Hacker News Reader

Comment by jordigh | Hacker News Reader

This is a starry-eyed blog post. I like it, and I miss not having more of these. We need more starry-eyed dreamers because they get good things done.

I just spent some time with the Debian crew at the last Debconf here in Mtl. I've always liked their attitude and I love their operating system -- and so does everyone else who has ever created a Debian derivative. Others at Debconf felt the same. Bradley Kuhn even said something like what a breath of fresh air it was to not have to apologise for being a free software supporter. I love how organic Debian is and how the conference was perfectly run with livestreaming and IRC bots keeping us abreast of the next event. These polychromatically-haired dreamers know how to get things done.

So, it's good to see that the starry-eyed blog posts haven't stopped.

View on HN

Why would someone have to apologize for being a free software supporter? I consider my FSF membership a point of pride.

We get told many things. That we are fundamentalists, that all software cannot or should not be free, that the GPL is too restrictive, that we are anti-business, that we spend more time arguing politics than getting things done, that we are passé because Apple and Microsoft are releasing some free software. Someone like bkuhn gets to hear things like that all the time. It's nice for a change to not have to argue against each of those points.

I'm all for free software. Really, I am. I just have a problem with the idea that free software is absolutely the only way to go. I have no problem with people who refuse to run non-free software. I have a problem when they insist that I'm doing it wrong by running Windows.

Sent from my Fedora-running laptop.

I don't think you're doing anyone any harm by running Windows. I just wish you didn't have to.

See, that's an enlightened way of looking at it.

In the end, until Open Source gets as much funding as proprietary software, it's not going to have anywhere near the level of direct support that things like Windows get. Say what you will about Windows (And OS X), but, for the most part, it just works, out of the box. Compare that to my experience trying to get Fedora to run on a late-model HP laptop, and you see why people prefer something that just works. (Keeping in mind that I've been putting Linux on things for the past 15 years or so).

But that's the key: Getting Open Source funded. And that's where being "FOSS OR NOTHING" hinders FOSS, because if people don't know how to support something, and don't see any value, and are confronted by a mob of angry FOSS advocates bashing on the things those people have been using for most of their lives, they're going to back away slowly, back to their proprietary safe space, where no one is yelling at them that what they're doing is an affront to freedom.

As long as there are people like RMS who actively show disdain for proprietary software and those who use it, people are going to be turned off of FOSS. Which is a shame, in my book.

> mob of angry FOSS advocates

I've been at DebConfs, FOSDEMs and other events and never met any these angry advocates. They seem to be mailing list / twitter trolls.

> people like RMS who actively show disdain for proprietary software and those who use it

Do you have sources to support the claim that RMS shows disdain for people using proprietary software?

Point 1: I take it you've never been on the receiving end of the "Oh, you use _Windoze_" comments. The fact that "M$ Windoze" exists as a meme is proof enough that there are enough people who show disdain for proprietary software that people took notice.

Point 2: Do you mean besides his every day demeanor? Or besides his extensive essays on the evils of proprietary software that imply _strongly_ that people who use and create them are against Freedom?

Look, the vast, silent majority, as with most groups, doesn't care what kind of software other people use. The problem is, as usual, the core, vocal group of people who dislike anyone who doesn't think like they do.

In both points you conflated, again, disdain towards software and disdain towards users.

> I take it you've never been on the receiving end of the "Oh, you use _Windoze_" comments

Actually I did. Clearly those were not insults meant against me as a user. Just like stating "beer is disgusting" or "I hate Samsung" is not insulting me for my drink or monitor brand choices.

Free software activists and advocates are often accused of "user shaming". And they often do. Generally speaking, it's difficult to both consider and balance others opinions when you have a hard-line stance on something. It's a sign of experience and empathy when you can. Not everyone can.

With regards to software freedom: we wish that nobody would have to sacrifice their four freedoms to use proprietary software, but if they wish to do so, that is their choice. But we have an obligation to discourage it---not only because we are opposed to it, but because others' use of proprietary software in effect encourages others to use it as well. For example, the GNU operation system would never prevent users from installing proprietary software. (Actually, it can't, because someone would consider that to be an anti-feature and simply remove it.) But GNU and the FSF would never endorse distributions that encourage you to do so.

So you're not "doing it wrong" by running Windows in the sense that you're free to do your computing however you wish, and me insisting that you do otherwise would be disrespecting you as much as if someone insisted that I use proprietary software. I may not respect proprietary software, but I respect that you've given consideration and have decided to use it.

Back in the day when my status as Person Who Knows Computers meant being frequently called on to (re)install computers and get rid of malware and what not, my little stance for free software was refusing to install pirated software. And once people saw what a Microsoft Office license actually costs, suddenly OpenOffice looked very attractive.

> Free software activists and advocates are often accused of "user shaming".

What do you mean with "shaming"? I've been at many DebConfs and I have never heard any other DD calling people names just for using some closed source software.

> What do you mean with "shaming"?

Making users feel put down in some manner for using proprietary software, even when they might not be aware of the issues surrounding it. Users might be made to feel like they're hurting themselves and others in doing so. While being made to feel personally responsible (intentionally or not), they might then be exposed to a barrage of statements about how proprietary software is bad/evil and all of the problems surrounding it, which might make them feel even worse about their position.

This can have mixed results. If a user _didn't_ feel personally attached to those problems, then he/she might find it informative and a good illustration of the problem. Otherwise, users might become defensive or angry. Some might feel ashamed or bullied.

rms can come off that way, for example, even though he legitimately doesn't intend for that to happen. He has to balance his writing style with other concerns. One of his articles[0] was the topic of discussion on an internal GNU list where I and others provided some feedback to reduce the sense I just described. He makes strong, important points in the article, but it can be off-putting to people who aren't a part of the free software community. So for free software advocates reading it, it might seem informative and an excellent example of the issues, whereas someone not familiar with software freedom might experience the issues I mentioned above. It can be difficult to convey that using proprietary software is doing harm by encouraging others to use it, for example.

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-prog... (compare with earlier versions on archive sites)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com