9 ms·

He is the one who we need now, in the era of saas/cloud run by big tech. So sad.

elliotec 3y ago
We’ve always needed him, and just haven’t listened.
_cenw 3y ago
I always thought the advocacy was fundamentally correct, but way too distanced from achievable and realistic compromises within a system that wants profit over everything. The only real path would've been through legislation, and now we're back to setting your expectations to realistic.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  I mean, he succeeded in at least giving everyone the choice. I happily run entirely free software on my computers. But yes, it needs legislation to switch off copyright for software and make computing a human right.
  - HYTjfZKV96gUpz 3y ago
    > I happily run entirely free software on my computers You do? No graphics card? No (good) games? No firmware? And if so, how much of a premium did you pay for the lack of scale from your hardware vendor alone?
    - a-french-anon 3y ago
      >No (good) games Quake 3 is still free, you know.
      - achenet 3y ago
        0AD as well is pretty sweet :)
    - globular-toast 3y ago
      Intel graphics. Drivers in the kernel. I don't play games. Firmware, probably, but my computer is a computer. I prefer to look at the positives in life. Literally the biggest companies in the world don't want people to have free software, yet we still do. It's been a hard battle at times. I was there in early 00s when running GNU/Linux sucked in many ways. Now it's an absolute joy.
- missingET 3y ago
  Although I never find myself agreeing fully with them, ideological absolutists who refuse compromise are actually useful as some kind of anchors to the Overton window. They are not the ones ending up negotiating the actual realistic solutions but their activism helps shifting the equilibrium. If your side of the argument is all compromise-makers trying to meet people halfway you often end up giving up more than you’re comfortable with. Both types of people play a useful part.
  - a-french-anon 3y ago
    Not when the power balance is this big. Against big tech who has the resources to wear any conciliating opposition down, you think you're just compromising like a "mature adult", until the next time, where you're forced to compromise on your compromise and so on. Give them an inch and they'll take (or more precisely, they took) a mile.
    - missingET 3y ago
      You can’t really negotiate with corporations on what they do. On this kind of topic negotiations are at the political level and whether you like it or not they will take the unsavory position of large corporations into account. A total refusal to compromise can end up leaving your side out of the discussion and end up with worse regulation. Uncompromising idealists just don’t have the leverage to make impactful threats of leaving the negotiation table. That doesn’t mean you should not draw lines and do your best to hold them. But if the line is already crossed you can still do good negotiating, as unpleasant as it is. If there are no “soft mature adults” there to be heard, no one is heard. But your point that giving an inch ends up losing you a mile absolutely stands: this is what I was saying about absolutists being anchors, they allow the soft negotiators to start from a stricter position before the negotiation starts. A group made up entirely of “reasonable compromising people”, however, is terrible because they start from a weakened position that they view as a reasonable compromise. However, there will be negotiations and you will end up giving away some inches unless you have a lot of power. I absolutely value your un-negotiable position, but don’t underestimate what moderates can do representing it in a politically-acceptable, watered-down way.
  - 3y ago
tored 3y ago
It is always good to remind yourself that the worlds largest spy company, Google, uses Free software to run much of it.
- yura 3y ago
  Your point being? I don't see how it's relevant that Google uses free software. RMS is probably happy that they do. Of course, they should stop spying on people, but I don't see how that's related to their use of free software.
  - tored 3y ago
    Common argument from Free software advocates is that violation of user's rights is a consequence of proprietary software. With Google you can even make an argument that they can violate more user's rights because of Free software. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Free software per see, the topic is just more complex than what is presented.
loxdalen 3y ago
Does he really turn against SaaS/Cloud? Software that doesn't run on your computer doesn't necessarily need to be in your control, right? As long as the clients are free.
- KronisLV 3y ago
  > Software that doesn't run on your computer doesn't necessarily need to be in your control, right? As long as the clients are free. I really liked the idea of Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... It's gotten to the point where most cloud services are no longer managed instances of open source or even compatible software. You could take a managed cloud PostgreSQL instance and migrate to something self-hosted if the prices were to hike up or something else happened that would necessitate it. But how many of the cloud services in your stack does that apply to? Geocoding or routing? Push notifications and messaging? Payment gateways? Authentication and authorization solutions? File storage solutions? Web Application Firewalls?
  - loxdalen 3y ago
    Thank you, that was an enlightening text, made me understand better GNUs view of SaaS. There are many cases where running a self hosted version is not feasible, which are also mentioned in the text. Social media and other services where the information is an important part of the service or software that can not be run on my own machine due to limits in my hardware. But outsourcing simple calculations that can be done locally is a bad thing I agree.
    - KronisLV 3y ago
      > Social media and other services where the information is an important part of the service or software that can not be run on my own machine due to limits in my hardware. I mean, fediverse sites like Mastodon or Lemmy, or even something like PeerTube show that it's possible to at least run instances of a larger federated service, albeit the user experience could be better (the average person asking "What do you mean, I have to pick a server to join?"). Admittedly, video hosting is the hardest due to space and bandwidth requirements, though perhaps the real reason why none of these platforms see real widespread success is the network effect - most people already are pretty comfortably in popular walled gardens and don't feel like they want to switch to anything else.
kaba0 3y ago
I do hope he gets better, but no, not at all do we “need” him. His accomplishments are way overblown and due to his shitty personality he probably alienated more contributors than whatever actual positives he has ever made.
- omgmajk 3y ago
  > His accomplishments are way overblown Say what you will about his personality, you don't have to like him but saying that his accomplishments are way overblown is a terrible take. His work flows through every part of the GNU land and it's used by almost every tech person on the planet to some extent.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  There’s the man, and there’s the symbol and ideas. We need the symbol and ideas.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
SaaS/cloud run by big tech is fundamentally the right approach.
- minebreaker 3y ago
  I'm curious why. While I agree that they have some advantages, "fundamentally the right approach" is a very strong opinion.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  It's the right approach to making money. For the big tech companies.
- rollo 3y ago
  But it obviously is not?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

