3 ms·

> Free Software isn't for hackers. It's for users. Hackers are also users, but they're not special. This is exactly the dated attitude that I think the author

> Free Software isn't for hackers. It's for users. Hackers are also users, but they're not special. This is exactly the dated attitude that I think the author is talking about. Free software is for programmers. Once upon a time that was a distinction without a difference. Today, the fraction of users who can take advantage of source code rounds to zero. Yet, FOSS advocates keep beating this drum to “users” while entirely ignoring the reality that today’s users are interested an entirely different value proposition than they’re offering. Computers aren’t professional tools anymore. They are commodities. Computer users want source code like grocery store shoppers want a tractor and a plot of land.

singpolyma3 2y ago
Free software is definitely not for programmers
- kube-system 2y ago
  Source code is not useful unless someone is capable of using it.
  - singpolyma3 2y ago
    Free software isn't about source code either. One of the four freedoms often gets a note that you need source code to make modifications, but this is not the focus, the focus is on being able to control your computing. source code is one very small possible prerequisite to some of that in some cases, but if all you have is source code you don't have freedom.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      i can't control my computing without source code. free software without source code is like freeware. even if i am not a developer myself, every time i had a problem with an application, i was able to find a fork that fixed the problem. without source code that would not have been possible.
      - 6510 2y ago
        First we didn't know what software we needed. People wrote all kinds with all kinds of licenses. It served us well but we will eventually need to see what the applications are doing. There shall be no privacy or security on any level until we know what is done. It's like having masked strangers in your house unsupervised. Whatever the excuse was for inviting them in they will eventually have to leave.
      - singpolyma3 2y ago
        Access to source code is often a basic prerequisite to make changes, but the freedoms are for study and change those are what matter. Especially change
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bruce511 2y ago
Not sure why you are bring downvoted. Your argument is clear, and drives the discussion forward. I would agree that Free Software can (and is) used by everyone but only a very tiny fraction are able to exercise any of the Freedoms it advances. But that's OK. My mom doesn't know the difference between Windows and Linux, and the license distinctions are meaningless to her. But she could still get meaningful value choosing one over another. FOSS beats the drum, not to turn people into programmers, but rather so that some tiny fraction of the next generation understand the building blocks thst got us here, and carry the game forward. Personally I think there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of both OSS and Free. Lots of people want something outside the scope of these, and rather than create some new category, try and morph one of these. Complaints like "give nothing back" or "AWS is eating our lunch" etc are all irrelevant to OSS and Free. They are topics which are not interesting to those licenses. I would say this; if an OSS or Free license does not suit your need, use another license. Or write your own. There's no problem with that. (For 25 years I've been shipping source, but without distribution rights- "source supplied", not "open source".) I freely use OSS and obviously the OSS parts keep their OSS license. 99% of my customers won't ever look at the source. That's fine. I found a license that works for me, and them.
- kube-system 2y ago
  I think end users can certainly benefit from the downstream effects that FOSS has on developers, integrators, and other technology professionals. But most FOSS advocacy ignores this in their messaging, their strategy, and in the spaces where they operate. I've only ever seen FOSS outreach to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. But they don't. It's a missed opportunity, and they're going to lose relevance and influence if they don't appeal to those who drive market demand for software products.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    >> They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. Lots of people benefit from Free Software, yes. But asking the consumer to understand licensing and the implications thereof would be a fantastically ambitious and expensive project. Ultimately yes, FOSS outreach is targeted, because the first-order benefits are targeted. Outside the internet itself (where the message is there for anyone to find) only very narrow groups would get any value from a discussion on licenses. For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. Ironically "no-one" chooses Linux because of the license. They choose it because of the price. And consequently they dominate where "number of machines" is the key issue (aka servers). Consumers choose Windows or Android because of the first order benefits there. They are better than Linux Desktop or Linux on the phone. (And yes, I'm aware Android uses the Linux kernel, but Linux is not sufficient.) The whole "year of the Linux desktop" argument is for Joe public to care about License. 25 years in, and I think it's safe to assume that approach has failed. >> to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. FOSS exists today precisely because these are yhe groups that matter. And they are, I think, the groups that will continue to matter.
