4 ms·

The FSF has never been very relevant so saying it's more relevant than before is not setting the bar very high. Besides, that's probably what you'd expect to he

by laureny 13y ago

The FSF has never been very relevant so saying it's more relevant than before is not setting the bar very high. Besides, that's probably what you'd expect to hear from someone bragging they've been supporting it for 30 years. I appreciate the value that free software brings but what differentiates me from the people at the FSF is that I also realize that free software is not a panacea and that closed source, commercial software is a necessary complement to the existence of a healthy ecosystem.

quadrangle 13y ago
I think the intent was to say that the FSF message is relevant, i.e. the message about software freedom. And that message has been very relevant regardless of how many people are open to it. That is indeed different than claiming the FSF's relevance, but I think that was the intention.
- laureny 13y ago
  Agreed, so take the message and ignore the organization that promotes it, especially when that organization has such a track record of being led by people who see the world as black and white and who are not open to an ounce of compromise about their views.
Kim_Bruning 13y ago
As I gain experience over time, it begins to appears to me that free software is the only long-term viable option. I think this is perfectly reasonable, after getting burned for the umpteenth time by proprietary software vendors. (Or vicariously discovering that yes other people have indeed been burned yet again)
- Sanddancer 13y ago
  On the flip side, I've been burnt by Open software vendors who have decided that their commercial needs mean discontinuing support and funding for their own projects. The Insight frontend for gdb, for example, was fantastic, but has languished since RedHat bought out Cygnus. I can also point to the support policies of many Open operating systems -- I can still get support, patches, and bugfixes for Windows Vista, which was released in 2007, but can no longer get support, patches, and bugfixes for any Linux distribution released in a similar timeframe. While I can see more and more of the market moving towards Open solutions, I can only see FSF-created solutions dragging us down.
  - teddyh 13y ago
    It is pretty disingenuous of you to claim that you can't get support, patches or bug fixes for any Linux distro from 2007. You can easily get those things. Just not for free. Just pay from the money you saved by not buying Windows Vista, and attribute some of this to the cost of not upgrading your operating system for six years.
johnpmayer 13y ago
> I also realize that free software is not a panacea and that closed source, commercial software is a necessary complement to the existence of a healthy ecosystem. Necessary? Is that just because it pays salaries?
spacelizard 13y ago
The message of the FSF is not particularly relevant to economics. Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. If you want to have control of your own computing then proprietary software is not necessary for any purpose; avoiding it is a must.
- laureny 13y ago
  > Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. Stallman strongly disagrees with you about that.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    No he doesn't. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html “Commercial” Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different issues. A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have—are independent. In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear. Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.
    - laureny 13y ago
      You are quoting the FSF's stand on the issue (which I don't have a problem with) but not Stallman's. Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly. For example, a quick Google search returned this interview [1]: > BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living. > > Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that other people wrote. Stallman has been consistent for decades in holding this view. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html

by laureny 13y ago

quadrangle 13y ago

I think the intent was to say that the FSF message is relevant, i.e. the message about software freedom. And that message has been very relevant regardless of how many people are open to it. That is indeed different than claiming the FSF's relevance, but I think that was the intention.

laureny 13y ago
Agreed, so take the message and ignore the organization that promotes it, especially when that organization has such a track record of being led by people who see the world as black and white and who are not open to an ounce of compromise about their views.

Kim_Bruning 13y ago

As I gain experience over time, it begins to appears to me that free software is the only long-term viable option. I think this is perfectly reasonable, after getting burned for the umpteenth time by proprietary software vendors. (Or vicariously discovering that yes other people have indeed been burned yet again)

Sanddancer 13y ago
On the flip side, I've been burnt by Open software vendors who have decided that their commercial needs mean discontinuing support and funding for their own projects. The Insight frontend for gdb, for example, was fantastic, but has languished since RedHat bought out Cygnus. I can also point to the support policies of many Open operating systems -- I can still get support, patches, and bugfixes for Windows Vista, which was released in 2007, but can no longer get support, patches, and bugfixes for any Linux distribution released in a similar timeframe. While I can see more and more of the market moving towards Open solutions, I can only see FSF-created solutions dragging us down.
- teddyh 13y ago
  It is pretty disingenuous of you to claim that you can't get support, patches or bug fixes for any Linux distro from 2007. You can easily get those things. Just not for free. Just pay from the money you saved by not buying Windows Vista, and attribute some of this to the cost of not upgrading your operating system for six years.

johnpmayer 13y ago

> I also realize that free software is not a panacea and that closed source, commercial software is a necessary complement to the existence of a healthy ecosystem. Necessary? Is that just because it pays salaries?

spacelizard 13y ago

The message of the FSF is not particularly relevant to economics. Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. If you want to have control of your own computing then proprietary software is not necessary for any purpose; avoiding it is a must.

laureny 13y ago
> Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. Stallman strongly disagrees with you about that.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  No he doesn't. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html “Commercial” Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different issues. A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have—are independent. In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear. Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.
  - laureny 13y ago
    You are quoting the FSF's stand on the issue (which I don't have a problem with) but not Stallman's. Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly. For example, a quick Google search returned this interview [1]: > BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living. > > Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that other people wrote. Stallman has been consistent for decades in holding this view. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html