Richard Stallman on Data Autonomy [video]

Stallman does a good job of calling out cognitive dissonance, as do most individuals with wisdom.

The question is why are you and others "fine" with running your services on someone else's systems? I think the answer lies in what Stallman said about keeping your software and data "under your control". If someone has control of the services you use, or the data you store in those services, there exists a clear manner in which revenue can be generated, the product improved and their ability to run it better than you increased to the point they can market it as the only way to do it. In a way, the public cloud exists because people don't want to spend (or have) the time to understand how to run the services in a reliable way themselves, on their own equipment, in their own domain.

The argument becomes exactly what you hear everyone from software interns to VC parrot: I trust Amazon to run my servers better than I can.

By taking a bit of trust from a bank account, and giving it to someone else, users are able to "put off" having to understand how services and systems operate. They are, in a way, willing to ignore the fact the service and data is outside their control in some use cases that actually matter. This is what Stallman meant when he said "put a cloud in your mind".

That "cloud" is actually cognitive dissonance. Literally believing your data is safer on someone else's servers because you could never run it better than they could, while at the same time being totally OK with not having any control over where it is stored or who has access to it.

If cost (and the time associated with it) were no objection, where would you choose to run your services and store your data? If you had a choice between running it at my house and running it at your house, which would you chose?

His internet habits have come to pass for a few reasons.

He is extremely security conscious. He doesn't like "active" content and so uses a script to download the web pages he wants to read for later browsing from an off-network computer. This has nothing to do with the license status of the JavaScript. Do you run IE? Or do you run Firefox or Chrome with ad blocking?

He prefers not to trade personal information to pay for access to communications platforms that have little additional utility to e-mail from his perspective. I'd disagree that this is detached from reality. He just doesn't hang out in the same bar as you.

Regarding the GCC, he's made a calculated trade-off of modularity and simplicity for the sake of the GPL's "walled city" of free software. Complecting for effect, if you will.

As for his opinion of non-copyleft software, I think you'd need to qualify your "can't work" phrase. I say this because I think he's absolutely right if we qualify the phrase as "can't work to protect consumer's long-term freedom." I would disagree with your characterization if you are claiming RMS thinks that only copy-left licensed software can be successful. I'm fairly sure RMS sees both Windows and Mac OS X as harmful successes.

I'm fine with relying on other people because I do it for every other part of life already. I don't grow my own food, I don't produce my own medical supplies, I don't build my own wifi devices and I don't pave my own roads. No one engaged in modern western-civilization does; we all rely on everyone around us all the time to live and do things.

Cloud backup services, VPSes, photo-hosting sites, Twitter, whatever, they're the exact same thing. If something about these services isn't fair or just, the answer is to find an alternative, inform our friends and neighbors, work to change laws, etc., whatever, not just try and do it all ourselves in some pointless attempt at individualism.

If cost and time were no object, I'd pay someone else to manage every single bit of my infrastructure, and task them with the responsibility for making sure it kept working. I wouldn't ask how, it'd be their job, the thing I'm paying them for.

(If I had any knowing of the details, I probably wouldn't want them to build a server and buy colo space, though, because of the resource consumption that would imply. All that electricity for redundant server hardware to endure disk crashes and so on? What a waste!)

Bunnie Huang (of MIT fame, original cracker of Xbox, proponent of open hardware [see: Chumby, Novena, etc]) has a really interesting talk given at the Media Labs in '15 at his alma mater[1]. It's about 1:15 but fully worth the watch including the QA, if you have any interest in 'open hardware'. That Rockchip run's on a fairly complicated 4core ARM. So which while the instruction set may be open, so is Intels. They'll happily ship to you their 3 volume multi-thousand page ISA. (Open is when you get to see any of final Altium/Cadence files that were used for the tape-out to make production wafers). At best you might get a few block diagrams. Good luck getting anything more than that. The closest you'll get to something open might be collaborative open standards a la the OpenPOWER (still, not that open) or RISC-V (which is probably still fab'ing at what, 65nm? 45?)

Anyways, that Rockchip is far from open. watch the talk to see his rationale behind choosing Freescale as his microprocessor of choice. He remarks on how $2.25 SoC picked up on the streets of Shenzhen have the full capabilities to run on GSM, which is really pretty remarkable. Obviously they're stealing IP and probably using grey-market tech/seconds that failed QA, but when he talks about the innovation _within_ that grey-market its fascinating. Even with his PhD in EE from MIT, experience in taking consumer products to market multiple times, fluency in Mandarin to aide in his ability to navigate the markets of Shenzhen, he'd have a real difficult time making a low-unit production run to compete with half the functionality of a low-level Android at twice the price because of the massive barriers to market. (Starting with easy things like UL certs and proper EMI shielding to more difficult political issues in getting a phone like that through the FCC and to the consumer). There's no economies of scale to help when Johnny doesn't know why he needs OSS.

Tangentially - if the N900 was still around I'd pay retail for it.

[1]http://www.bunniestudios.com/ [2]The reason it's so cheap is because they're clearly not paying any licensing fees to the appropriate IP owners. Every time a phone gets pumped out in a market where companies have litigious recourse, you have compliance with FTDI and pay your taxes to use USB, rent your little carved out spectrum from the FCC, etc.

Is it naive though? Naivety is a suggestion showing a lack of wisdom or experience. Stallman has this in spades. I'd peg this as 'idealist'.

To wit, imagine a world where:

* Everyone has a block of static, globally routable IPs (no NAT).

* Consumer broadband etc was less asymmetric, and not strangled my media conglomerates.

* Everybody ran a decent operating system with a package manager that handled updates for all their software.

* Server and P2P software was so easy to use that it became invisible

* The Internet hadn't become synonymous with 'the Web' for most people in the 90s/early 2000s. (Remember when we used to talk about 'the Web' just like how we talk about 'the Cloud' now? That's because, as far as most people are concerned, it's the same thing.)

... in such a world, suggesting everybody run their own server doesn't seem so crazy. In fact, there's still a lot of grass-roots belief in these ideals : http://redecentralize.org/