like_any_other 2y ago
> Computer users want source code like grocery store shoppers want a tractor and a plot of land. You entirely ignore ecosystem effects. Users don't want source code, but they do want programs that won't betray them. Open access to source code is how such programs come about. See my other post on what happens when that access is taken away: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385000
- kube-system 2y ago
  Non-experts are neither aware of this nor have no way of independently verifying that themselves. If you observe today's software marketplace, people are not switching to FOSS in response to privacy concerns. They're not even aware of what FOSS licensing is. And regardless, the issues you list in your linked comment aren't even anything FOSS has a solution for -- all of them are only partially software products. You can't replace something that is more than software, with software. At some point an IP licensing agreement just simply isn't enough can't plow a field. You need a factory, some steel, and some diesel fuel. Farmers don't plow their field with software, they do it with a tractor.
- imoreno 2y ago
  >but they do want programs that won't betray them Most people don't really care. In your link you mention cars locking people out, well, they still use them don't they? And they even pay huge sums of money for the privilege.
- noirscape 2y ago
  At the same time, FOSS software is also historically filled with corporations and slimy individuals rugpulling their users (many examples over the years, Emby jumps to mind, so does the Simple Mobile Tools set of apps). It's so common on mobile in particular that a major benefit of F-Droid[0] is that it just chooses to sit between you and the developer to make sure that the developer doesn't get up to any shenanigans. Open source/Free software isn't a panacea against that and if anything has led to the formation of a development moat, where AWS et al. can profit from FOSS, but it can do so by muscling out all profits from the smaller developers[1]. FOSS by design can't offer any legal recourse against that, which is a pretty major mark against it for most people. [0]: https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ [1]: A less aggressive, but no less insidious version of this is the "this piece of software has a ton of extra services it relies on tech stack", where to replace one single service, you're essentially setting yourself up to rehost an entire corporate network and said hosting usually requires resources not easily accessible to individuals (ie. Multiple servers). This usually happens with organizations that want to maintain some level of control over their users; Firefox Sync for example isn't feasible to truly selfhost, since the Mozilla accounts service also needs to be selfhosted and it's a massive PITA to do that.
opan 2y ago
It's not about source code access, it's about guaranteeing the four freedoms. As a user, with proprietary software you have to worry about whether you can share a copy with a friend, sell it on a CD to a guy on the street for $5, or use it at your work place. With free software you can do all of that without worry. For better or for worse, I am not a programmer, and free software is important to me. I have often wished I were a programmer in order to better help and contribute, but have long struggled to learn. I doubt I'm the only one in such a situation.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Yes, but the difference between freeware and FOSS is rights to the source code. Most users today would only want to exercise freedom 0, so FOSS really isn't offering them anything that appealing. And in fact, freeware is more popular than ever today.
  - opan 2y ago
    >Most users today would only want to exercise freedom 0, so FOSS really isn't offering them anything that appealing. I was aiming to address this in my previous post, as a non-programmer user, listing realistic examples that the other freedoms give you. Being able to use software at both home and work, or to share software with a friend without worrying about legal trouble is a benefit I think anyone can appreciate. Lots of software will charge [extra] money for commercial use, limit installs to x number of machines, etc. If you get used to using free software, you can avoid these issues. Also, while not related to the license exactly, using free software, you'll tend to not run into ads like you do with a lot of freeware. I recommend apps from F-Droid to people with Android phones for this reason a lot. While grabbing a popular file manager or music player from the Play Store often seems to get you an ad-ridden mess, I never run into that with anything from F-Droid.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      It's not the 90's anymore, typical computer users don't share software peer-to-peer like they did in the "don't copy that floppy" days. If people want to share software with their friends, they send a link to the download, or a link to the SaaS delivered version. Literally every piece of software used today that a person on the street would have heard of is delivered one of these two ways.

