Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

blog.hiri.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 247 posts

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#141

Post by TimJYoung »

4ad wrote: post #90
beaconstudios wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean on the user-facing side. Linux runs the world in the sense that it is the backbone of the infrastructure layer, but it's running on very few end-user computers.

That's my point, Linux "won" without needing any presence on the desktop side. Any suggestion about what should happen with Linux and/or Linux users that ignores this fundamental fact is utterly hopeless.

Linux "won" in the sense that every single one of those devices is special-purpose, and not for general-purpose computing. Linux is helping those that want to lock down computing so that it is consumption-only, which is completely antithetical to the goals of FOSS. Creation happens on the desktop, and right now the desktop is primarily Windows and Mac.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#142

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

The bigger problem with FOSS is that FOSS isn't actually user-editable at all. It's developer-editable - which is not even remotely close to being the same thing, except for that tiny subset of projects where end-users are developers.

It's basically open blueprints, not open systems - with predictable results.

There's never been a truly open system, although Hypercard, Excel, VBS, and Smalltalk have all tried (and failed) to edge into that space in their different ways.

FOSS has certainly never shown the slightest interest in developing an open system.

It has always been more of a charter for tinkering than a glorious liberation for end-users frustrated with bugs, poor UI choices, and all the other things that end-users hate.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#143

Post by vinceguidry »

peterwwillis wrote: post #138
vinceguidry wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The HN crowd tends to stay outside of these kinds of business circles, but I have a friend who doesn't, and he would ping me from time to time about "cloning a site and building a business around it." It took me awhile to understand the mentality. But "Uber for X" is very much a thing. We just don't pay attention to them because those companies never reach Uber growth. But you don't get to be Uber by just acquiescing…

Again, I don't think this actually happens. Look at Toothpaste brands ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toothpaste_brands ). The ones that aren't around anymore basically had a defective product, and the rest got bought out by the more established competitor. Car ride-sharing business isn't a monopoly, and it also isn't one-eats-the-other. Uber and Lyft are competitors but they both still exist, even though the…

If you want to convince people building software enabled businesses to keep their source open and free rather than closed, a better rationale is needed than "I've never seen it happen so you should definitely bet your business on it never happening to you."

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#144

Post by UncleMeat »

mcguire wrote: post #107
kgwxd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the software is open then anyone can fork it, make it easier, more flexible, better in any way. So your support fee better be low enough that no one is motivated to do that instead of paying for support, and also hope no one ever does it just because they can and dont care about money.

Could you name some products where this had happened?

BCH. Led to a meaningful drop in the price of BTC after the fork.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#145

Post by AsyncAwait »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #142

The bigger problem with FOSS is that FOSS isn't actually user-editable at all. It's developer-editable - which is not even remotely close to being the same thing, except for that tiny subset of projects where end-users are developers. It's basically open blueprints, not open systems - with predictable results. There's never been a truly open system, although Hypercard, Excel, VBS, and Smalltalk have all tried (and fa…

> FOSS has certainly never shown the slightest interest in developing an open system.

Really? I got into Linux originally when I saw how you could swap DEs and customize practically everything. I wasn't a developer back then.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#146

Post by AsyncAwait »

watwut wrote: post #135
rubatuga wrote: post #134

What is the point of attacking such a minority? If the author claims it is a group of people so close to the "horizontal line", then why feel the need to negate their arguments? If the author is the one saying that strong opinions are rarely correct, why would he mention a different strong opinion that Linux users should embrace proprietary software with open arms? It seems as if the author never realized the true st…

1.) Refuting arguments is not an attack. The article does not read like attack. It is civil and non inflammatory and non insulting. 2.) Those people vocally disagreed with his previous article, him following up defending amd explaining his stance is how discussion work. 3.) Why not? 4.) Why do you want him to be silent and that group to hAve monopoly on discourse?

I saw the Reddit thread and couldn't find any particularly 'fundamentalist' views in it, not to say that a fundamentalist belief in user freedom is wrong.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#148

Post by AsyncAwait »

vinceguidry wrote: post #143
peterwwillis wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I don't think this actually happens. Look at Toothpaste brands ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_toothpaste_brands ). The ones that aren't around anymore basically had a defective product, and the rest got bought out by the more established competitor. Car ride-sharing business isn't a monopoly, and it also isn't one-eats-the-other. Uber and Lyft are competitors but they both still exist, even though the…

If you want to convince people building software enabled businesses to keep their source open and free rather than closed, a better rationale is needed than "I've never seen it happen so you should definitely bet your business on it never happening to you."

The "Uber for X" mentality exists, but as OP admitted, it exists without the source code. Uber is not open-source, nor is Twitter etc. and yet, they still get cloned. So did Reddit, as an idea, but I don't think the availability of that code helped the clones much.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#149

Post by AsyncAwait »

zbentley wrote: post #44
enriquto wrote: post #34

I also believe that proprietary software is morally wrong. I do not care if it has better performance or features; it is just unacceptable on principle. If I'm a fundamentalist for this belief, so be it.

Would you care to explain why? Additionally, do you object to patents and/or copyright in principle? If so, why? Genuinely curious, not critical or necessarily opposed.

Proprietary software not only hides what it's doing from its user, DRM has all sorts of problems and could even damage your data/hardware, not to mention exfiltrate all sorts of information in the name of 'enforcing IP'.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#150

Post by AsyncAwait »

dpower wrote: post #91
ekianjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you fail to see the usefulness of fundamentalists. They help keep some kind of balance in the overall system, by pulling some of the practices towards one end. If no FOSS fundamentalists existed, we may be living in a very different software world right now. A number of extremely useful POSIX tools were the products of such ideologies. I think one of the "better" approaches if you cannot survive with a "suppo…

Interesting point, but I think it's a fallacy. Taking this line of argument and applying it to the social sphere - you would be arguing that there is a place for nazi's in this world (I'm just making a point - not saying you support nazis!) Totally agree with your "good citizen" argument though. Something we should consider.

Garbage point, because Nazi ideology is not based on anything other than supremacy. There's no other 'ideas' to it, if you will. No other substance. Take for example socialism and while far from perfect, there are ideas that could and should be adopted from it.
Post reply on HN