3 ms·

> Most fundamentally, they take their computing freedom for granted. There are powerful forces who want to take it away from us. There are powerful and rich peo

by jabl 5y ago

> Most fundamentally, they take their computing freedom for granted. There are powerful forces who want to take it away from us. There are powerful and rich people out there who think it's too dangerous for mere citizens to have access to unrestricted computers. To an extent, I agree. I wonder whether the general move in the open source community will turn out to be a Faustian bargain. Are open source developers just a bunch of suckers being taken advantage of to provide building blocks for various proprietary business models? OTOH I'm thinking that more open source code out there is a public good, and we should rejoice in that regardless of 'proprietary free riders'. > People ignore the big picture: computing freedom. It's not just important, it's fundamental. No. What's fundamental is freedom for people. Computing freedom matters only as a means to that end.

the_af 5y ago
> What's fundamental is freedom for people. Computing freedom matters only as a means to that end. I agree, and I'm going to guess the person you're replying to also agrees. In fact, RMS would also agree. It's just that we are narrowly focusing on a single aspect of freedom in this conversation, but yes: freedom to live, to work, to education, to health, are all more important :)
matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Are open source developers just a bunch of suckers being taken advantage of to provide building blocks for various proprietary business models? Perhaps. The whole point of the GPL is to give free software developers advantages and create leverage we can use against those who would exploit our labor. Permissive licenses allow that exploitation. In the end, it's irrelevant. All this software, all this positioning for advantages and leverage, none of it will matter if the machine itself is taken away from us. We'll never be truly free until computer manufacturing is as democratized as software development. Ideally we should be able to make computers at home. > No. What's fundamental is freedom for people. Absolutely. Computing freedom is a subset of personal freedom.
- type0 5y ago
  > We'll never be truly free until computer manufacturing is as democratized as software development. Ideally we should be able to make computers at home. If we had a few NGOs that were committed to freedom, were transparent and produced good hardware it would be a more reasonable option. Sure I can dream about the future where I can 3D print all electronics at home, but that computer wouldn't run very good and we all know this.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > If we had a few NGOs that were committed to freedom NGOs are still centralized operations that can easily be targeted and corrupted. We need decentralized manufacturing. Anyone should be able to make functioning computers and it should be impossible to stop or even regulate it. > the future where I can 3D print all electronics at home, but that computer wouldn't run very good It would be better than nothing. They may have relatively low performance but they would still be computers that are guaranteed to be free and completely under our control. The fact they exist at all would provide significant protections against attempts at controlling us.

by jabl 5y ago

the_af 5y ago

> What's fundamental is freedom for people. Computing freedom matters only as a means to that end. I agree, and I'm going to guess the person you're replying to also agrees. In fact, RMS would also agree. It's just that we are narrowly focusing on a single aspect of freedom in this conversation, but yes: freedom to live, to work, to education, to health, are all more important :)

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Are open source developers just a bunch of suckers being taken advantage of to provide building blocks for various proprietary business models? Perhaps. The whole point of the GPL is to give free software developers advantages and create leverage we can use against those who would exploit our labor. Permissive licenses allow that exploitation. In the end, it's irrelevant. All this software, all this positioning for advantages and leverage, none of it will matter if the machine itself is taken away from us. We'll never be truly free until computer manufacturing is as democratized as software development. Ideally we should be able to make computers at home. > No. What's fundamental is freedom for people. Absolutely. Computing freedom is a subset of personal freedom.

type0 5y ago
> We'll never be truly free until computer manufacturing is as democratized as software development. Ideally we should be able to make computers at home. If we had a few NGOs that were committed to freedom, were transparent and produced good hardware it would be a more reasonable option. Sure I can dream about the future where I can 3D print all electronics at home, but that computer wouldn't run very good and we all know this.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > If we had a few NGOs that were committed to freedom NGOs are still centralized operations that can easily be targeted and corrupted. We need decentralized manufacturing. Anyone should be able to make functioning computers and it should be impossible to stop or even regulate it. > the future where I can 3D print all electronics at home, but that computer wouldn't run very good It would be better than nothing. They may have relatively low performance but they would still be computers that are guaranteed to be free and completely under our control. The fact they exist at all would provide significant protections against attempts at controlling us.