. Whether you want to learn to code or not, there’s a distinctly asymmetric power relationship that you inevitably end up in if you use proprietary software. Think about the pervasive data collection you see in many mainstream applications and devices now: smart TVs perform content recognition to try and figure out what you’re watching, VR headsets track much of what you do in VR and report back to the manufacturer, mobile apps look for information that can be used to identify users across apps to aggregate data about their users. Do you think these kinds of things would be so widespread if we were all using free software? Sure, not everyone is a programmer, but those of us who are could inspect the software and patch out all the tracking code. Even without that, though, I think the additional transparency would make companies less likely to do things like this.
- EricE 6y ago
  "there’s a distinctly asymmetric power relationship that you inevitably end up in if you use proprietary software." Yes, all proprietary software vendors are stereotypical mustache twirling villains. This is the kind of overheated rhetoric that causes people to tune out open source advocates. Also I don't need open source software to see that vendors have tracking code. I also don't have to use their software. I have yet to hook a smart TV up to the internet and have zero intention of ever doing so. A lot of people hook up smart TVs to the Internet because it's the easiest path to get to the Netflix app. You think they are going to swap out the code on their TV even if it was a choice? That's delusional. It would be far easier for them to just plug in an Apple TV if privacy is a top concern - but sadly for most people privacy isn't a concern. As for VR headsets they are such a niche case, other than us nerds it's not even on the mainstream radar. And once it gets to a point where it is more mainstream there will no doubt be companies like Apple making a big deal about Privacy being a key differentiator for them. So yeah, you might have a quicker path if everything was open source and you had the capability to do it yourself, but open source is hardly the ONLY path to get these results.
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    >Yes, all proprietary software vendors are stereotypical mustache twirling villains. I didn't say they were all evil or malicious. I said there is an asymmetric power relationship. This is true whether or not you trust the vendor. You might! But it's good to be aware of it nonetheless, and to think about: - How much do you trust them? - Are they incentivized to keep your data safe and private? - Do you think you'll still be able to trust them 5 years from now? To varying degrees, the platform owner has a significant say over your use of the platform. It's more pronounced the more locked-down the platform is, but for example: if Apple doesn't want you to run some software on iOS, it's going to be very difficult for you to run that software. If Microsoft decides to push an update to Windows that adds more intrusive telemetry, you have little choice; Windows is going to force an update and you're going to get that telemetry whether you like it or not. >Also I don't need open source software to see that vendors have tracking code. You don't necessarily, but it's a hell of a lot easier to tell if you can see the source code. >You think they are going to swap out the code on their TV even if it was a choice? That's delusional. It would be far easier for them to just plug in an Apple TV if privacy is a top concern - but sadly for most people privacy isn't a concern. Just looked up the current top-selling TVs on Amazon, this one[0] is currently #1, selling for $130. Adding an Apple TV to the mix ($150 for the base model) would more than double that cost. You, me, and probably most people on this site can easily afford that - but for a lot of people that's a more difficult choice. Yes, I absolutely believe that some people would replace applications on their TVs with alternatives with less surveillance - possibly many people, if the process were easy. [0] https://www.amazon.com/TCL-32S325-Inch-720p-Smart/dp/B07G9XZ83W https://www.amazon.com/TCL-32S325-Inch-720p-Smart/dp/B07G9XZ...
murgindrag 6y ago
> Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term. Well, you shouldn't commit genocide, but to say you shouldn't kill just a few dozen people? I mean, why be a zealot about this whole murder thing? The right choice is rarely exactly in the middle. Life isn't about balance. Life is about doing what's best, and sometimes that's in the middle, but more often than not, it's at one extreme or the other.
- EricE 6y ago
  If you think the right choices are more at the extremes I'd suggest living for another 10 years then getting back to me. Heaven help you if you ever start a family.
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    I'll give a concrete example. Health care systems. Free market works okay. Socialized (a la Britain) works okay. The middle -- where the US is, with a mixture of free market and regulation -- is prone to corruption and works less well than either extreme. Killing, stealing, rape, and murder are bad. I'm going to go to the far extreme there too. If I'm running a business, focusing on one thing and doing it well (and outsourcing everything else, or following "industry practices") works better than trying to innovate everywhere. That's actually pretty general -- if you're extremely good at a few things, that works better than balance on a personal career level too. It's a fallacy to split down the middle and balance. There are times that works, and times that doesn't. Life ain't about balance. It's about thinking things through.
  - MaxBarraclough 6y ago
    > If you think the right choices are more at the extremes There are plenty of questions where the correct answer is extreme. Ironically, you're making a categorical claim that doesn't hold up. The ideal amount of violent crime is none at all. The ideal amount of deceptive advertising is none at all. The ideal amount of slavery is none at all, despite that there was a time this idea was considered extreme. The ideal amount of sexism is none at all, even if some regressive people today, and virtually everyone historically, would contest this. The list continues. It's not enough to accuse someone's opinion of being extreme. That's not an argument, it's just expressing a preference for the status quo. Plenty of extreme opinions are perfectly reasonable. Sometimes it can even be abhorrent not to hold an extreme opinion. > Heaven help you if you ever start a family. Don't do this on Hacker News.

by EricE 6y ago

pessimizer 6y ago

You don't have to learn to code to use FOSS. > Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term. This is the moderation fallacy.

