4 ms·

You know, there are people who consciously select proprietary software because, for example, they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it. They simp

You know, there are people who consciously select proprietary software because, for example, they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it. They simply don’t care. They value their relationship with a supplier and care only that it works. Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. You are lucky enough to make it from open source? Well, good for you! You are very privileged.

darkwater 4y ago
> Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Saying that proprietary software is moral is just as dogmatic, no?
- goodpoint 4y ago
  And, on top of that, it's false. Downvoted to -1 for not liking some faux-open-source stuff. So much for the hacker spirit of "hacker" news!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  No, it's only logical. Immoral is an extreme form of perverse and malevolent morality, or the lack of it. Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances. Immoral is also a subjective judgment, morality changes according to time, place, culture etc Let's talk about ethics next time So labeling something you don't like immoral is as dogmatic as labeling the abortion immoral just because 3 thousand years ago some guy wrote it in a book of fiction, while thinking that is not immoral means, in the majority of the cases, having no such strong opinion on other people's decisions, which we would consider the "obvious" choice not the dogmatic one.
  - V-2 4y ago
    "Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances." This is arguing semantics, and we're somewhat straying away from the subject, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case. At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, clearly associating moral with "right behavior". "Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral. Neutral attitudes aren't moral, right attitudes count as moral.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, what definition? moral comes from Latin moralis, which translates to "manners" or "behavior" in this context software cannot be immoral, only people can, things have no moralis. In this context, again, considering it immoral can be a dogmatic position, NOT considering it immoral it's not Nobody said that proprietary software is virtuous, but simply that it is not immoral. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible (and happened) that people developing free software have little or no morality (see Hans Reiser and Reiserfs) > Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral The context is: is not considering VS Code immoral dogmatic? The answer is no. Being neutral about it is part of not considering it immoral. Morality includes both good and bad.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  Have I said that?
paskozdilar 4y ago
> they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it > They value their relationship with a supplier There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. > Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. > Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  > There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. But they have choice, no? They are free to use any existing alternative. So why do you care? > Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. Great for you. So you made your choice, there's plenty of software you can modify to choose from. Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? > And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. You know, I do a lot of open source code but I can see the other side of the coin. Which brings me to your last point: > Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. But there are a lot of jobs out there depending on some proprietary software built by some (mega)corp that is lucky enough to have some paying customers who are happy to pay for it. They maybe don't care about their freedom because it's irrelevant to them. They care that it works the way things are advertised and someone does support for them. > Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral. I wasn't even trying.

darkwater 4y ago

> Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. You have a choice not to use any of it but don’t cross off people who choose otherwise. Saying that proprietary software is moral is just as dogmatic, no?

goodpoint 4y ago
And, on top of that, it's false. Downvoted to -1 for not liking some faux-open-source stuff. So much for the hacker spirit of "hacker" news!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
No, it's only logical. Immoral is an extreme form of perverse and malevolent morality, or the lack of it. Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances. Immoral is also a subjective judgment, morality changes according to time, place, culture etc Let's talk about ethics next time So labeling something you don't like immoral is as dogmatic as labeling the abortion immoral just because 3 thousand years ago some guy wrote it in a book of fiction, while thinking that is not immoral means, in the majority of the cases, having no such strong opinion on other people's decisions, which we would consider the "obvious" choice not the dogmatic one.
- V-2 4y ago
  "Moral simply means "all the spectrum of things that are not immoral", or not immoral, which is a much larger category with a lot more nuances." This is arguing semantics, and we're somewhat straying away from the subject, but I'm not sure if that's actually the case. At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, clearly associating moral with "right behavior". "Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral. Neutral attitudes aren't moral, right attitudes count as moral.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > At least most dictionaries would disagree with your definition, what definition? moral comes from Latin moralis, which translates to "manners" or "behavior" in this context software cannot be immoral, only people can, things have no moralis. In this context, again, considering it immoral can be a dogmatic position, NOT considering it immoral it's not Nobody said that proprietary software is virtuous, but simply that it is not immoral. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible (and happened) that people developing free software have little or no morality (see Hans Reiser and Reiserfs) > Moral" - in the discussed context - doesn't simply mean non-immoral The context is: is not considering VS Code immoral dogmatic? The answer is no. Being neutral about it is part of not considering it immoral. Morality includes both good and bad.
rad_gruchalski 4y ago
Have I said that?

paskozdilar 4y ago

> they don’t want to deal with complexities of managing it > They value their relationship with a supplier There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. > Such dogmatic views like “proprietary software is immoral” do not help anyone. Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. > Software engineers in vast majority do not live from donations. Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
> There's nothing inherent about proprietary software that makes it convenient. Convenience is completely orthogonal to freedom. I get reminded of that every time I hear Windows-using friends' stories about their files getting deleted/drivers uninstalled/audio cards burned after Windows Update. Meanwhile, the free software world has been getting better and better as the time goes by. GNU/Linux just works for me nowdays. But they have choice, no? They are free to use any existing alternative. So why do you care? > Such views are not dogmatic, they are based on very practical arguments - for me the most important argument is "I don't want to run programs whose behavior I cannot change in case I need to". I don't want to let another person, let alone a corporation, run a program on my machine unless I (have a way to) know what it does. Great for you. So you made your choice, there's plenty of software you can modify to choose from. Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? > And such views they help everybody, because proprietary software gives developers unjust power over their users. Owners of the computing machines ought to have control over what computation their machines do, it's their natural right by being owners of their computing machines. The sooner we get rid of proprietary software, the better it is for everyone, except the poor megacorps that will have to find yet another way to extract money without bringing value. You know, I do a lot of open source code but I can see the other side of the coin. Which brings me to your last point: > Software engineers can work regular day jobs, and still develop free software. Red Hat for example. Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. But there are a lot of jobs out there depending on some proprietary software built by some (mega)corp that is lucky enough to have some paying customers who are happy to pay for it. They maybe don't care about their freedom because it's irrelevant to them. They care that it works the way things are advertised and someone does support for them. > Not one of your arguments has convinced me that proprietary software is not completely immoral. I wasn't even trying.