5 ms·

I'll carry that torch when I feel it's appropriate. But the reality is, this practically requires making the decision to use free software and keep the entire o

I'll carry that torch when I feel it's appropriate. But the reality is, this practically requires making the decision to use free software and keep the entire open source community at a long arm's length. Why? Because business doesn't give two shits about your productivity. They care about one thing, the productivity of the software. And so they will buy other goods and services that will at some point be closed source. And then you're the one that has to integrate them. Are you deploying to GCP? Already you can't run your full stack locally. My last week was spent hacking Google's Anthos CLI tool, nomos into a kpt function. Kpt is open source, nomos is not, it's not even source-available. It's just proprietary. And the platform it interacts with, you can't run locally. Go ahead and check out the troubleshooting page for one Anthos tool: https://cloud.google.com/kuberun/docs/troubleshooting https://cloud.google.com/kuberun/docs/troubleshooting No sections on spinning up a local env. You can't self-host or run locally, Google won't let you. This isn't isolated to just Google. People need to get it into their heads that open source is the realm of business and not the realm of hackers. You're a cog in their machinery. If you can't run free software for your whole stack, then your troubleshooting steps will necessarily involve understanding at least two environments, one of which will be a very black box. Devs, if you want a better world, start contributing to copyleft software.

skybrian 6y ago
It seems like running a separate instance in the cloud counts as running the system, though? The key point is that you, the developer, get your own instance.
feoren 6y ago
> Devs, if you want a better world, start contributing to copyleft software. Your version of "a better world" is one in which authors, musicians, movie producers, artists, and all other creative types are free to make money from their works, but not software developers. When they try to do it, it's immoral. No thanks.
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  What? I didn't mean to imply that. I'm an associate member of the FSF. I pay my dues with the money that comes from my corporate job which is open source all the way. I use Emacs, and keep my personal hardware as close to free as I can. One day when I'm into the ecosystem enough, I'll start contributing code to GNU projects. The more we can build up free software as an alternative to open source, the more the business world will be forced to use it. They need your dollars more than anything.
  - feoren 6y ago
    And my claim is that the fundamental tenants of the FSF are abhorrent fanatical nonsense, made clearly evident if you replace "software" with "novel". They are deeply offended by the idea that your computer could be running proprietary software that you're not free to modify, re-sell, or do whatever you want with; but are they equally offended when your Kindle contains a book you're not allowed to modify, re-sell, and do whatever you want with? Do copyrights on novels offend them as much as copyrights on software? Contributing to open source software is one of the most effective forms of altruism in history -- but it is altruism! Permissive licenses like MIT and LGPL embrace and enable that altruism. Copyleft licenses and the FSF are built around the idea that you are entitled to it, and it is immoral to write commercial/proprietary software. That is fanatical and unhelpful. Unless you think it's always immoral for anyone to make money from a copyrighted work? In that case I'd be a lot more interested in hearing that perspective, because at least it's not hypocritical.
    - ColonelPhantom 6y ago
      Copyleft does not forbid making money. It is perfectly legal to sell a GPL product. Also, with a novel on paper, you generally have similar rights as the GPL grants on software, such as reselling it, making modifications (I can just write on the paper!) and that sort of thing. While scanning and distributing copies is not allowed, quite some GPL companies also crack down on this by simply not providing updates anymore (I believe this approach is taken by the Linux grsec patchset developers).
- 6y ago

skybrian 6y ago

It seems like running a separate instance in the cloud counts as running the system, though? The key point is that you, the developer, get your own instance.

feoren 6y ago

> Devs, if you want a better world, start contributing to copyleft software. Your version of "a better world" is one in which authors, musicians, movie producers, artists, and all other creative types are free to make money from their works, but not software developers. When they try to do it, it's immoral. No thanks.

vinceguidry 6y ago
What? I didn't mean to imply that. I'm an associate member of the FSF. I pay my dues with the money that comes from my corporate job which is open source all the way. I use Emacs, and keep my personal hardware as close to free as I can. One day when I'm into the ecosystem enough, I'll start contributing code to GNU projects. The more we can build up free software as an alternative to open source, the more the business world will be forced to use it. They need your dollars more than anything.
- feoren 6y ago
  And my claim is that the fundamental tenants of the FSF are abhorrent fanatical nonsense, made clearly evident if you replace "software" with "novel". They are deeply offended by the idea that your computer could be running proprietary software that you're not free to modify, re-sell, or do whatever you want with; but are they equally offended when your Kindle contains a book you're not allowed to modify, re-sell, and do whatever you want with? Do copyrights on novels offend them as much as copyrights on software? Contributing to open source software is one of the most effective forms of altruism in history -- but it is altruism! Permissive licenses like MIT and LGPL embrace and enable that altruism. Copyleft licenses and the FSF are built around the idea that you are entitled to it, and it is immoral to write commercial/proprietary software. That is fanatical and unhelpful. Unless you think it's always immoral for anyone to make money from a copyrighted work? In that case I'd be a lot more interested in hearing that perspective, because at least it's not hypocritical.
  - ColonelPhantom 6y ago
    Copyleft does not forbid making money. It is perfectly legal to sell a GPL product. Also, with a novel on paper, you generally have similar rights as the GPL grants on software, such as reselling it, making modifications (I can just write on the paper!) and that sort of thing. While scanning and distributing copies is not allowed, quite some GPL companies also crack down on this by simply not providing updates anymore (I believe this approach is taken by the Linux grsec patchset developers).
6y ago