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

We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

linuxjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#41

Post by QuercusMax »

iheartmemcache wrote: post #15
pvg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apache was a fork of NCSA httpd, not CERN httpd.

Came in here to be that guy and make this comment, but you beat me to it. Have an up-vote. I can't anyone is even disputing the fact that OS X didn't largely benefit from the fact that there was tons of GNU/GPL tooling out of the box that power users could use. Bash? GCC/G++ (before the clang/llvm migration out)? GNU. X-windows (granted I don't think many people used it post-Carbon, but I remember using it on my iBoo…

If my memory serves me right, early OSX used tcsh as the default shell; it wasn't till around 10.4 or so that they switched to bash.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#42

Post by the8472 »

I think what's contributing to the whole hourglass thing is that browsers do not play nicely with native/low-level primitives. It's bascially yet another waist above the OS waist (browser APIs) and the IP waist (HTTP).

Develop a nice decentralized solution? Maybe it involves some UDP multicast? Forget the browser.

Want to have two devices on the network talk to each other? Bounce it through a cloud provider.

Want to use "everything is a file"-files? The browser's interaction with the filesystem is incredibly clumsy.

So if you wanted to use the full strength of linux/any other lower layers, this would hamper adoption.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#43

Post by Esau »

franciscop wrote: post #20
Esau wrote: post #13

I think that if you are concerned about freedom, then you need to use an OS that is not controlled a commercial entity. OS X, iOS, Windows, Android, ChromeOS, and Ubuntu all have issues; even though some of them are open source.

Putting Windows and Ubuntu in the same "commercial" bag is very miguiding...

Oh really? I seem to recall Ubuntu sending people's search results to Amazon. Why did they do that? They are a corporation and, thus, more concerned about money than freedom.

My comment stands.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#44

Post by davexunit »

legulere wrote: post #12

I think the problem is that the FSF's definition of freedom still stems from a time where everybody being a programmer was seen as a realistic and achievable goal. The actual situation is that we have two groups that care about different things: Users and developers. Users' biggest concern is that the software helps them achieve what they want to do. They care about restrictions like DRM if it hinders them in doing w…

>FSF's definition of freedom still stems from a time where everybody being a programmer was seen as a realistic and achievable goal.

The FSF does not believe that everyone should be a programmer. Much like freedom of the press matters for those that aren't journalists, freedom of the software matters for those that aren't programmers. I care about the right to repair even though I'm not a car mechanic.

>The actual situation is that we have two groups that care about different things: Users and developers

This is a very broad and inaccurate generalization. Even as someone that identifies as a "developer", I'm often just a user. Sometimes the "user" ends up hacking on something, perhaps not even really knowing that they did. It's a spectrum, and it wouldn't seem like such a dichotomy if more software was actually written that encouraged its users to explore its source code and provided ways to extend it. The tech industry reinforces the "user and developer" separation and I think that's a real shame.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#45

Post by zepto »

bad_user wrote: post #17
legulere wrote: post #12

I think the problem is that the FSF's definition of freedom still stems from a time where everybody being a programmer was seen as a realistic and achievable goal. The actual situation is that we have two groups that care about different things: Users and developers. Users' biggest concern is that the software helps them achieve what they want to do. They care about restrictions like DRM if it hinders them in doing w…

> Users' biggest concern is that the software helps them achieve what they want to do. There are two problems with this assertion: (1) users often don't know what they want to do or what they'll want to do in the future and (2) users don't have the education to understand the freedoms provided by open source / free software or lack thereof. The situation is similar with automobiles. Until now at least people had the…

"Again, users don't care about DRM. Because they don't understand it. If they did, they would reject DRM-enabled products."

