7 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  > why do you care? Why wouldn't I care? What kind of person wouldn't like to make the world a better place for everybody? Free software makes this world better for everybody. > Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? It doesn't bother me, I support personal freedom to use proprietary software. What I don't support is proprietary software itself. > Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. Right now, they are. But it doesn't have to be that way. This might sound idealistic, and it is, because free software is about freedom, which is in itself an ideal. I am quite aware that proprietary software is still widespread. That doesn't mean I can't believe in a future without it. > I wasn't even trying. Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place?
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    > Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place? Presenting a point of view alternative to yours. I’m not changing the world here.
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    I would like to understand one more thing regarding your point of view: do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral? As in, do you believe that all software should be source available, free to modify and distribute?
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      > do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral They are in contradiction with basic freedom to use the program for any purpose you wish, so yes. Imagine borrowing a hammer from a friend and having police knock on your door because you haven't paid the hammer making company a license fee.
      - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
        But you do understand that even Red Hat has paid, licensed SKUs and the reason why Red Hat can support its “contribute and sell services” approach is partially because of their licensed products. You do understand that if your expectation for all proprietary products to disappear was to become true, you most likely rendered all software engineers to work for free. Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? With the hammer. Well, your friend bought the hammer. Someone paid for it. Who pays in your model?

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.

paskozdilar 4y ago
> why do you care? Why wouldn't I care? What kind of person wouldn't like to make the world a better place for everybody? Free software makes this world better for everybody. > Why does it bother you that some people do not care about that, whatever their reason is? It doesn't bother me, I support personal freedom to use proprietary software. What I don't support is proprietary software itself. > Do you? People who can do that are the lucky ones. Right now, they are. But it doesn't have to be that way. This might sound idealistic, and it is, because free software is about freedom, which is in itself an ideal. I am quite aware that proprietary software is still widespread. That doesn't mean I can't believe in a future without it. > I wasn't even trying. Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place?
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  > Then, what's the point of us communicating in the first place? Presenting a point of view alternative to yours. I’m not changing the world here.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  I would like to understand one more thing regarding your point of view: do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral? As in, do you believe that all software should be source available, free to modify and distribute?
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    > do you find licenses prohibiting commercial use without a payment also immoral They are in contradiction with basic freedom to use the program for any purpose you wish, so yes. Imagine borrowing a hammer from a friend and having police knock on your door because you haven't paid the hammer making company a license fee.
    - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
      But you do understand that even Red Hat has paid, licensed SKUs and the reason why Red Hat can support its “contribute and sell services” approach is partially because of their licensed products. You do understand that if your expectation for all proprietary products to disappear was to become true, you most likely rendered all software engineers to work for free. Because, let’s face it, who is going to pay for their time if there’s nothing to gain in return? With the hammer. Well, your friend bought the hammer. Someone paid for it. Who pays in your model?