Hacker News Reader

Comment by mattl | Hacker News Reader

> Unfortunately, the fundamentalist FOSS mentality we encountered on Reddit is still alive and well.

This is incredibly rude. You may not like it, but GNU/Linux was built by people for user freedom, not for proprietary email clients.

Instead of using words like “fundamentalist” please instead consider that you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system and a large number of the long-term users.

A little understanding would go a long way.

View on HN

How is telling people what is good for them, like you just did, not fundamentalism? Almost every server and smart phone install of Linux uses proprietary software, that is clearly part of how people wants to use it. You yourself are communicating through many layers of proprietary software right now. This is exactly why people don't want to do open source. Because increasingly it isn't about culture, doing it better or making things happen. It is about telling people what to do and for people to enforce all sort of informal moral codes to protect their own position.

I’m not telling people what is good for them. I’m describing the reasons for the creation of the GNU/Linux operating system.

What proprietary software is being used on servers? I believe most Android users don’t know about user freedom, and those that do would greatly prefer a more generic, “pure” Android experience vs the poor quality applications installed by default on most non-Google phones.

You’re confusing the initial ideas that were attributed to open source — seperating the software from the campaign for user freedom — with the free software community. Open source and free software are different movements with common results. The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing, and those founding principles of user freedom are attacked by proprietary software.

> The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing.

Please find someone that worked in the field during the 70s. They hopefully will kindly re-educate you on this BS.

Also if you’re talking about the OSI of the late 90s I’d argue that gnu/Linux was not long before that. Those initiatives pretty much grew together.

I’m not talking about a community of sharing and improving software. That existed and is the reason Stallman started the free software movement and GNU.

I’m talking about the creation of the Open Source Initiative in 1998 and their initial distancing of software freedom from any practical benefits of the software created by the free software movement.

If you consider "fundamentalist" a rude adjective to descibe the said behaviour, what would be a better adjective then?

I don't have anything against that kind of attitude, it's great and I approve those guys though I myself also like to buy software. "Fundamentalism" IMO describes it pretty well and I don't see the negative connotation.

"fundamentalist" is used as a slur by some people (c.f. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fundamentali...). The slur assumes things that don't exist in the word itself, so it's not obvious the word incorporates them.

I think the difference between the slurred fundamentalist (connoting a terrorist-like figure) and a tech fundamentalist is objectively clear.

Fundamentalism implies a religion-like devotion to your principles, it's definitely pejorative used outside of this context. FLOSS is not a religion.

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism :

> The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts.

Using such a strong word to define your adversary's position is a way to discredit them.

Perhaps "purist" is a better word here?

I think the original usage was fine, it just doesn't mean what some are trying to add on.

"principled"? I really try to avoid closed source proprietary software as much as possible both for ideological reasons but also because it's a pain in the ass if you like to hack your OS, you need to step around it all the time.

I can understand thinking it's a "fundamentalist" mindset if you're used to Windows or Mac and software being proprietary by default but if you're a un*x poweruser who doesn't hesitate to hack the source code of the software to customize it it's a very pragmatical approach I think.

> If you consider "fundamentalist" a rude adjective

How about no adjective?

> Linux was built by people for user freedom

> not welcomed by the creators of the operating system

No, it wasn't. Linux was created because Linus Torvalds was in love with the OS running on the VAX at his university and wanted something just like it that he can run on his desktop at home.

> you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system

The DFSG and the OSD both prohibit discriminating against fields of endeavor, so the ability to run proprietary software on open-source operating systems is essential to the OS actually being open-source.

Linux is a kernel. GNU is an operating system, and so GNU/Linux is what most people are actually using.

The DFSG and OSD are criteria for evaluating free and open source software and more specifically their licensing terms. The discrimination against fields of endeavor means you can’t make a license that says “the government can’t use my software” or “no military use” and call it free software or open source software. It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to run non-free software.

My field of endeavor involves running non-free software. So which is it? Is it non-discrimatory or am I doing something against the creators wishes?

Your field of endeavor has nothing to do with a free software license. A piece of free software cannot say nobody using proprietary software cannot use it, however proprietary software is against the wishes of the original developers of what is best described as GNU/Linux.

I welcome it

It's just impractical to have high quality software for every niche be built by the FOSS community. Even non-niche products (like, let's say email) leave a lot to be desired

If I could pay companies for these products I would. But I don't because they don't make products for Linux because they think we only want FOSS programs

Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares. They're not the market. The users of the OS are the market. And I want high quality software, free or not, source be dammed!

> Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares.

Linus Torvalds was pretty widely quoted as saying If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won. I'm pretty sure he was being sincere. The guy has praised PowerPoint, of all things.

The GNU fundamentalists are a noisy minority. That's not intended as a commentary on their usefulness or the correctness of their position, it's just a statement of fact.

There’s no reason free software can’t be paid for either.