criddell 6y ago
> This is the moderation fallacy. Yeah? Go on... Without elaboration it sounds like the fallacy fallacy.
- solarman5000 6y ago
  Better explained here: https://lmgtfy.com/?q=moderation+fallacy https://lmgtfy.com/?q=moderation+fallacy
- murgindrag 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
  - criddell 6y ago
    Fallacy fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
    - murgindrag 6y ago
      Yeah, that just didn't happen here. Pessimizer pointed out the moderation fallacy. For an argument from fallacy to have happened, he would have needed to use that to invalidate some conclusion from that argument.

ryukafalz 6y ago

Free software has value far beyond just computing education. Whether you want to learn to code or not, there’s a distinctly asymmetric power relationship that you inevitably end up in if you use proprietary software. Think about the pervasive data collection you see in many mainstream applications and devices now: smart TVs perform content recognition to try and figure out what you’re watching, VR headsets track much of what you do in VR and report back to the manufacturer, mobile apps look for information that can be used to identify users across apps to aggregate data about their users. Do you think these kinds of things would be so widespread if we were all using free software? Sure, not everyone is a programmer, but those of us who are could inspect the software and patch out all the tracking code. Even without that, though, I think the additional transparency would make companies less likely to do things like this.

EricE 6y ago
"there’s a distinctly asymmetric power relationship that you inevitably end up in if you use proprietary software." Yes, all proprietary software vendors are stereotypical mustache twirling villains. This is the kind of overheated rhetoric that causes people to tune out open source advocates. Also I don't need open source software to see that vendors have tracking code. I also don't have to use their software. I have yet to hook a smart TV up to the internet and have zero intention of ever doing so. A lot of people hook up smart TVs to the Internet because it's the easiest path to get to the Netflix app. You think they are going to swap out the code on their TV even if it was a choice? That's delusional. It would be far easier for them to just plug in an Apple TV if privacy is a top concern - but sadly for most people privacy isn't a concern. As for VR headsets they are such a niche case, other than us nerds it's not even on the mainstream radar. And once it gets to a point where it is more mainstream there will no doubt be companies like Apple making a big deal about Privacy being a key differentiator for them. So yeah, you might have a quicker path if everything was open source and you had the capability to do it yourself, but open source is hardly the ONLY path to get these results.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  >Yes, all proprietary software vendors are stereotypical mustache twirling villains. I didn't say they were all evil or malicious. I said there is an asymmetric power relationship. This is true whether or not you trust the vendor. You might! But it's good to be aware of it nonetheless, and to think about: - How much do you trust them? - Are they incentivized to keep your data safe and private? - Do you think you'll still be able to trust them 5 years from now? To varying degrees, the platform owner has a significant say over your use of the platform. It's more pronounced the more locked-down the platform is, but for example: if Apple doesn't want you to run some software on iOS, it's going to be very difficult for you to run that software. If Microsoft decides to push an update to Windows that adds more intrusive telemetry, you have little choice; Windows is going to force an update and you're going to get that telemetry whether you like it or not. >Also I don't need open source software to see that vendors have tracking code. You don't necessarily, but it's a hell of a lot easier to tell if you can see the source code. >You think they are going to swap out the code on their TV even if it was a choice? That's delusional. It would be far easier for them to just plug in an Apple TV if privacy is a top concern - but sadly for most people privacy isn't a concern. Just looked up the current top-selling TVs on Amazon, this one[0] is currently #1, selling for $130. Adding an Apple TV to the mix ($150 for the base model) would more than double that cost. You, me, and probably most people on this site can easily afford that - but for a lot of people that's a more difficult choice. Yes, I absolutely believe that some people would replace applications on their TVs with alternatives with less surveillance - possibly many people, if the process were easy. [0] https://www.amazon.com/TCL-32S325-Inch-720p-Smart/dp/B07G9XZ83W https://www.amazon.com/TCL-32S325-Inch-720p-Smart/dp/B07G9XZ...

murgindrag 6y ago

> Life is about balance; extremes are rarely useful - especially long term. Well, you shouldn't commit genocide, but to say you shouldn't kill just a few dozen people? I mean, why be a zealot about this whole murder thing? The right choice is rarely exactly in the middle. Life isn't about balance. Life is about doing what's best, and sometimes that's in the middle, but more often than not, it's at one extreme or the other.

EricE 6y ago
If you think the right choices are more at the extremes I'd suggest living for another 10 years then getting back to me. Heaven help you if you ever start a family.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  I'll give a concrete example. Health care systems. Free market works okay. Socialized (a la Britain) works okay. The middle -- where the US is, with a mixture of free market and regulation -- is prone to corruption and works less well than either extreme. Killing, stealing, rape, and murder are bad. I'm going to go to the far extreme there too. If I'm running a business, focusing on one thing and doing it well (and outsourcing everything else, or following "industry practices") works better than trying to innovate everywhere. That's actually pretty general -- if you're extremely good at a few things, that works better than balance on a personal career level too. It's a fallacy to split down the middle and balance. There are times that works, and times that doesn't. Life ain't about balance. It's about thinking things through.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  > If you think the right choices are more at the extremes There are plenty of questions where the correct answer is extreme. Ironically, you're making a categorical claim that doesn't hold up. The ideal amount of violent crime is none at all. The ideal amount of deceptive advertising is none at all. The ideal amount of slavery is none at all, despite that there was a time this idea was considered extreme. The ideal amount of sexism is none at all, even if some regressive people today, and virtually everyone historically, would contest this. The list continues. It's not enough to accuse someone's opinion of being extreme. That's not an argument, it's just expressing a preference for the status quo. Plenty of extreme opinions are perfectly reasonable. Sometimes it can even be abhorrent not to hold an extreme opinion. > Heaven help you if you ever start a family. Don't do this on Hacker News.