
Saying No to unjust computing even once is help - crazypython
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/saying-no-even-once.en.html
======
projektfu
I hate to say it but free software has eaten everywhere many programmers want
to work. If you want to work in operating systems, frameworks, databases,
editors, tools, compilers, etc, you’d better be willing to do it on your own
time. If you’re like top 10, you’ll get picked to work for the big leagues and
make money doing it. Meanwhile the paying gigs are the things that either are
services or can’t be open sourced.

I guess I’m just sad that all the tools conpanies are gone or shells of their
former selves. Borland, Symantec, etc. New ones pop up but there’s no money in
support.

Companies are making huge money on their services that are 90% open source and
10% special sauce that they don’t contribute back. We’ve seen how they’ll
spend $300,000+ per programmer but won’t pay $10,000/year for a tool or
framework. It’s like the economics are messed up now.

~~~
jrott
Free software has definitely created some weird economics. Like I can't
imagine paying money for a programming language on the other hand I don't
blink about paying for Jira.

~~~
ultimoo
Maybe not for a programming language per se but Developers often do pay for
IDEs and other niceties around developing software. Swift is another
interesting example of a language that you have to pay for developing in (not
directly but in order to participate in Apple's developer program).

~~~
GoOnThenDoTell
Swift on Linux costs no money haha

------
ve55
Unfortunately it becomes near-impossible to say no to nonfree software such as
zoom, skype, discord, slack, gmail, etc. You will often end up with no job and
perhaps even no friends or no communication whatsoever by declining to use the
world's most popular centralized communication platforms.

Until there is a way to dampen the extreme and long-lasting power of network
effects for communication platforms, little will change with respect to this,
as no one is truly willing to accept the consequences of declining to use the
software that the rest of the world expects them to use.

~~~
woofie11
This is incorrect. It becomes impossible to say "no" 100% of the time. It's
very possible to say no occasionally. Indeed, if everyone said "no" when not
overly awkward, it would make a world of difference.

If everyone was willing to pay even an extra buck for a microwave based on
free software, market economics would push for 95% of microwaves to run free
software.

And if everyone picked banks which ran on free software, being willing to give
up just 0.1% interest, every bank would run 100% free software.

If everyone who could afford to pay for a free Google Docs clone did so, we'd
have nice alternatives. I don't know the adoption, but it'd be enough to
sustain a company.

And for video conferences, I'd never move a business meeting, but I do pick
freedom-preserving technologies when I set up meetings, and many of my friends
do as well. No one has ever commented on it.

~~~
Groxx
This assumes there are equivalent free software options each time, at only
slight disadvantages. That's pretty frequently not the case.

Even if you want to claim there exists a stable configuration with all those
true, there's still a bootstrapping problem to get there, and we're certainly
not past that point right now.

~~~
NateEag
This is absolutely true.

That said, I have been thoroughly impressed with
[https://meet.jit.si](https://meet.jit.si) every time I've used it.

It genuinely works well, and it may not be a Zoom killer, but for my one-on-
one calls, it has absolutely been a viable alternative.

~~~
noobermin
I used jitsi until I was overruled and now we use teams (sigh). It worked
somewhat but would start to get iffy after 5 or 6 people would be in a call,
especially when they're a few hours away. We'd have to start turning off
cameras to get it to work. That of course doesn't seem like a software issue
more than it is an instance issue, zoom and microsoft probably have hosts of
more servers to handle stuff compared to the default jitsi stuff.

------
macdice
One phenomenon I am fascinated by is the advent of software that is entirely
built out of open source components and open standards, that is closed off to
people using non-mainstream open operating systems and hardware sort of by
accident at packaging time.

I'm thinking of apps that built around Electron and Chromium. This stack
allows people to ship beautiful webapps (= web protocols and languages,
weblike experience) in a format like native applications, with the addition of
desktop integration, but ... now we have HTML5 developers shipping binary
blobs for the operating systems and CPU architectures they choose. It's cool
that that includes common Linux distros as well as the leading commercial
OSes, but what if I want to run RISCV instead of Intel/AMD, or FreeBSD, or
<insert any other system entirely capable of running the usual stuff from the
Unix ecosystem that some people call the "Linux desktop"> instead of Linux,
and why is an HTML5 developer/publisher making that choice? Add to this the
fact that Chromium itself is an open source project that is widely ported to
systems other than Android/Linux/macOS/Windows, but the upstream apparently
doesn't accept portability patches. Suddenly that matters if the unit of
delivery includes an internal browser executable.

I understand the practical reasons for all of the above, but it irks me on
some level; the whole point of all of the huge tower of open standards
involved was to avoid this situation. In practice most of these apps are
probably also available as straight up webapps in a browser, so it's not
really a big deal in the end, but it seems like a really strange position to
have finished up in.