I agree that not every type of software will be built by community efforts alone, which is why many companies are contributing to free software.

Out of interest, what free software would you like to see?

Oh man where do I begin?

So I can't confidently say I've tried it all but when I booted up Ubuntu within the last year it was hard to find...

    - simple email client with good html template support and conversation threading (thunderbird was meh)
    - simple pdf viewer
    - pdf editor
    - an oscilliscope app that works with those usb oscilliscopes
    - image editor (gimp is a slow nightmare to use)
    - Microsoft Office suite replacement (Open/Libre Office is also a UI nightmare)
    - A diagram app ala draw.io (Admittedly I haven't looked too hard for this one)
    - Music library organizer (Also didn't look too hard)

I guess now would also be a good time to mention apps that are great

    - Desktops shells (Gnome/KDE/Xfce)
    - VLC 
    - Firefox/Chrome
    - Package managers
    - Music players (generally bearable)

> fundamentalist

> relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

I think it's fair to say that the gospel of saint ignucius is interpreted strictly in some circles.

The fact that this comment was flagged is deeply troubling to me.

This isn't rude at all. He was describing a situation in the Linux community where a large number of users have an aversion to paid software.

It's a real problem and one of the main reason osx was able to eclipse desktop software usage on linux in such a short amount of time.

Responses like yours are the real problem.

If you want linux desktop software to grow, there needs to be room for proprietary software.

Also, please don’t conflate paid software with proprietary software. You can pay for either, but only proprietary software is the issue.

A company can't survive on paid oss (gnu/gpl). The license allows anyone to purchase it and then go ahead and give it out for free, which would happen in short order.

Support doesn't work for many small companies, because you just don't have the manpower, so proprietary software is necessary.

I don’t think a business would actually do that, if they purchased something they would likely not put it up on GitHub immediately, but I think the key to selling free software is customization. Red Hat makes a good deal of money from free software, but as you say, much of that is from support.

It's almost like 2.9 billion dollars of annual revenue incentivises RedHat to make worse software, to encourage people to buy support.

Hah, what am I saying, ignoring incentives like that is easy and commonplace, I'm sure they pay it no mind at all.

Also, many "small" programs don't require support because they are very simple to use.

You can probably make money by selling Windows binaries of OSS software. See ntopng, where compiling on Windows is not that straight forward as compared to Linux.

Most companies don't survive on selling software anymore either. Look at Adobe. You can't buy their products, you just rent them.

That and the giant clusterfuck that the Linux desktop is. Gnome 3 has no desktop icons anymore per default, not even minimize, maximize buttons. It does not end there.

A major hassle is that sometimes the GUI is showing something different then what is configured. Especially in networking. I configure an IP address, I want it to show in the GUI. I don't care if it's configured via the shell.

>He was describing a situation in the Linux community where a large number of users have an aversion to paid software.

So "having an aversion" means that you're a fundamentalism? That's a bit extreme, no?

>If you want linux desktop software to grow, there needs to be room for proprietary software.

Judging by how I feel more miserable and less in control every year with the dumbification of the Linux desktop I genuinely don't want that. People keep adding abstraction layers in order to lure the mythical "average joe" to Linux, except that he doesn't care anyway so I'm the one who ends up having to deal with that bloat that doesn't offer anything to me. I'd use FreeBSD instead of Linux if I could because I prefer the way it works but I can't because of... proprietary drivers that are not available on the BSDs.

If people like to eat crap that's their problem, I don't see why I should force my self to get a taste for it just so that we can eat at the same table.

I don’t want “Linux desktop software” to grow. I want computer users to have zero-proprietary software.

The problem with thinking of GNU/Linux in the same way as Windows and Mac OS X is that it assumes a world where proprietary software is the norm, or is okay. I believe that is isn’t okay, and that it is harmful.

Harmful is wanting to be paid for their work while expecting others to give their work for free.

It is plain impossible to live from selling desktop software with source code available, without having others in the first week come around and re-bundle it, Sourceforge style.

Most of the GNU/Linux desktop stuff is GNOME, and a lot of GNOME developers work at Red Hat, but not exclusively. If you want to work on free software desktop applications, I would consider working at a company like that.

A lot of desktop software is commodity stuff — mail clients, office suites, browsers, photo editing and the like. But there are some areas where we need to be better, such as video editing.

I gave up on that dream long time ago, I rather have paying customers.

This is essentially a byproduct of Red Hat selling stuff. Just take Filezilla, people don't donate, so the author used some shady stuff. Or look at gnupg.

Yes, it's pretty terrible if consenting adults choose to pay for software, isn't it?

I love FOSS, but people like you (yes, "fundamentalists") can't deal with the idea that some forms of software are probably better as paid transactions between well-informed parties. The laughable state of open source office suites and any serious competitor to most of Adobe's products suggests that this model has its limits.

> Yes, it's pretty terrible if consenting adults choose to pay for software, isn't it?

