5 ms·

Maybe it’s dying because it already succeeded in its goals. That’s a good thing. From my myopic perspective, RMS is FSF. And he has changed the discussion aroun

by cgio 4y ago

Maybe it’s dying because it already succeeded in its goals. That’s a good thing. From my myopic perspective, RMS is FSF. And he has changed the discussion around software forever. Now we need another kind of freedom, we feel it but cannot articulate it. And whoever articulates it, I wish them all the best, whether they do so under the banner of FSF or something else. One thing I am almost sure of is that whatever watering down of FSF message, as I feel this article suggests, will not be it.

dale_glass 4y ago
> Maybe it’s dying because it already succeeded in its goals. Not really? Stallman obviously wants everything possible to be GPL licensed and harped on about GNU/Linux for decades, and so far all that is gradually fading away. The modern landscape is much different from when things started, the core tools are a far smaller proportion of a modern OS and have been rewritten many times since, including in non-GPL licenses. These days there's efforts to rewrite them in Rust, usually not under the GPL. I think under better management the FSF would do a better job of dealing with this. Both in watching for new developments and making sure not to lose relevance (eg, IMO the FSF should lead the effort to build new Rust-based versions of the GNU tools), and in being in touch with the modern tech landscape (eg, cloud)
dagw 4y ago
Maybe it’s dying because it already succeeded in its goals. I'm pretty sure they don't see it that way. The last big ideological 'war' was between FSF and OSI and it's quite clear that FSF lost. Open source proponents successfully allied with and used the FSF the launch their own platform to achieve their goals. Once their goals where achieved they dropped the FSF in the dust. In fact the FSF lost so badly most people don't even remembers what they fought for or even that they lost.
rollcat 3y ago
> Now we need another kind of freedom, we feel it but cannot articulate it. Simple: empower the user. Focus on the user's freedom to do things. I think FSF's goals can be easily rephrased in terms of that "new" freedom, while remaining consistent with the original vision. I also think this is where free software is failing very hard in the recent decades. I was running Debian+SailfishOS as my daily drivers up until 2019, when I completely switched to the Apple ecosystem, after one simple realisation: it empowered me and granted me the freedom to do more with my devices. There is no intrinsic reason why Apple is better at empowering their users than FOSS is, I think it's the exact opposite: FOSS as a principle and as a development practice has proven over and over again that it can compete with, and even take out proprietary juggernauts - in spaces other than personal computing. I have on my desk (just for fun) a PowerBook G4 (2001) with OSX 10.5 (2007), and I think that machine + OS is still ahead in usability vs a modern release of KDE or Gnome. I don't know, I don't think bridging that gap is impossible, but that might require unthinkable compromises like acknowledging the need for proprietary Wifi firmware, CPU microcode, or single sign-on for Google/Outlook/iCloud mail and calendar. So I'm not sure if it will ever happen.

by cgio 4y ago

dale_glass 4y ago

> Maybe it’s dying because it already succeeded in its goals. Not really? Stallman obviously wants everything possible to be GPL licensed and harped on about GNU/Linux for decades, and so far all that is gradually fading away. The modern landscape is much different from when things started, the core tools are a far smaller proportion of a modern OS and have been rewritten many times since, including in non-GPL licenses. These days there's efforts to rewrite them in Rust, usually not under the GPL. I think under better management the FSF would do a better job of dealing with this. Both in watching for new developments and making sure not to lose relevance (eg, IMO the FSF should lead the effort to build new Rust-based versions of the GNU tools), and in being in touch with the modern tech landscape (eg, cloud)

dagw 4y ago

Maybe it’s dying because it already succeeded in its goals. I'm pretty sure they don't see it that way. The last big ideological 'war' was between FSF and OSI and it's quite clear that FSF lost. Open source proponents successfully allied with and used the FSF the launch their own platform to achieve their goals. Once their goals where achieved they dropped the FSF in the dust. In fact the FSF lost so badly most people don't even remembers what they fought for or even that they lost.

rollcat 3y ago

> Now we need another kind of freedom, we feel it but cannot articulate it. Simple: empower the user. Focus on the user's freedom to do things. I think FSF's goals can be easily rephrased in terms of that "new" freedom, while remaining consistent with the original vision. I also think this is where free software is failing very hard in the recent decades. I was running Debian+SailfishOS as my daily drivers up until 2019, when I completely switched to the Apple ecosystem, after one simple realisation: it empowered me and granted me the freedom to do more with my devices. There is no intrinsic reason why Apple is better at empowering their users than FOSS is, I think it's the exact opposite: FOSS as a principle and as a development practice has proven over and over again that it can compete with, and even take out proprietary juggernauts - in spaces other than personal computing. I have on my desk (just for fun) a PowerBook G4 (2001) with OSX 10.5 (2007), and I think that machine + OS is still ahead in usability vs a modern release of KDE or Gnome. I don't know, I don't think bridging that gap is impossible, but that might require unthinkable compromises like acknowledging the need for proprietary Wifi firmware, CPU microcode, or single sign-on for Google/Outlook/iCloud mail and calendar. So I'm not sure if it will ever happen.