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

71–80 of 247 posts

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#71

Post by starbeast »

beaconstudios wrote: post #39
4ad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If more Linux people embraced proprietary software it would help spread Linux. Linux runs the world. I highly doubt it needs more "spreading".

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.

Other than all the android phones, tablets, set top boxes and TVs.

If you include BSD as well as Linux, you get the Apple computers and phones.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#72

Post by rhn_mk1 »

Topolomancer wrote: post #43
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.

Well, using the term _morally wrong_ seems to paint you into a certain corner. I am curious: where do morals come into play here? Why is a written piece of software so much different than, say, a chair that was built by a carpenter. Would said carpenter be morally wrong as well if he did not want to show you how to build the chair? I am _not_ trying to start an argument here---I am honestly curious about your perspec…

The morality comes from letting the user exercise certain freedoms, which can only be fulfilled with source access.

With the spread of DRM into the everyday world, we can see how this is playing out: coffee machines refusing third-party cartridges, printers requiring users to replace ink even if it's not used up, tractors unable to be repaired by the owner.

A chair is quite close to its source - some people would find it easier to inspect the object than the blueprint. As such, there's no meaningful distinction between a chair and its source. In terms of freedoms though, a nonfree chair would restrict your ability to inspect or alter it. It would turn into dust when altered, or would be covered with a special layer preventing unauthorized repainting or installing a child seat.

All those things refuse the user to enjoy the freedom of operating them whatever way they like, with real consequences. I know I wouldn't buy any of them given the choice, and I consider them malicious. In my book, malice is definitely related to morality.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#73

Post by pretty_bubbles »

I disagree with part of your argument. If being FOSS is important to you, by all means, only use FOSS. In some situations it is critical. For example, all of my devices become worthless once they stop being supported, unless they're FOSS.

At the same time there are some FOSS fundamentalists that think using proprietary software make you a bad person. They are wrong.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#74

Post by [deleted] »

taffronaut wrote: post #56

I assume that this is the "offending" thread on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/promos/comments/56ymfc/hey_linux_pe... Quotes: “This is going to be a very hard sell being a proprietary closed source system to Linux users, many use Linux because they have bought into the idea of open source. Good luck with it anyway” “If it were FOSS, I would have downloaded it and compiled it 20 minutes ago.” Is that it? The rest of…

[deleted]

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#75

Post by xte »

dpower wrote: post #2

I'm the author of this particular blog post. Curious to see how this is received by the tech community.

Personally I think you think in term of "what if I start to work FOSS way today" instead of "what if we push all together a political reform that mandate Free Software". In the former you are wright: if you live on a single proprietary software sold as a product you easily find yourself done, in the letter you have to look back at IT history where at start, not in academia but in business software was normally open and companies are far stable and profitable than today.

In an open world you can't sell product, you sell skill, time, resources. If you try to be something like JustEat, Booking, Expedia, ... you are simply dead, but that's not a problem except at an hypothetical "model change", that's a good things for the society that prize real innovation ad work instead of marketing ad use (legitimate or abuse) of a commercial position.

It's not a matter of fundamentalism but a different social model.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#76

Post by eeZah7Ux »

keiferski wrote: post #6

I’m not a developer and I don’t have a strong opinion on open-source software either way, but I’ve always wondered: does the fact that developers and other technical people have (comparatively) excellent job security affect their attitude toward free labor and products? If developers had a job outlook similar to say, musicians, would open-source be as widely-used and praised as it is now? Surely some academic economi…

Comparing developers with academics is more apt. Mathematicians and other scientists don't charge usage fees for their theorems or discoveries.

Yes, you can pay the author for a book but you can reuse and modify ideas and concepts at will.

Job security is quite relevant in academia: most discoveries in the last 100 years were [in]directly funded by government and researchers were usually not working under time or financial pressure.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#77

Post by bjpbakker »

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.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#78

Post by starbeast »

mherrmann wrote: post #37
jgrahamc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it but I'm not sure what you're trying to say really. Sure, there are people like Stallman, there are others who are more 'pragmatic'. World keeps turning. Do your thing. See how that plays out for you.

He is pointing out a phenomenon that holds very true and is not talked about very much: That authors of proprietary software are often attacked by FOSS Fundamentalists. It's a kind of bullying that I have personally experienced, and at least I do strongly believe that it is in nobody's best interest.

Try suggesting using FOSS in certain circles. You get called a communist and people throw stuff at you while swearing.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#79

Post by dpower »

maeln wrote: post #69

The complains about FOSS fundamentalists coming from proprietary software dev' (which I am) always seems a bit hypocritical to me. The reason is, you probably use a lot of FOSS software that were made possible only because a lot of people dedicated time and effort to it. Your servers probably run Linux, if not, the services that you use everyday probably do. Your compiler/language is probably FOSS too, if not, the so…

I think I was pretty clear in the article - I absolutely support FOSS. The point of the article was to debunk some of the perceived "evils" of proprietary software. It's not a zero sum game - FOSS vs Proprietary. Rather they can support each other.

Re: The fundamentalist FOSS mentality

#80

Post by zimbatm »

> If we do Open Source Hiri, there is nothing to stop someone from forking it and selling it for less /offering it for free. We die. And I do worry about my bank balance.

The author is fearful of not making money if his code is open source. The rest of the article seems like a justification-wrapper around this. I am not saying that this an unjustified fear but that it doesn't seem to be tackled-on directly. Is there any alternate reality where Hiri could be making money while having their product open source?

It seems to work for Travis CI and Sentry where their product has an infrastructure component attached to it.

Post reply on HN