4 ms·

Any zealot could make the same argument about the object of his zealotry. “Schools should indoctrinate their students and teach them my way of thinking because

Any zealot could make the same argument about the object of his zealotry. “Schools should indoctrinate their students and teach them my way of thinking because it is so great!” Not everybody gives a shit about free software. Most people—by far—have no practical use for the freedoms it provides.

michaelmrose 6y ago
That is like saying people have no practical use for freedom of speech because they have little or nothing to say. I recall the first phone I purchase with gps capability required one to pay $10 a month rental on the software required to use the hardware you had purchased. If you maintained such you would ultimately pay more for the privilege of using really really crummy mapping software than the cost of the entire phone. At the time nobody else was allowed to make mapping software for the phone much less offer it for sale or for free. Lack of software freedom is leverage you can use to make yourself richer not only at the expense of your customers wallets but at the expense of their maximal enjoyment or even well being. The various ecosystems that exist now even those full of paid for players is vibrant in part because of the freedom enjoyed by customers and other players. Even Apple for example benefits in part and has benefited from open source software that wouldn't exist without people who valued software freedom. People don't care about software freedom anymore than they particularly care about EPA regulations but they would care if they couldn't breath.
- beervirus 6y ago
  > Even Apple for example benefits in part and has benefited from open source software that wouldn't exist without people who valued software freedom. Let’s not get into the free vs open source issue. Apple has benefited from open source, not from free software. My point is that if free software produces better software, then great—that’s something people care about. But that’s far from clear, and the fact that it’s free won’t make up for it being worse. It’s just irrelevant for almost everyone.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    The fact that you believe it doesn't make it so. Maximum profit would be earned from fully locked down environments that have as little freedom as possible so that revenue can be extracted from any possible upside. Example control who is allowed to write software for the platform so that there is only one source of mapping software that can be monetized by the month and by the feature. The fact that we mostly don't use environments like that is because users and creators value freedom. The person who wants to write their own closed source mapping software monetized by the month and the feature for 9 dollars a month instead of 10 STILL values software freedom a little. Most people value software freedom somewhat even if only as what they perceive as the status quo and would get frustrated if that changed.

michaelmrose 6y ago

That is like saying people have no practical use for freedom of speech because they have little or nothing to say. I recall the first phone I purchase with gps capability required one to pay $10 a month rental on the software required to use the hardware you had purchased. If you maintained such you would ultimately pay more for the privilege of using really really crummy mapping software than the cost of the entire phone. At the time nobody else was allowed to make mapping software for the phone much less offer it for sale or for free. Lack of software freedom is leverage you can use to make yourself richer not only at the expense of your customers wallets but at the expense of their maximal enjoyment or even well being. The various ecosystems that exist now even those full of paid for players is vibrant in part because of the freedom enjoyed by customers and other players. Even Apple for example benefits in part and has benefited from open source software that wouldn't exist without people who valued software freedom. People don't care about software freedom anymore than they particularly care about EPA regulations but they would care if they couldn't breath.

beervirus 6y ago
> Even Apple for example benefits in part and has benefited from open source software that wouldn't exist without people who valued software freedom. Let’s not get into the free vs open source issue. Apple has benefited from open source, not from free software. My point is that if free software produces better software, then great—that’s something people care about. But that’s far from clear, and the fact that it’s free won’t make up for it being worse. It’s just irrelevant for almost everyone.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The fact that you believe it doesn't make it so. Maximum profit would be earned from fully locked down environments that have as little freedom as possible so that revenue can be extracted from any possible upside. Example control who is allowed to write software for the platform so that there is only one source of mapping software that can be monetized by the month and by the feature. The fact that we mostly don't use environments like that is because users and creators value freedom. The person who wants to write their own closed source mapping software monetized by the month and the feature for 9 dollars a month instead of 10 STILL values software freedom a little. Most people value software freedom somewhat even if only as what they perceive as the status quo and would get frustrated if that changed.