6 ms·

Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010)

85 points by pabs3 2y ago

Almondsetat 2y ago
By this logic compiling free software on Windows is an "unacceptable cost" even though it allows people to become accustomed with free software programs and make the transition to a FOSS OS much easier
- alganet 2y ago
  Yes. To _depend_ on Windows would be a mistake in terms of freedom.
- kkfx 2y ago
  It is: because people who find, also thanks to FLOSS, a comfortable home on Windows will remain there instead of switching to a fully Free ecosystem.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    I gave up on the Year of Linux Desktop when Windows 7 came to be, and added VMWare Workstation into the mix, now replaced by WSL. No stranger to UNIX, using it across multiple vendors since Xenix was a Microsoft product, Linux Journal subscriber until its last published days, and still have UNIX/POSIX systems as part of day job. My favourite UNIX flavours were Solaris, Irix, NeXTSTEP/macOS, and if it is FLOSS, Public Domain, Open Core, Shareware, or WhateverWare I don't really care that much.
  - Almondsetat 2y ago
    Nobody "uses" the operating system. People interact with an UI that lets them run the programs they need. We can already switch most people to Linux (ChromeOS) because they mostly use a browser. In the same way, if most people already used FOSS tools they could seamlessly move to Linux
    - WillAdams 2y ago
      You're overlooking the matter of hardware support/requirements. I prefer to use tablets with a stylus, but specifically want a high-resolution display and Wacom EMR, and a file system and the ability to run arbitrary applications. Writing this out on a Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360 in Windows 11 because it's the only reasonably priced option (I despair of replacing my Fujitsu Stylistic ST-4110 since another need is for a daylight-viewable display, or my Book 12 which was small enough to fit in my day bag along w/ my Kindle Scribe). I am currently considering a Raspberry Pi 5 w/ a Wacom One 13 (2nd gen) or Wacom Movink 13, but this means that giving up high resolution (only 1920 × 1080) and battery and decent handwriting recognition... which is scarcely "seamless". Hoping that the Lenovo Yogabook 9i is popular enough that it will inaugurate a product category which will prompt Samsung to make a competitor w/ Wacom EMR which will be popular enough that folks will work out how to install Linux... (and I'd be interested in running Linux on my Book 3 Pro 360 as I used to run Lubuntu on NTFS on a Thinkpad convertible).
kkfx 2y ago
Free Software need free and widespread culture, that's why FLOSS today suffer much. To have developers we need people who develop, who own their machines rooms, and today most live on someone else computer. No knowing the infra, not possessing one means being not on free tools.
KingMob 2y ago
Also, Free Software creators should get compensated for their work by current free-riders in the system.
- kiba 2y ago
  Software developers often just give away FOSS for free, not even charging a nominal fee. As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Qem 2y ago
    Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Kind of, try to get hold of all those GCC forks used by embedded companies before clang came into the picture.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      >>As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software. >Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases. Copyleft only partially solves the problem. A company with enough resources can give you the code and you still can't effectively fork it unless you are also running a huge company, because making an incompatible product that lacks updates would be unacceptable. Other times, companies are so big that they essentially drive a whole open source ecosystem. Look at IBM's disproportionate influence on Linux. We certainly appreciate their contributions but many people disagree about the direction IBM has chosen, and their choices affect everyone because apps are usually built to cater to the lowest common denominator. Another good example is Chromium. That project is copyleft but nobody wants an old out of date web browser because of security concerns. Even Microsoft could not keep up with their feature development so they forked it. But how different is their fork really? If they are to take code from upstream, it can't be very different.
Galanwe 2y ago
I have no issue using closed source software when they are doing nothing of intellectual value. Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. GitHub does not fall in this category to me. There is of course smart and interesting engineering behind it, but functionally speaking its only added value is to be faster, more wide spread, and better UX than others.
- bbkane 2y ago
  I mostly agree, but I also rely on GitHub Copilot, CI/CD, issues, pages, and storage (for releases). And that's just for my simple little side projects! While I'm grateful GitHub is such a great service and provides these for free, I also worry about my reliance on it. Some languages (Rust for example) also rely on GitHub for package management (I think just for auth though).
- frou_dh 2y ago
  I think of this kind of thing as related to Lock-In. If some proprietary thing I use were to go away permanently, would that be a (perhaps significant) inconvenience, or would it be a disaster? If the former then there's not really lock-in and its more a "make hay while the sun shines" situation.
- remram 2y ago
  So you mean "GitHub does fall in this category" of "doing nothing of intellectual value"?
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. I've never heard this before. I was operating under the assumption that Free software was to keep us from being enslaved by the products we use, not that it was some kind of intellectual edification for people who enjoy coding. I actually don't care the tiniest bit about whether coders have sufficient intellectual stimulation, so it's weird that I care about Free software.
fph 2y ago
For a more modern facet to this issue, I'm surprised there isn't more teamwork around VSCodium, VS Code's free counterpart.
- skydhash 2y ago
  Almost everyone that uses VSCode don't care that much about the editor. They just want something to do the job. Most of the plugins are just glue code for integrations, not a true UX improvements for your workflow. Compare that to to Emacs and (Neo)Vim where all the plugins are about improving your workflows.
pentagrama 2y ago
The article was published in 2010, and GitLab—an open-source distributed version control system based on Git—was launched in 2014 [1]. I would like to know the author's thoughts on GitLab now. Do you think GitLab is underrated? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab
- taraparo 2y ago
  GitLab is open core not open source. Forgejo is true OSS.
  - tzs 2y ago
    Is that actually a useful distinction? All open core means is that a project has a true OSS core version plus non-open parts that provide extra features beyond what the OSS core offers. It can be the case that the OSS part of an open core project has the same or more features than a competing project that is all OSS.
    - WhyNotHugo 2y ago
      There is an inevitable conflict of interest when upstream is open core. Some features are proprietary, so users of the free edition can't use those features. But upstream also doesn't want to _improve_ the free version by including those features. For example, mirroring specific branches or a remote repository requires a Premium licence. Filtering branches based on a regex isn't a crazy complex feature, so somebody interesting in using it could potentially implement it and send a patch. But upstream has no motivation to accept such a patch: they already have this feature in their paid version. The distinction between open source and open core is (somewhat generalising) that an open source project will take improvements and fixes, but an open core project has motivations to reject specific improvements, because they charge a premium for those improvements in their proprietary offering.
  - jeltz 2y ago
    Are there any key features which is not in the open source version?
dkkergoog 2y ago
[dead]
dang 2y ago
Related: Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843609 - March 2022 (3 comments) Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17226169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17226169 - June 2018 (9 comments)

