Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise. Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
> if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
I very much disagree with this sentiment and I think it is very sad to see how pervasive this idea is that earning a living is first.
There will be good software even if people making software are not paid for it, just like there will be good music even if it is unlikely that good musicians are ever be able to "earn a decent living".
Maybe rather than trying to find new ways of making a living we should try finding new ways of living instead, ways that don't perpetuate exploitation under the pretense of a job "market".
> most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
This shows the difference between "open source" and free software. That's why I call it "free software" and avoid the term "open source". This doesn't mean, however, that free software advocates do not have fun writing software ;)
Yes, but I don't see how that's a benefit of proprietary software. Before bitkeeper there was some Sun version control system that had a very similar model to git (which might've been released with the OpenSolaris thing, I'm not sure). The point is that "you got some free software because of proprietary software" is not relevant. Free software
> Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name.
GNU is a free software replacement for UNIX. You could argue "clone" and "replacement" are the same thing, but I'd argue the intention is different.
> Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise.
Except you can't copy proprietary software due to software patents and a miriad of other "protections" that are designed to mistreat users. People make free software alternatives to proprietary software because they want people to have access to technology without losing their freedom.
> Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
The free software movement has always been about freedom. The main advocates of the open source movement have always tried to ignore the freedom aspects (in particular, Eric S. Raymond who is a very unpleasant character). However, many people in the open source movement actually do care about freedom if you explain the free software movement to them. The fact that the "open source movement has won" is very sad because it will raise generations of programmers who will gladly give up their freedom for no reason.
> > if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
> If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
SUSE has offerings in the same space (disclaimer: I work for SUSE).
> Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
People do pay for free software (myself included). However, the primary funding model in free software cannot be "for the actual software" because that wouldn't work. You need to have a new business model with free software
> But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
I disagree. Many large free software projects (FFmpeg, VLC, all of GNU, Debian) refer to themselves as "free software". This isn't a typo, it's because they care about software freedom and were started to offer free software alternatives to users like myself. There are many, many more smaller free software projects which do the same. While it is true that some developers don't care about free software and work on free software projects, that's like an author claiming that they don't care about freedom of speech while writing satire about a politician. There's a disconnect in that logic, and we should recognise the innovation that free software is.
There are some people like you who have an ideology that pushes them to always choose free software. There are some people who care a bit about free software but will abandon it if the costs are high enough. Then there are some people who don't care about it at all.
You better at least have something to offer the second group if you don't want to die out.
Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
> There are some people like you who have an ideology that pushes them to always choose free software. There are some people who care a bit about free software but will abandon it if the costs are high enough. Then there are some people who don't care about it at all.
> You better at least have something to offer the second group if you don't want to die out.
Free software isn't going to die out. And this skirts around the fact that free software has plenty of innovation behind it. In any case, people are quickly rediscovering issues of freedom with the whole eBook thing. It's very condescending that people don't care about freedom. It all depends on how you frame the solution. "This open source software is always better" or "This free software protects your freedom".
To many people, non-free software is sub-par because of its non-freeness.
Using (tacitly agreeing with and supporting) non-free software is consequently contra to their ethics.
No horses are involved.
Can someone explain to me how having to create a separate account for every project you have a question about is a "better" than anything?
Devil's advocate: the only way to have a single "account" for all of your projects on IRC is if they all use the same server. Is that not a weird, perverse amalgamation in and of itself? Taken to the extreme, every project that wants to truly control its own destiny ends up using its own IRC server, and you're back to N tabs open somewhere.
I'm struggling to think of a time when it's ever a good idea to cast pragmatism aside.
> I'm struggling to think of a time when it's ever a good idea to cast pragmatism aside.
When choosing what ideals you want to strive for and what you want to see in the world.
