4 ms·
Precisely. It's hard to argue that these "dystopian corporate" entities haven't added any value to the society. You can make a solid case that the intangible co
by noufalibrahim 3y ago
Precisely. It's hard to argue that these "dystopian corporate" entities haven't added any value to the society. You can make a solid case that the intangible costs are too high but starting off with accusing them of "slave labor" and "locked-in cash cows" is a non starter and it's been the kind of rhetoric that the FSF has always used.
I don't (and never wanted) the FSF to dilute its message but I do think they'd benefit from someone who can communicate their ideas in a more palatable way. Perhaps it's too late anyway.
- shadowgovt 3y agoI think they often serve a useful purpose moving the Overton window... But it's why I can nod respectfully at them from over here, but not join them. The core of the free software movement embraces a radicalism that's out of line with reality and would actually reflect a worse world than the one we live in (who's going to make locked-down systems for people who don't want to be their own sysadmins if we actually kill off the closed-corporate model? I, for one, am not stepping up to volunteer to be the one who does that for all my relatives who are a stone's throw away from getting their stuff ownzed if they had admin rights to it).
- mbakke 3y agoThat's a false dichotomy. It's possible to have a locked down device that allows full access/visibility if you jump through enough hoops. (Android is almost there, software wise, but closed vendor firmwares are still rampant).