This may be the true. But how about this:

'Users don't care much about DRM because the benefits of convenience outweigh the costs'

How do you know which explanation is true? Personally I favor the latter. DRM is not more complicated than other things that people care about. If it was compelling for people to care about it, the people who do understand it would find it easier to educate and convince those who don't.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#46

Post by simonh »

dTal wrote: post #16
gaius wrote: post #6

Apple's OS X, which wouldn't be what it is if Linux hadn't already been the leading nix OS.* Well that isn't true. NeXTStep was built on the 68k from 4.3BSD which originated on the VAX. It has no lineage in common with Linux, and in fact pre-dates it. And OSX now is by far the most popular workstation Unix. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg

If we assume that the author is following the usual convention of referring to GNU/Linux as simply "Linux", I don't think it's unfair to say that OSX draws heavily from the free software ecosystem. Take a look in /usr/bin on an OSX machine and it's pretty much the free software kitchen sink. Emacs AND Vim even. The only reason Unix is popular for a workstation at all nowadays is because Linux runs everything.

If he meant GNU why didn't he say so? Linux has nothing to do with OSX, whether you call it Linus or GNU/Linux.

> The only reason Unix is popular for a workstation at all nowadays is because Linux runs everything.

And at a stroke the entire history of Sun, Solaris and Sun OS is brushed under the carpet as though it never existed. Yes. I give up. You win. Workstations only exist because of Linux. I think I need a little lie down.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#47

Post by davexunit »

officialchicken wrote: post #25

Like everyone, I want more freedom, not less: the battle should begin with a sane GPL version 4. See the MIT, BSD and LGPL licenses which provide more freedom over GPL3.

>See the MIT, BSD and LGPL licenses which provide more freedom over GPL3.

This is dishonest phrasing and I think you understand that.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#48

Post by dasil003 »

bad_user wrote: post #17
legulere wrote: post #12

I think the problem is that the FSF's definition of freedom still stems from a time where everybody being a programmer was seen as a realistic and achievable goal. The actual situation is that we have two groups that care about different things: Users and developers. Users' biggest concern is that the software helps them achieve what they want to do. They care about restrictions like DRM if it hinders them in doing w…

> Users' biggest concern is that the software helps them achieve what they want to do. There are two problems with this assertion: (1) users often don't know what they want to do or what they'll want to do in the future and (2) users don't have the education to understand the freedoms provided by open source / free software or lack thereof. The situation is similar with automobiles. Until now at least people had the…

I'm with you except the very last assertion:

> Again, users don't care about DRM. Because they don't understand it. If they did, they would reject DRM-enabled products.

I understand DRM in great detail (as CTO of a streaming film company), and though I would in principal like to reject it, I have no basis to do so except illegal piracy. Theoretically if all the customers stood up and boycotted DRM we could have an effect, but in practice that would mean not being able to see the latest premium content for some period of time. Are people really going to give up their Game of Thrones to strong arm the industry? I can't foresee any universe where that would happen regardless of the users' understanding and savviness.

edit: it's amazing how this provokes a flurry of replies, none of which address my point at all. I am not making any positive claims about DRM. I am simply asking: how are you going to mobilize customers to boycott DRM?

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#49

Post by davexunit »

franciscop wrote: post #20
Esau wrote: post #13

I think that if you are concerned about freedom, then you need to use an OS that is not controlled a commercial entity. OS X, iOS, Windows, Android, ChromeOS, and Ubuntu all have issues; even though some of them are open source.

Putting Windows and Ubuntu in the same "commercial" bag is very miguiding...

I don't really think so. Canonical has proven to be a poor leader of the free software community.

Re: We won the battle for Linux, but we're losing the battle for freedom

#50

Post by panglott »

deng wrote: post #24
simonh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solaris was a much bigger deal than Linux well into the OSX era. In fact if Linux had never happened Solaris would probably still be around and we'd be arguing about how much OS X owes to Solaris and whether it matters that SunOS predated NEXT but Solaris didn't.

> In fact if Linux had never happened Solaris would probably still be around and we'd be arguing about how much OS X owes to Solaris Hardly. How would have Apple developed a full userland and development toolchain with the resources it had at that time? That's exactly the point of the article: OS X wouldn't be where it is without Linux (read: GNU/Linux), not because it was technically the best Unix (it wasn't), but b…

Mac OS X borrowed that stuff from BSD, not Linux.
Post reply on HN