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

181–190 of 247 posts

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#181

Post by AsyncAwait »

mherrmann wrote: post #171
AsyncAwait wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's another of these developers who benefited greatly from FLOSS, yet write condescending posts. Ironically, the author of fman makes use of Qt, which is a great example of how to make a business and still have a copyleft licensed codebase.

I write to defend myself when I dare (gosh!) to write proprietary software.

My problem isn't with you writing proprietary software, (I'd prefer if it wasn't proprietary, but do you as you wish). My problem is with you people who benefit daily from FLOSS to then act as if the FLOSS people are just crazy hippie, commie lunatics and how you couldn't possibly be FLOSS without also putting food on the table and how other people are apparently not (gosh!) allowed to advocate for not using proprietary software, or how is wrong for them to do so and other such garbage.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#182

Post by mherrmann »

bjpbakker wrote: post #77

IMO there's nothing "fundamentalist" about rejecting a _particular_ piece of proprietary software. When trying to sell a niche product, r/linux might not be the best place to ask. I'm wondering if the author would have had the same response when someone on a windows or mac subreddit did not want to use their software. Instead try to sell to people who you solve a particular problem for.

Imho it is fundamentalist if the only reason for the rejection is that it's proprietary. Don't know if that was the author's exact experience. But it has been mine. And it's not just dogmatic and stupid in a similar way as religious fanaticism, it's harmful for the entire ecosystem.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#183

Post by Multicomp »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #97
keiferski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Right, but I guess I was talking more about the ecosystem itself. If there were no jobs paying people to work on open-source software, would there be as much work done on free software in general? 2. True, but charging money for your music doesn’t get nearly the same negative reaction that paid software often gets.

There's nothing wrong with paid software. I'm happy to pay as long as it's free.

This is an interesting double entendre. Do you mean happy to pay as long as it has a permissive/OSS license and comes with source code or that the purchase price is zero, or both?

Genuinely not trying to be pedantic, just curious if you were being clever.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#184

Post by mherrmann »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #146
watwut wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By which you are admitting to being a fundamentalist. There's other people who do that. They often explode. Not a label I'd want to give myself.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#185

Post by AsyncAwait »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #168
AsyncAwait wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are people against Flatpak Hello there. An not so much against it, as not "for it". > it easier for developers to bypass repos and their package maintainers. No, that's not the problem at all. The biggest problem is duplication of libraries, most of which will not see security updates nowhere near as promptly as the system version would, integration with the DE and the problems there, fundamentally replicatin…

Then I guess this is the trade-off you've agreed to. However, there are a whole lot of Linux and potential Linux users who complain about the lack of proprietary software ports, and package managers and their implications are one of the reasons for that. Flatpak isn't even good enough, in my opinion, since it adds complexity to an otherwise simple scheme in an effort to accomplish some of the deduplication you and ot…

I can personally be unenthusiastic about it, but that does not hinder your ability to adopt it, if you wish to do so. I just wanted to clear the perception that we're somehow trying to hinder devs or whatever.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#186

Post by ruskerdax »

dpower wrote: post #158
ruskerdax wrote: post #139

Proprietary software which restricts its distribution and "unauthorized" modification (virtually all of it) is the very essence of fundamentalism. It relies on a rigid and literal interpretation of what constitutes property (e.g. that the concept of "intellectual property" is coherent and non-contradictory) and even goes so far as to use threats, ultimately backed by violent force, to ensure compliance with this beli…

> ultimately backed by violent force, to ensure compliance with this belief This is true of all laws. This is how society works. If you don't like it, in a democracy you can campaign for change. You seem to believe you have a fundamental right to copy someone else's works. If the author of those works grants you permission (open source) - then fine. You seem to suggest that people shouldn't profit from their work. I…

> This is true of all laws. This is how society works. If you don't like it, in a democracy you can campaign for change.

I am well aware this is how laws enforced by governments work. It does not necessarily follow that is how society works, or that it must be so. I'd rather stay on topic than turn this into a criticism of democracy, however.

