5 ms·

Remember, free and open source software is more reliable: (https://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.en.html https://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.en.html) "

Remember, free and open source software is more reliable: (https://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.en.html https://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.en.html) "One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs, they even fix bugs and send in fixes. Users work together, conversing by email, to get to the bottom of a problem and make the software work trouble-free." And Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS) takes away your freedom: (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...) "The basic point is, you can have control over a program someone else wrote (if it's free), but you can never have control over a service someone else runs, so never use a service where in principle a program would do. With free software, we, the users, take back control of our computing. Proprietary software still exists, but we can exclude it from our lives and many of us have done so. However, we are now offered another tempting way to cede control over our computing: Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). For our freedom's sake, we have to reject that too. With SaaSS, the server operator can change the software in use on the server. He ought to be able to do this, since it's his computer; but the result is the same as using a proprietary application program with a universal back door: someone has the power to silently impose changes in how the user's computing gets done. Thus, SaaSS is equivalent to running proprietary software with spyware and a universal back door. It gives the server operator unjust power over the user, and that power is something we must resist."

organsnyder 6y ago
I ran my own mail server for 15 years. It was not more reliable than Google or Microsoft (my current provider). > never use a service where in principle a program would do Email is definitely a service.
hannofcart 6y ago
> However, we are now offered another tempting way to cede control over our computing: Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). Don't agree with this bit. You are ceding control of your data for sure, but this isn't quite the same as running a proprietary piece of software on your machine which you have no idea what it's doing. Ceding control of data is also worrisome I agree, but giving control of your data to a custodian you trust in exchange for said custodian promising its careful curation is a trade-off that most people would find acceptable. Some won't, and I respect that, but the advocacy above might be counterproductive to most people who take it and try hosting their own email servers.
jhatemyjob 6y ago
Funny how you always see this comment in this type of thread
- jraph 6y ago
  I generally agree with the GNU stance on most things, but here this is just irrelevant and out of topic. I run my own mail server, and you can screw up badly with free software. And you probably will more than Google or the big players, especially if it is not your job. Free software does not make your admin-sys screw-ups or hardware failures something you can "get the whole community involved in working together to fix problems". (Fortunately, I haven't screwed so badly that my server started responding "no such user". Just some regular downtime that, as far as I know, has not make me miss any mail) Using someone else's computer and services can be problematic for a lot of reasons, but uptime / reliability is generally not the issue.
higerordermap 6y ago
Ah the free software religion, or as I have taken to call it, GNU minus rationale. ----------------------------- > One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs This works only for popular open source software, and still doesn't apply to infamous Unix mail servers or likes of GNOME. The 'community' is often more interested in adding features than fixing bugs. > so never use a service where in principle a program would do. Comfort vs Freedom tradeoff. Sometimes data privacy / freedom isn't just that critical to justify costs and difficulties of self hosting. > Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). For our freedom's sake, we have to reject that too. For what it is worth, SaaS has only benefited freedom of people working in big corporates. It has loosened the grip of enterprise software directly sold to C-suites by wine-and-dine sales methods. And know what, software writers have to make good amount of money too. Just giving away free desktop / server software doesn't work out for most developers. I will happily accept if an open core software has a value added SaaS. And "live cheap and write freedom respecting software for some semi-arbitrary definition of freedom", is just disrespectful to talented software developers. > someone has the power to silently impose changes in how the user's computing gets done. Again a convinience and security etc.. thing. Most use cases, you don't care. Stallman sees everything as black or white. (Linus Torvalds has also written on this) I'd suggest Stallman once watch 2017 Tamil movie "Vikram Vedha" :-)

organsnyder 6y ago

I ran my own mail server for 15 years. It was not more reliable than Google or Microsoft (my current provider). > never use a service where in principle a program would do Email is definitely a service.

hannofcart 6y ago

> However, we are now offered another tempting way to cede control over our computing: Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). Don't agree with this bit. You are ceding control of your data for sure, but this isn't quite the same as running a proprietary piece of software on your machine which you have no idea what it's doing. Ceding control of data is also worrisome I agree, but giving control of your data to a custodian you trust in exchange for said custodian promising its careful curation is a trade-off that most people would find acceptable. Some won't, and I respect that, but the advocacy above might be counterproductive to most people who take it and try hosting their own email servers.

jhatemyjob 6y ago

Funny how you always see this comment in this type of thread

jraph 6y ago
I generally agree with the GNU stance on most things, but here this is just irrelevant and out of topic. I run my own mail server, and you can screw up badly with free software. And you probably will more than Google or the big players, especially if it is not your job. Free software does not make your admin-sys screw-ups or hardware failures something you can "get the whole community involved in working together to fix problems". (Fortunately, I haven't screwed so badly that my server started responding "no such user". Just some regular downtime that, as far as I know, has not make me miss any mail) Using someone else's computer and services can be problematic for a lot of reasons, but uptime / reliability is generally not the issue.

higerordermap 6y ago

Ah the free software religion, or as I have taken to call it, GNU minus rationale. ----------------------------- > One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs This works only for popular open source software, and still doesn't apply to infamous Unix mail servers or likes of GNOME. The 'community' is often more interested in adding features than fixing bugs. > so never use a service where in principle a program would do. Comfort vs Freedom tradeoff. Sometimes data privacy / freedom isn't just that critical to justify costs and difficulties of self hosting. > Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). For our freedom's sake, we have to reject that too. For what it is worth, SaaS has only benefited freedom of people working in big corporates. It has loosened the grip of enterprise software directly sold to C-suites by wine-and-dine sales methods. And know what, software writers have to make good amount of money too. Just giving away free desktop / server software doesn't work out for most developers. I will happily accept if an open core software has a value added SaaS. And "live cheap and write freedom respecting software for some semi-arbitrary definition of freedom", is just disrespectful to talented software developers. > someone has the power to silently impose changes in how the user's computing gets done. Again a convinience and security etc.. thing. Most use cases, you don't care. Stallman sees everything as black or white. (Linus Torvalds has also written on this) I'd suggest Stallman once watch 2017 Tamil movie "Vikram Vedha" :-)