85 points by pabs3 2y ago

By this logic compiling free software on Windows is an "unacceptable cost" even though it allows people to become accustomed with free software programs and make the transition to a FOSS OS much easier

alganet 2y ago
Yes. To _depend_ on Windows would be a mistake in terms of freedom.
kkfx 2y ago
It is: because people who find, also thanks to FLOSS, a comfortable home on Windows will remain there instead of switching to a fully Free ecosystem.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  I gave up on the Year of Linux Desktop when Windows 7 came to be, and added VMWare Workstation into the mix, now replaced by WSL. No stranger to UNIX, using it across multiple vendors since Xenix was a Microsoft product, Linux Journal subscriber until its last published days, and still have UNIX/POSIX systems as part of day job. My favourite UNIX flavours were Solaris, Irix, NeXTSTEP/macOS, and if it is FLOSS, Public Domain, Open Core, Shareware, or WhateverWare I don't really care that much.
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  Nobody "uses" the operating system. People interact with an UI that lets them run the programs they need. We can already switch most people to Linux (ChromeOS) because they mostly use a browser. In the same way, if most people already used FOSS tools they could seamlessly move to Linux
  - WillAdams 2y ago
    You're overlooking the matter of hardware support/requirements. I prefer to use tablets with a stylus, but specifically want a high-resolution display and Wacom EMR, and a file system and the ability to run arbitrary applications. Writing this out on a Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360 in Windows 11 because it's the only reasonably priced option (I despair of replacing my Fujitsu Stylistic ST-4110 since another need is for a daylight-viewable display, or my Book 12 which was small enough to fit in my day bag along w/ my Kindle Scribe). I am currently considering a Raspberry Pi 5 w/ a Wacom One 13 (2nd gen) or Wacom Movink 13, but this means that giving up high resolution (only 1920 × 1080) and battery and decent handwriting recognition... which is scarcely "seamless". Hoping that the Lenovo Yogabook 9i is popular enough that it will inaugurate a product category which will prompt Samsung to make a competitor w/ Wacom EMR which will be popular enough that folks will work out how to install Linux... (and I'd be interested in running Linux on my Book 3 Pro 360 as I used to run Lubuntu on NTFS on a Thinkpad convertible).

kkfx 2y ago

Free Software need free and widespread culture, that's why FLOSS today suffer much. To have developers we need people who develop, who own their machines rooms, and today most live on someone else computer. No knowing the infra, not possessing one means being not on free tools.