The thing I zero in on here is that I have literally zero problems paying for software. But I am wary of purchasing software that I don't get the rights to build, modify, and contribute to.

My worry with software like this is that vendors come and go, and people get their workflows destroyed because the software can't be "saved" when the business is gone (yes, when, not if! always plan for that "exit" that ruins people because the products are gone).

Would I prefer the software to be FOSS? Absolutely. I am also absolutely willing to pay for FOSS, and a good number of Linux users are too.

I'm even willing to take open-core style models if it means there's some FOSS code release, as much as I don't like the model.

I use a mixture of FOSS and proprietary software all the time, not because I want to, but because I _must_.

And in my workplace, FOSS solutions (even ones we pay for) are infinitely preferred over proprietary ones. Desktop Linux support is a must, as well.

Agreed on most of these points. But I've been on both sides of this transaction, on both sides of the proprietary/FOSS fence (to oversimplify and abstract the difference between Free and Open Source). From experience it is hard to get people to pay for FOSS; my hat is off to those who can manage it.

I do think that vendors should have to put things into some form of shared-source or open-source escrow (possibly shared as they might not have IP rights to open source everything they've done) with a kind of 'dead mans switch' arrangement (i.e. you walk away without updating or responding to bug fix requests, you trigger escrow).

I'm perennially concerned that the fundamentalist attitude to proprietary software is suppressing innovation in some areas: especially complex desktop software where there is (a) a heavy requirement for the kind of tedious UI work that FOSS projects clearly don't bother to do and (b) where most or all of the product is "right there in the code" (i.e. once you have Photoshop, you can go to town and edit stuff, and you're not really all that dependent on having access to some other product or service which can be monetized).

The attitude reaches its most extreme in software tools. Best expressed by Andy Gocke with his great tweet: https://twitter.com/andygocke/status/1017509689695715328

'Developer tools seemed like a good industry to be in, "sell shovels in the gold rush" and all, but it turns out developers prefer to dig for gold with their teeth.'

You assume I’m for open source. That’s the problem.

This isn't really germane to any point I made, but I presume this is the standard point in the discussion where you lob this particular bombshell ("I did so NOT see it coming that the guy who writes 'GNU/Linux' everywhere is a Free Software purist").

Whatever I wrote about the limits of "FOSS" software can be multiplied by a solid order of magnitude for "free only".

oh, the consenting adults argument, my ass. As if there aren't enough things consenting adults are banned from choosing like drugs or gambling. Some proprietary crap can be compared to both.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?

I don't think you have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth legalize everything libertarian to possibly accept the scandalous idea of someone, say, buying a closed-source office suite for money, but thanks for your input!

Good luck to that, reality doesn't seem to agree with you. The future seems firmly in the camp of a mix of FOSS with proprietary.

The most popular OSes are proprietary:

* Android (almost useless without the Google stuff, plus 99% of Android apps are unfortunately proprietary)

* Windows

* MacOS (I know about Darwin, everyone uses MacOS for the proprietary integration bits)

> Android (almost useless without the Google stuff, plus 99% of Android apps are unfortunately proprietary)

An open source GMS implementation exists, and might gain traction with the recent Android/Google antitrust lawsuit in EU. Have you tried LOS + microG recently? Have you seen the utter garbage frolicking around on Play Store? Quality, not quantity. At least with F-Droid, you know what you're getting. Same with Aurora, as it has Exodus support.

I feel similarly but not quite 100%.

For the core things the basic, inter-operable, standard should be fully open and free. This includes protocols, data formats, reference applications/servers/clients and anything similar.

A user should not need to pay to communicate. This is a natural right and one of the cornerstones of a free society.

However I don't mind proprietary products as OPTIONS that allow someone to do the above better or more effectively (while still following open standards for external APIs!), or for 'toy' tasks like games or fun. That's a premium feature or recreational extra.

For the logical retort about who should be funding the development and maintenance of the core items? In some cases (hardware APIs) manufacturers might want to form standards bodies (E.G. Khronos maintains OpenGL and Vulkan) and provide open standards. In other (most) cases governments maintaining civil infrastructure should contribute. I would love if every university had a course where existing code repos were examined by students for completeness and safety and the students actually signed off on their reviews and maybe even submitted patches (or at least bugs if the answer isn't obvious/requires architectural changes) for flaws.

I think combining it with some sort of code escrow could work. Keep it secret while you support it, if you go bust or stop support the source enters public domain.

So who do you expect to write all of this non proprietary software without any means of making money?

The same people who have been writing it in the past. And who said there are no means of making money? You're just assuming something which isn't true just because you can't come up with an explanation.

Who are those people? Most are paid or sponsored by corporations.

Well just let them continue to do so, then?

So either open source developers have to work for and enrich corporations or work on the side for free?

Why should software development be any different than any other profession where people get paid for their work?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com