>You seem to believe you have a fundamental right to copy someone else's works. If the author of those works grants you permission (open source) - then fine.

On the contrary, you seem to believe you have a fundamental right to use violent threats to intimidate me into not copying or modifying code.

>You seem to suggest that people shouldn't profit from their work.

I absolutely do not suggest that. There are ways one can profit from software development (or other creative and technical endeavors) that don't involve threatening people with violent force.

>I just don't think FOSS software alone is tenable.

I understand that. At least acknowledge that you are the fundamentalist here, taking the approach that because you don't believe it is "tenable" for software to be free, you think it is pragmatic and therefor acceptable to use violent force to prevent others from copying or modifying code.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#187

Post by mherrmann »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #181
mherrmann wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I write to defend myself when I dare (gosh!) to write proprietary software.

My problem isn't with you writing proprietary software, (I'd prefer if it wasn't proprietary, but do you as you wish). My problem is with you people who benefit daily from FLOSS to then act as if the FLOSS people are just crazy hippie, commie lunatics and how you couldn't possibly be FLOSS without also putting food on the table and how other people are apparently not (gosh!) allowed to advocate for not using propriet…

I don't care about FLOSS people. Actually, I'm grateful to them and I also have my own set of FLOSS libraries [1], because I feel we as a dev community should work together and not have to reinvent the wheel all the time. What I take issue with is being criticized for writing proprietary software. It happens somewhat regularly. And the silencing that takes place is simply unacceptable.

1: https://github.com/mherrmann

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#188

Post by ruskerdax »

matt4077 wrote: post #177
ruskerdax wrote: post #139

Proprietary software which restricts its distribution and "unauthorized" modification (virtually all of it) is the very essence of fundamentalism. It relies on a rigid and literal interpretation of what constitutes property (e.g. that the concept of "intellectual property" is coherent and non-contradictory) and even goes so far as to use threats, ultimately backed by violent force, to ensure compliance with this beli…

Let’s maybe go easy on throwing around charges of “fundamentalism” every which way. I guess it’s an attempt to tap into the universally bad reputation of Bin Laden et al. But that alone should be reason not to stick the label to anyone who has a github account or a product in the App Store. It’s really just Godwin by another name.

I don't think this is a misapplication of the term "fundamentalism," as it does fit the textbook definition of the term. The parallel of the term to radical terrorism is unfortunate, however. While I don't think it's really accurate to compare this to Godwin's law, you have a point about things quickly escalating to a state of hyperbole.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#189

Post by ppseafield »

pjmlp wrote: post #173
ppseafield wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many users will simply reject their proprietary software on principle. Yes, because we've grown tired of companies abusing their relationships with customers: abandoning products and leaving them useless, charging more and more for the same or less levels of support, removing features, suing users for repairing their own property... The list goes on. Sure, similar issues can happen with FOSS, but at least you have…

Linux would never had taken off without the contributions of companies like IBM, Intel, Oracle, SGI, Cray,.... Which aren't properly any FOSS angels, when we examine their product portfolio. Actually IBM is the king of patent submissions.

Sure, but it probably also wouldn't have taken off without its license either.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#190

Post by shmerl »

dpower wrote: post #50
throwaway4799 wrote: post #7

No one is entitled to a business model. If your userbase has a culture of being (rightfully, in my opinion) defiant toward proprietary products, that's for you to remedy. If you can't make any money from ancilliary uses of your product (support, hosting, whatever) maybe you should question why you're monetizing in the first place. Free software is strictly more ethical than nonfree software. Any attempt at arguing ot…

I'm certainly not trying to deride open source. For the record, we have plenty of Linux users paying for the product (see previous article), but I simply don't understand why some people won't buy the product because it's not open source. I mean it's their choice - fine. But it's also our choice on whether we open source or not. No need to abuse us for this choice. I am trying to remedy the issue - I'm writing about…

I'd be interested in paying for your product if it was open source. Having an open source product doesn't stop you from selling it.
Post reply on HN