singpolyma3 2y ago

Free software is definitely not for programmers

kube-system 2y ago
Source code is not useful unless someone is capable of using it.
- singpolyma3 2y ago
  Free software isn't about source code either. One of the four freedoms often gets a note that you need source code to make modifications, but this is not the focus, the focus is on being able to control your computing. source code is one very small possible prerequisite to some of that in some cases, but if all you have is source code you don't have freedom.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    i can't control my computing without source code. free software without source code is like freeware. even if i am not a developer myself, every time i had a problem with an application, i was able to find a fork that fixed the problem. without source code that would not have been possible.
    - 6510 2y ago
      First we didn't know what software we needed. People wrote all kinds with all kinds of licenses. It served us well but we will eventually need to see what the applications are doing. There shall be no privacy or security on any level until we know what is done. It's like having masked strangers in your house unsupervised. Whatever the excuse was for inviting them in they will eventually have to leave.
    - singpolyma3 2y ago
      Access to source code is often a basic prerequisite to make changes, but the freedoms are for study and change those are what matter. Especially change
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bruce511 2y ago

Not sure why you are bring downvoted. Your argument is clear, and drives the discussion forward. I would agree that Free Software can (and is) used by everyone but only a very tiny fraction are able to exercise any of the Freedoms it advances. But that's OK. My mom doesn't know the difference between Windows and Linux, and the license distinctions are meaningless to her. But she could still get meaningful value choosing one over another. FOSS beats the drum, not to turn people into programmers, but rather so that some tiny fraction of the next generation understand the building blocks thst got us here, and carry the game forward. Personally I think there is a lot of ignorance and misunderstanding of both OSS and Free. Lots of people want something outside the scope of these, and rather than create some new category, try and morph one of these. Complaints like "give nothing back" or "AWS is eating our lunch" etc are all irrelevant to OSS and Free. They are topics which are not interesting to those licenses. I would say this; if an OSS or Free license does not suit your need, use another license. Or write your own. There's no problem with that. (For 25 years I've been shipping source, but without distribution rights- "source supplied", not "open source".) I freely use OSS and obviously the OSS parts keep their OSS license. 99% of my customers won't ever look at the source. That's fine. I found a license that works for me, and them.

kube-system 2y ago
I think end users can certainly benefit from the downstream effects that FOSS has on developers, integrators, and other technology professionals. But most FOSS advocacy ignores this in their messaging, their strategy, and in the spaces where they operate. I've only ever seen FOSS outreach to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. But they don't. It's a missed opportunity, and they're going to lose relevance and influence if they don't appeal to those who drive market demand for software products.
- bruce511 2y ago
  >> They very well could make their case to the modern end user that their approach is better than closed source SaaS solutions, or other freeware. Lots of people benefit from Free Software, yes. But asking the consumer to understand licensing and the implications thereof would be a fantastically ambitious and expensive project. Ultimately yes, FOSS outreach is targeted, because the first-order benefits are targeted. Outside the internet itself (where the message is there for anyone to find) only very narrow groups would get any value from a discussion on licenses. For example, say I make software for small-town bakers. My software might be open source, or closed source. My bakers couldn't care less. They care only about the first order benefits - does the planner work etc. Ironically "no-one" chooses Linux because of the license. They choose it because of the price. And consequently they dominate where "number of machines" is the key issue (aka servers). Consumers choose Windows or Android because of the first order benefits there. They are better than Linux Desktop or Linux on the phone. (And yes, I'm aware Android uses the Linux kernel, but Linux is not sufficient.) The whole "year of the Linux desktop" argument is for Joe public to care about License. 25 years in, and I think it's safe to assume that approach has failed. >> to industry groups, academic groups, hobbyists, and other professional or professional-adjacent groups. FOSS exists today precisely because these are yhe groups that matter. And they are, I think, the groups that will continue to matter.

