31–40 of 264 posts
Yeah, I'm often puzzled by some FOSS developers not using open communication tools and not running Linux on their actual day to day work computers.
I've used Linux or BSD on all of my personal machines for a long time, and assumed, wrongly I guess, that most other people were in the same boat. I'm not sure it's a problem, but it's interesting.
– We collaborate inside proprietary environments Why is that? Why have users chosen those environments? Assume they are rational beings, and get at the heart of it. Ask: "How can we address the actual user needs while supporting our goals?" – Many Linux and FOSS geeks today use Linux only professionally Same answer as above. – We're not modeling our values WHY? (Hint: "the use of nonfree" is not, and has never been a…
> Why have users chosen those environments? Because they don't give a rat's ass about the freedom aspect of free software. If software A requires four clicks to do something, but B has a way to do it in 3, they are on B without a second thought. But in this case, those users are not just any old end users; the are actually supposed to be FOSS developers, so there is a heavy irony there. I think what is doing on is th…
Yeah, I'm often puzzled by some FOSS developers not using open communication tools and not running Linux on their actual day to day work computers.
I've seen (and also not understood) the use of Slack/Gitter/etc. but the "not running Linux" part is a surprise to me, personally. I've used Linux or BSD on all of my personal machines for a long time, and assumed, wrongly I guess, that most other people were in the same boat. I'm not sure it's a problem, but it's interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m probably bad but I honestly can’t get slack to work with all the different communities I’ve been invited to. Discord basically works like IRC, except almost every channel I’m in is by invitation only, making it almost impossible for new people to join. In my opinion IRC is still the best tool out there and I really, really wonder why we stopped using it.
I think by a wide margin the biggest problem is that IRC doesn't have any offline features. In a world where people swap devices all the time, it really sucks to have to drop your connection on every device change, and lose any chat that occurred while you were offline and be unreachable while you're offline.
Software, and information in general, have been a prisoners dilemma for time immemorial. The optimization of utility is total freedom of information - but such a state of affairs means benefactors reap the labors of others and have no obligation to give anything in return.
Copyright was fabricated to solve 18th century problems with an 18th century bureaucratic solution. The whole free software movement in general emerged as a counterculture to how intensely harmful to society that policy influenced the natural state of affairs to become.
If anything, the fact free software enthusiasts have lost sight of what the ultimate goal has to be - the abolition of copyright and institution of basic standards of living for all citizens derived from the productive gains of the extraordinary multiplicative effects technology, itself derived substantially from free software, produces - is what really needs to shift. Anything less keeps the movement in an atrophying limbo where fresh minds join, put in their best effort, and fall out from the captured value innovation produces in our society.
We need to move towards a state of affairs where enthusiasts can produce freedom respecting code because they want to, that don't go hungry or homeless for their efforts, and where all of society can reap the benefits of theirs (and billions others) generosity and compounding efficiency produced through technological innovation. And where everyone has access to the fruits of those labors regardless of means as a way to improve the collective knowledge of mankind for all the rest of us.
Just think for a moment of the bizarre world where the brightest need not toil to manipulate tired and depressed minds psychologically to siphon scarce money from them to line the pockets of robber barons masquerading as productive members of society, but instead could comfortably collaborate towards actually making the world a better place.
– We collaborate inside proprietary environments Why is that? Why have users chosen those environments? Assume they are rational beings, and get at the heart of it. Ask: "How can we address the actual user needs while supporting our goals?" – Many Linux and FOSS geeks today use Linux only professionally Same answer as above. – We're not modeling our values WHY? (Hint: "the use of nonfree" is not, and has never been a…
> Why have users chosen those environments? Because they don't give a rat's ass about the freedom aspect of free software. If software A requires four clicks to do something, but B has a way to do it in 3, they are on B without a second thought. But in this case, those users are not just any old end users; the are actually supposed to be FOSS developers, so there is a heavy irony there. I think what is doing on is th…
> Because they don't give a rat's ass about the freedom aspect of free software. If software A requires four clicks to do something, but B has a way to do it in 3, they are on B without a second thought.
Convenience always wins. Always. Users do care about free (as in beer) and they care if the product or service will disappear without warning (hello Google!). But the definitions of FOSS are so strict that they harm developers, and thus products, and thus convenience for users.
OP is describing the symptoms of this phenomena.
- A website with a silly name like 'Facebook' is worth half a trillion dollars and is extremely profitable.
- A website with a silly name like 'Twitter' which only lets you post 140 characters at a time is worth 30 billion dollars.
- An app with a silly name like 'Snapchat' which loses billions of dollars per year is worth almost $15 billion.
- An international taxi service with a silly name like 'Uber' which is losing billions of dollars per year is worth almost $100 billion.
- That software developers don't see anything wrong with building apps on top of proprietary cloud APIs (e.g. Amazon Lambda) - The closest real-world analogy that I can think of is that it's like building a house with your own bare hands for years and then, once you finally finish it, you start paying a corporation rent (at whatever rate they ask for) so that you can live in your own house! Meanwhile, the whole time, there was an even better plot of land right next door which was 100% free but you ignored it because the signposts on the corporate land were flashing with bright neon lights.
The economy makes so little sense that there is no incentive left to create value. The best you can do is just look for the next financial scheme to take advantage of. I bet it will be something completely random and useless.
Yeah, I'm often puzzled by some FOSS developers not using open communication tools and not running Linux on their actual day to day work computers.
– We collaborate inside proprietary environments Why is that? Why have users chosen those environments? Assume they are rational beings, and get at the heart of it. Ask: "How can we address the actual user needs while supporting our goals?" – Many Linux and FOSS geeks today use Linux only professionally Same answer as above. – We're not modeling our values WHY? (Hint: "the use of nonfree" is not, and has never been a…
> Why have users chosen those environments? Because they don't give a rat's ass about the freedom aspect of free software. If software A requires four clicks to do something, but B has a way to do it in 3, they are on B without a second thought. But in this case, those users are not just any old end users; the are actually supposed to be FOSS developers, so there is a heavy irony there. I think what is doing on is th…
Isn't this kind of the point, though? To compete with proprietary software, free software needs to actually be competitive. "It's not as good as this other (proprietary) software, but it's free" won't cut it.