Hacker News Reader

You seem to be dismissing FOSS, despite that it has taken over the world when it comes to servers and smartphones.

> OSS doesn't really solve the usefulness problem.

Most Linux kernel devs are paid professionals, making improvements that have value to their employer, and making the improvements available to all (a triumph of copyleft). It's not just hobbyists tinkering in ways they find interesting. Hasn't been that way for decades.

> It's good at producing software that's appealing to people who like using and tinkering with OSS software - but no one else really cares unless it's handed to them inside a product which has been assembled to be useful.

I have the choice of several different FOSS browsers, text-editors, C++ compilers. FOSS is quite capable of producing a 'finished product' that just works.

> even then it's about the product, not about a largely imaginary "freedom" which is inaccessible to most users because it specialised skills, advanced knowledge, and plenty of free time

It's not just developers who are affected by issues like tracking, intrusive telemetry, and even just unskippable ads in DVDs. It's true that developers are more aware of these issues.

You seem to be dismissing FOSS, despite that it has taken over the world when it comes to servers and smartphones.

I think that dismissal is correct. While both may be open-source, neither is "free" in the sense of the term that Stallman is using. Cloud services may run on Linux, but it's a very TiVo-ized form, where the free core is wrapped in many layers of proprietary code that serve to negate the freedoms that Stallman is pushing for. Similarly, Android, while it is open-source, is nowadays so dependent on Google Play Services (which is proprietary) that it seems hardly fair to call it free software in the same way that one would call a Linux desktop free software.

You have a point about smartphones, but I'm not convinced about cloud virtual servers. You can use proprietary managed services from AWS, or whoever, but if you just want a GNU/Linux server, you still have that option. Indeed, there's never been a better time for it.

That's fair, but I would respond by saying, if you just want a generic GNU/Linux VM, there's really no reason to choose AWS. You can get one from someone like Linode or Digital Ocean for less. The advantage of AWS is that your GNU/Linux server has access to all the proprietary AWS goodies, like S3, DynamoDB, Route53 DNS, etc. etc.

I tend to do my Linux dabbling on the cloud. I rarely make use of the fancy services available on AWS, but that's not the only advantage of AWS, as they also do a fine job with the basic abstractions relating to EC2 instances.

One example is firewalls. I'd expected Linode and Digital Ocean to offer cloud firewalls the way EC2 does, but no. When I create a new Linode instance, all ports are open to the world. On EC2, I can easily restrict new instances so that incoming connections are only permitted from my IP. That gives me protection against flaws in the SSH server. I think it makes good sense to handle this at the cloud level, rather than configuring a firewall inside the instance.

Another example is that Linode and Digital Ocean will charge me the full hourly rate for an instance even when it's switched off. To avoid this, you have to manually create an image of your instance, then later restore it. Not so on EC2, where they've really thought through all the abstractions.

We do have a secondary form of capital: what we charitably call ethics/guidelines, or uncharitably - peer pressure. This is the currency that dominates FSF language like the “harm done” by proprietary software, the free software “manifesto” and so on. It is in this currency that developers are given a “perk” of occasionally working on open code at their otherwise closed day job, or are compensated in in exchange of a more lucrative proprietary model for their side project.

I don’t have anything against those who take their free software views seriously. But I am very annoyed that the currency of “ethical behavior” is one that burdens the individual and benefits the corporation. Only individuals can feel guilty that their software is not free, can agonize over copyleft vs permissive, can feel obligated to pass up compensation in exchange for ethical currency, can feel drained by an internet argument, etc. Corporations meanwhile can mostly ignore this secondary currency and operate entirely within the system of money.

Pressuring developers to use your license (when it is their work and their choice) is disgusting and people shouldn't be doing it at all.

I need a goat and have chickens for trade. What's your exchange rate?

freewheelin' franklin says ....

"Dope will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no dope."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Broth...

generally - things and stuff get you through times of no money better than money gets you through times of no things and no stuff. money is really a roundabout way of convincing someone to give you things and stuff, and offering shiny things and stuff is a way to get money. in the end money is for making landlords and bankers happy, its the things and stuff that help to mantle over the hard problems of real life.

Free software in this essay means software that respects your freedom. Not "Gratis".

So every company has the right to charge you for their software but once you acquire it you can use it however you wish.

Don't most FOSS licenses explicitly allow for redistribution though? So once one person gets itm they can then redistribute it for free or a cost with the original developer not benefiting (directly).

Sure but the end user of this product doesn't know or care about the parts. This matters to those of us in the plumbing business and those businesses that would hire us to do their plumbing.

I suppose that money does bring a lot of problems along with it. However, in human history there has never been a better means to trade or provide almost universally desired fiat. Since there has never been a nation state collective government that has survived over the long haul or a massive project on a national scale completed without either money or an authoritarian government forcing it, I think we'll just have to live with it for now until someone figures out a way to make the world collectively completely altruistic.