We’ve always needed him, and just haven’t listened.

I always thought the advocacy was fundamentally correct, but way too distanced from achievable and realistic compromises within a system that wants profit over everything. The only real path would've been through legislation, and now we're back to setting your expectations to realistic.

globular-toast 3y ago
I mean, he succeeded in at least giving everyone the choice. I happily run entirely free software on my computers. But yes, it needs legislation to switch off copyright for software and make computing a human right.
- HYTjfZKV96gUpz 3y ago
  > I happily run entirely free software on my computers You do? No graphics card? No (good) games? No firmware? And if so, how much of a premium did you pay for the lack of scale from your hardware vendor alone?
  - a-french-anon 3y ago
    >No (good) games Quake 3 is still free, you know.
    - achenet 3y ago
      0AD as well is pretty sweet :)
  - globular-toast 3y ago
    Intel graphics. Drivers in the kernel. I don't play games. Firmware, probably, but my computer is a computer. I prefer to look at the positives in life. Literally the biggest companies in the world don't want people to have free software, yet we still do. It's been a hard battle at times. I was there in early 00s when running GNU/Linux sucked in many ways. Now it's an absolute joy.
missingET 3y ago
Although I never find myself agreeing fully with them, ideological absolutists who refuse compromise are actually useful as some kind of anchors to the Overton window. They are not the ones ending up negotiating the actual realistic solutions but their activism helps shifting the equilibrium. If your side of the argument is all compromise-makers trying to meet people halfway you often end up giving up more than you’re comfortable with. Both types of people play a useful part.
- a-french-anon 3y ago
  Not when the power balance is this big. Against big tech who has the resources to wear any conciliating opposition down, you think you're just compromising like a "mature adult", until the next time, where you're forced to compromise on your compromise and so on. Give them an inch and they'll take (or more precisely, they took) a mile.
  - missingET 3y ago
    You can’t really negotiate with corporations on what they do. On this kind of topic negotiations are at the political level and whether you like it or not they will take the unsavory position of large corporations into account. A total refusal to compromise can end up leaving your side out of the discussion and end up with worse regulation. Uncompromising idealists just don’t have the leverage to make impactful threats of leaving the negotiation table. That doesn’t mean you should not draw lines and do your best to hold them. But if the line is already crossed you can still do good negotiating, as unpleasant as it is. If there are no “soft mature adults” there to be heard, no one is heard. But your point that giving an inch ends up losing you a mile absolutely stands: this is what I was saying about absolutists being anchors, they allow the soft negotiators to start from a stricter position before the negotiation starts. A group made up entirely of “reasonable compromising people”, however, is terrible because they start from a weakened position that they view as a reasonable compromise. However, there will be negotiations and you will end up giving away some inches unless you have a lot of power. I absolutely value your un-negotiable position, but don’t underestimate what moderates can do representing it in a politically-acceptable, watered-down way.
- 3y ago

