4 ms·

People are struggling with what I think of as the pyrrhic victory of open source software. Vast swathes of computing is done with OSS, yet there is very little

People are struggling with what I think of as the pyrrhic victory of open source software. Vast swathes of computing is done with OSS, yet there is very little software freedom for actual people, because it’s all running in megacorps data centres with all the data locked away. Essentially, the intention of copyleft to increase software freedom, which is the overall mission, has foundered. It is didn’t work and need revising. Smaller companies are an ally of convenience here.

rglullis 3y ago
No, the problem is that people conflating "free as in speech" with "free as in beer". Data is locked in megacorps because people are giving away their freedoms in exchange of convenience. > the overall mission, has foundered. Absolutely not. I've never had so much freedom on how to do computing.
- thejohnconway 3y ago
  I don't think the intention of OSS was to make computing more free for a tiny elite who are will to live with quite a lot of inconvenience. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't think the average computer user is more free in their software use than they were, say, 10 years ago. Or 20.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    1) The average user has a lot more choices of free systems to use. That they still prefer to lock themselves to a closed platform is not a failure of FOSS. 2) in the worst case analysis, FOSS trickle downs to people. Eg: WhatsApp could only have started if we had FOSS. It may have been colored by Facebook, but at the end of the day it was thanks to it that the "non-elite" managed to disrupt the telcos and offer messaging for free.
    - thejohnconway 3y ago
      It absolutely is a failure of FOSS. It was supposed to be viral, leading to greater software freedom for all. The strategy has been countered and subverted by running FOSS on servers people don’t control. Half the world’s communication being under the control of one company with a dictator is hardly a success.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        Are we arguing over "freedom from" and "freedom to"? I don't like that so many people preferred to go for a closed solution and I certainly don't like virtual monopolies, but people are there out of their own volition. 30 years ago, there was no real alternative for Windows on the desktop. All productivity tools were closed. Today, people buy iPhones and sign up to Instagram/TikTok because they want to. What would you propose, to have Stallman pointing a gun to everyone who didn't attend a install fest?
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > 30 years ago But they were comparing to "10 years ago. Or 20." > What would you propose, to have Stallman pointing a gun to everyone who didn't attend a install fest? If I can propose wild things, then I'll propose that something forces big hosting companies to share their code. And data freedom is an important issue that has a huge overlap with software freedom. I like the EU's movement toward forcing export and interoperability for big entities.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > But they were comparing to "10 years ago. Or 20." Linux only became a viable desktop around 2010. Blender was open sourced in the early 2000. StarOffice was a viable alternative to MS Office 2003.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Yes...? The more things you list that are before the year(s) they used as reference points, the more you support their argument that software freedom peaked a while ago and has been going downhill in major ways in more recent years.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > the problem is that people conflating "free as in speech" with "free as in beer" Huh? Where? I don't see how that confusion applies to the tradeoffs discussed here.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Basically everyone who complains about proprietary/closed software and platforms and claims to "support" FOSS but never put their money where their mouths are. Every company that pays through the nose for their cloud hosting, but does not allocate anything in their budget to support the downstream projects. Every owner of a pricey Apple device who claims "they need something that just works" but never spared a few dollars per month to contribute to the development of free alternatives. If a fraction of these people realized that quality free software takes money to be developed, and were willing to invest in it, the FOSS funding issue would be solved. The problem is, people are not willing to pay for R&D, they just want to pay for the finished product.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      People not wanting to pay for things is a big problem in that way, yes. But the problem is not because they're conflating it with "free as in speech". They're ignoring that aspect entirely.

rglullis 3y ago

No, the problem is that people conflating "free as in speech" with "free as in beer". Data is locked in megacorps because people are giving away their freedoms in exchange of convenience. > the overall mission, has foundered. Absolutely not. I've never had so much freedom on how to do computing.

thejohnconway 3y ago
I don't think the intention of OSS was to make computing more free for a tiny elite who are will to live with quite a lot of inconvenience. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't think the average computer user is more free in their software use than they were, say, 10 years ago. Or 20.
- rglullis 3y ago
  1) The average user has a lot more choices of free systems to use. That they still prefer to lock themselves to a closed platform is not a failure of FOSS. 2) in the worst case analysis, FOSS trickle downs to people. Eg: WhatsApp could only have started if we had FOSS. It may have been colored by Facebook, but at the end of the day it was thanks to it that the "non-elite" managed to disrupt the telcos and offer messaging for free.
  - thejohnconway 3y ago
    It absolutely is a failure of FOSS. It was supposed to be viral, leading to greater software freedom for all. The strategy has been countered and subverted by running FOSS on servers people don’t control. Half the world’s communication being under the control of one company with a dictator is hardly a success.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Are we arguing over "freedom from" and "freedom to"? I don't like that so many people preferred to go for a closed solution and I certainly don't like virtual monopolies, but people are there out of their own volition. 30 years ago, there was no real alternative for Windows on the desktop. All productivity tools were closed. Today, people buy iPhones and sign up to Instagram/TikTok because they want to. What would you propose, to have Stallman pointing a gun to everyone who didn't attend a install fest?
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > 30 years ago But they were comparing to "10 years ago. Or 20." > What would you propose, to have Stallman pointing a gun to everyone who didn't attend a install fest? If I can propose wild things, then I'll propose that something forces big hosting companies to share their code. And data freedom is an important issue that has a huge overlap with software freedom. I like the EU's movement toward forcing export and interoperability for big entities.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > But they were comparing to "10 years ago. Or 20." Linux only became a viable desktop around 2010. Blender was open sourced in the early 2000. StarOffice was a viable alternative to MS Office 2003.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        Yes...? The more things you list that are before the year(s) they used as reference points, the more you support their argument that software freedom peaked a while ago and has been going downhill in major ways in more recent years.
Dylan16807 3y ago
> the problem is that people conflating "free as in speech" with "free as in beer" Huh? Where? I don't see how that confusion applies to the tradeoffs discussed here.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Basically everyone who complains about proprietary/closed software and platforms and claims to "support" FOSS but never put their money where their mouths are. Every company that pays through the nose for their cloud hosting, but does not allocate anything in their budget to support the downstream projects. Every owner of a pricey Apple device who claims "they need something that just works" but never spared a few dollars per month to contribute to the development of free alternatives. If a fraction of these people realized that quality free software takes money to be developed, and were willing to invest in it, the FOSS funding issue would be solved. The problem is, people are not willing to pay for R&D, they just want to pay for the finished product.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    People not wanting to pay for things is a big problem in that way, yes. But the problem is not because they're conflating it with "free as in speech". They're ignoring that aspect entirely.