KingMob 2y ago

Also, Free Software creators should get compensated for their work by current free-riders in the system.

kiba 2y ago
Software developers often just give away FOSS for free, not even charging a nominal fee. As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Qem 2y ago
  Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Kind of, try to get hold of all those GCC forks used by embedded companies before clang came into the picture.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >>As a result, proprietary software essentially has an unlimited money cheat that they can use to plow into further development until greed starts seriously degrading the quality of software. >Copyleft solves this. The problem is permissive licenses that lack copyleft, allowing privatization of codebases. Copyleft only partially solves the problem. A company with enough resources can give you the code and you still can't effectively fork it unless you are also running a huge company, because making an incompatible product that lacks updates would be unacceptable. Other times, companies are so big that they essentially drive a whole open source ecosystem. Look at IBM's disproportionate influence on Linux. We certainly appreciate their contributions but many people disagree about the direction IBM has chosen, and their choices affect everyone because apps are usually built to cater to the lowest common denominator. Another good example is Chromium. That project is copyleft but nobody wants an old out of date web browser because of security concerns. Even Microsoft could not keep up with their feature development so they forked it. But how different is their fork really? If they are to take code from upstream, it can't be very different.

Galanwe 2y ago

I have no issue using closed source software when they are doing nothing of intellectual value. Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. GitHub does not fall in this category to me. There is of course smart and interesting engineering behind it, but functionally speaking its only added value is to be faster, more wide spread, and better UX than others.

bbkane 2y ago
I mostly agree, but I also rely on GitHub Copilot, CI/CD, issues, pages, and storage (for releases). And that's just for my simple little side projects! While I'm grateful GitHub is such a great service and provides these for free, I also worry about my reliance on it. Some languages (Rust for example) also rely on GitHub for package management (I think just for auth though).
frou_dh 2y ago
I think of this kind of thing as related to Lock-In. If some proprietary thing I use were to go away permanently, would that be a (perhaps significant) inconvenience, or would it be a disaster? If the former then there's not really lock-in and its more a "make hay while the sun shines" situation.
remram 2y ago
So you mean "GitHub does fall in this category" of "doing nothing of intellectual value"?
pessimizer 2y ago
> Free software's very purpose is to ensure things of intellectual value can be understood, and knowledge cannot be locked up. I've never heard this before. I was operating under the assumption that Free software was to keep us from being enslaved by the products we use, not that it was some kind of intellectual edification for people who enjoy coding. I actually don't care the tiniest bit about whether coders have sufficient intellectual stimulation, so it's weird that I care about Free software.

fph 2y ago

For a more modern facet to this issue, I'm surprised there isn't more teamwork around VSCodium, VS Code's free counterpart.

skydhash 2y ago
Almost everyone that uses VSCode don't care that much about the editor. They just want something to do the job. Most of the plugins are just glue code for integrations, not a true UX improvements for your workflow. Compare that to to Emacs and (Neo)Vim where all the plugins are about improving your workflows.

pentagrama 2y ago

The article was published in 2010, and GitLab—an open-source distributed version control system based on Git—was launched in 2014 [1]. I would like to know the author's thoughts on GitLab now. Do you think GitLab is underrated? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GitLab

taraparo 2y ago
GitLab is open core not open source. Forgejo is true OSS.
- tzs 2y ago
  Is that actually a useful distinction? All open core means is that a project has a true OSS core version plus non-open parts that provide extra features beyond what the OSS core offers. It can be the case that the OSS part of an open core project has the same or more features than a competing project that is all OSS.
  - WhyNotHugo 2y ago
    There is an inevitable conflict of interest when upstream is open core. Some features are proprietary, so users of the free edition can't use those features. But upstream also doesn't want to _improve_ the free version by including those features. For example, mirroring specific branches or a remote repository requires a Premium licence. Filtering branches based on a regex isn't a crazy complex feature, so somebody interesting in using it could potentially implement it and send a patch. But upstream has no motivation to accept such a patch: they already have this feature in their paid version. The distinction between open source and open core is (somewhat generalising) that an open source project will take improvements and fixes, but an open core project has motivations to reject specific improvements, because they charge a premium for those improvements in their proprietary offering.
- jeltz 2y ago
  Are there any key features which is not in the open source version?

dkkergoog 2y ago

[dead]

dang 2y ago

Related: Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30843609 - March 2022 (3 comments) Free Software Needs Free Tools (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17226169 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17226169 - June 2018 (9 comments)