tored 3y ago

It is always good to remind yourself that the worlds largest spy company, Google, uses Free software to run much of it.

yura 3y ago
Your point being? I don't see how it's relevant that Google uses free software. RMS is probably happy that they do. Of course, they should stop spying on people, but I don't see how that's related to their use of free software.
- tored 3y ago
  Common argument from Free software advocates is that violation of user's rights is a consequence of proprietary software. With Google you can even make an argument that they can violate more user's rights because of Free software. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Free software per see, the topic is just more complex than what is presented.

loxdalen 3y ago

Does he really turn against SaaS/Cloud? Software that doesn't run on your computer doesn't necessarily need to be in your control, right? As long as the clients are free.

KronisLV 3y ago
> Software that doesn't run on your computer doesn't necessarily need to be in your control, right? As long as the clients are free. I really liked the idea of Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s... It's gotten to the point where most cloud services are no longer managed instances of open source or even compatible software. You could take a managed cloud PostgreSQL instance and migrate to something self-hosted if the prices were to hike up or something else happened that would necessitate it. But how many of the cloud services in your stack does that apply to? Geocoding or routing? Push notifications and messaging? Payment gateways? Authentication and authorization solutions? File storage solutions? Web Application Firewalls?
- loxdalen 3y ago
  Thank you, that was an enlightening text, made me understand better GNUs view of SaaS. There are many cases where running a self hosted version is not feasible, which are also mentioned in the text. Social media and other services where the information is an important part of the service or software that can not be run on my own machine due to limits in my hardware. But outsourcing simple calculations that can be done locally is a bad thing I agree.
  - KronisLV 3y ago
    > Social media and other services where the information is an important part of the service or software that can not be run on my own machine due to limits in my hardware. I mean, fediverse sites like Mastodon or Lemmy, or even something like PeerTube show that it's possible to at least run instances of a larger federated service, albeit the user experience could be better (the average person asking "What do you mean, I have to pick a server to join?"). Admittedly, video hosting is the hardest due to space and bandwidth requirements, though perhaps the real reason why none of these platforms see real widespread success is the network effect - most people already are pretty comfortably in popular walled gardens and don't feel like they want to switch to anything else.

kaba0 3y ago

I do hope he gets better, but no, not at all do we “need” him. His accomplishments are way overblown and due to his shitty personality he probably alienated more contributors than whatever actual positives he has ever made.

omgmajk 3y ago
> His accomplishments are way overblown Say what you will about his personality, you don't have to like him but saying that his accomplishments are way overblown is a terrible take. His work flows through every part of the GNU land and it's used by almost every tech person on the planet to some extent.
loup-vaillant 3y ago
There’s the man, and there’s the symbol and ideas. We need the symbol and ideas.

flanked-evergl 3y ago

SaaS/cloud run by big tech is fundamentally the right approach.

minebreaker 3y ago
I'm curious why. While I agree that they have some advantages, "fundamentally the right approach" is a very strong opinion.
bluescrn 3y ago
It's the right approach to making money. For the big tech companies.
rollo 3y ago
But it obviously is not?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]