like_any_other 2y ago

> Computer users want source code like grocery store shoppers want a tractor and a plot of land. You entirely ignore ecosystem effects. Users don't want source code, but they do want programs that won't betray them. Open access to source code is how such programs come about. See my other post on what happens when that access is taken away: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43385000

kube-system 2y ago
Non-experts are neither aware of this nor have no way of independently verifying that themselves. If you observe today's software marketplace, people are not switching to FOSS in response to privacy concerns. They're not even aware of what FOSS licensing is. And regardless, the issues you list in your linked comment aren't even anything FOSS has a solution for -- all of them are only partially software products. You can't replace something that is more than software, with software. At some point an IP licensing agreement just simply isn't enough can't plow a field. You need a factory, some steel, and some diesel fuel. Farmers don't plow their field with software, they do it with a tractor.
imoreno 2y ago
>but they do want programs that won't betray them Most people don't really care. In your link you mention cars locking people out, well, they still use them don't they? And they even pay huge sums of money for the privilege.
noirscape 2y ago
At the same time, FOSS software is also historically filled with corporations and slimy individuals rugpulling their users (many examples over the years, Emby jumps to mind, so does the Simple Mobile Tools set of apps). It's so common on mobile in particular that a major benefit of F-Droid[0] is that it just chooses to sit between you and the developer to make sure that the developer doesn't get up to any shenanigans. Open source/Free software isn't a panacea against that and if anything has led to the formation of a development moat, where AWS et al. can profit from FOSS, but it can do so by muscling out all profits from the smaller developers[1]. FOSS by design can't offer any legal recourse against that, which is a pretty major mark against it for most people. [0]: https://f-droid.org/ https://f-droid.org/ [1]: A less aggressive, but no less insidious version of this is the "this piece of software has a ton of extra services it relies on tech stack", where to replace one single service, you're essentially setting yourself up to rehost an entire corporate network and said hosting usually requires resources not easily accessible to individuals (ie. Multiple servers). This usually happens with organizations that want to maintain some level of control over their users; Firefox Sync for example isn't feasible to truly selfhost, since the Mozilla accounts service also needs to be selfhosted and it's a massive PITA to do that.

opan 2y ago

It's not about source code access, it's about guaranteeing the four freedoms. As a user, with proprietary software you have to worry about whether you can share a copy with a friend, sell it on a CD to a guy on the street for $5, or use it at your work place. With free software you can do all of that without worry. For better or for worse, I am not a programmer, and free software is important to me. I have often wished I were a programmer in order to better help and contribute, but have long struggled to learn. I doubt I'm the only one in such a situation.

kube-system 2y ago
Yes, but the difference between freeware and FOSS is rights to the source code. Most users today would only want to exercise freedom 0, so FOSS really isn't offering them anything that appealing. And in fact, freeware is more popular than ever today.
- opan 2y ago
  >Most users today would only want to exercise freedom 0, so FOSS really isn't offering them anything that appealing. I was aiming to address this in my previous post, as a non-programmer user, listing realistic examples that the other freedoms give you. Being able to use software at both home and work, or to share software with a friend without worrying about legal trouble is a benefit I think anyone can appreciate. Lots of software will charge [extra] money for commercial use, limit installs to x number of machines, etc. If you get used to using free software, you can avoid these issues. Also, while not related to the license exactly, using free software, you'll tend to not run into ads like you do with a lot of freeware. I recommend apps from F-Droid to people with Android phones for this reason a lot. While grabbing a popular file manager or music player from the Play Store often seems to get you an ad-ridden mess, I never run into that with anything from F-Droid.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    It's not the 90's anymore, typical computer users don't share software peer-to-peer like they did in the "don't copy that floppy" days. If people want to share software with their friends, they send a link to the download, or a link to the SaaS delivered version. Literally every piece of software used today that a person on the street would have heard of is delivered one of these two ways.