~~~
stkdump
It always bothered me, that applications have to ship and load their own copy
of chromium and node. I don't get the compatibility argument. After all,
websites have the exact same problem to solve and do that just fine, most of
the time.

For desktop applications you could even require a given minumum version of
electron installed on your target system. If its not there, your installer
offers to download and install/update it. Also, instead of including a copy of
chromium and node, electron could just use installed version of those.

------
cnst
I emailed RMS on 2019-02-19, with a subject line, "What's bad about: Zoom.us".
Somehow Zoom was missing from his pages as an example of unacceptable
software/service (I see it's finally there, but very barebones compared to the
rest of the examples --
[http://stallman.org/zoom.html](http://stallman.org/zoom.html)).

Let me quote his select quote from my email, and the start of his reply:

\---

    
    
      > I really enjoy your What's-bad-about series.  Any chance you can do one for Zoom.us?
    
      I never heard of that.  What does it do?  I would guess that since I
      never head about it then it isn't important enough to mention.
    

\---

Yes, 2019. With Zoom having a billboard at SJC and plenty of other airports,
not to mention every other phone interview for a software engineering role
being done over Zoom.

~~~
serf
>Yes, 2019. With Zoom having a billboard at SJC and plenty of other airports,
not to mention every other phone interview for a software engineering role
being done over Zoom.

Would you rather he bluffed and said "Oh yeah, Zoom.." and rattled off some
reasons, rather than expressing a curiosity and willingness to listen to
someone about it?

No one listens to RMS because they think he's the most hip person around --
they listen to him because occasionally he spouts out some wisdom that, on
average, is worth listening to.

~~~
dwohnitmok
Almost certainly parent isn't talking about

> I never heard of that. What does it do?

I'm pretty sure they're talking about the dismissal on the following line
(which on the surface is the opposite of curiosity, although you can make the
argument that paired with his question on the previous line it's more a
statement about his confidence in his own familiarity with the field of
software):

> I would guess that since I never head about it then it isn't important
> enough to mention.

~~~
young_unixer
Let's agree that he has to draw the line at some point, otherwise the list of
proprietary programs would be huge.

~~~
pwdisswordfish4
Stop intentionally ignoring the thrust of the argument.

Let's agree that Stallman does have to draw a line. Let's also acknowledge
that Zoom is included on this side of the line.

------
noobermin
While this is true to some extent, there has to be a game plan. This is a lot
like climate change. Sure, individual choices help, but there has to be
systemic change as well, especially if your goal is to change the situation
that exists in the world around you. I mean, hell do I push, I've been trying
to get people to use jitsi over zoom for example even when the default
instance is kinda poor compared to zoom for the reasons rms listed. But from
the other side, we need regulation of the worst abuses that zoom has done.
There need to be some sort of consequences for zoom lying constantly about
their product and how it isn't actual encrypted for example. When they can
operate on an uneven playing field and get away with abuses just because will
mean we'll never win.

------
young_unixer
We should recognize that many times network effects are not the problem, but
the low quality of the free software offerings.

Many free software advocates are OK with ugly and bad interfaces, bad
documentation, etc. and they don't understand why anyone would prefer the
proprietary alternative.

As a community, if we want to make normal people use (and donate to) free
software, we should increase our quality standards. It's important that the
whole user experience (downloading, installing and using software) is smooth.

For example: I can give many good reasons to use Jitsi instead of Zoom, but if
Jitsi's usability or video quality is not on par with Zoom's, all my reasons
crumble at the eyes of normal people, and we shouldn't blame them. (Just an
example, not saying Jitsi is bad.)

~~~
Pragmus
I think we also need to realize the difference between a "pretty" interface
and a functional one.

I think it's possible to have something that's not ugly and yet not bloated to
hell. It just depends on actually understanding UI design in a way that is
universal to your audience. For instance, I doubt most people find pre-XP
windows "Ugly", if anything a lot of us yearn for that era of interface.

------
coronadisaster
I need to get rid of Google, they don't even let me login to my own account
anymore because they don't recognize my devices... but before I do I need to
get my data out, somehow.

------
Hnrobert42
I understand why open source software is important for security and
innovation. I don’t understand why it some believe developers shouldn’t charge
a fee for software. Why is charging a fee unjust?

~~~
fungiblecog
The FSF is fine with charging for software. That's why they say "free as in
freedom not free as in beer"

~~~
dwohnitmok
Theoretically true, but practically unworkable.

If you give end users the right to redistribute your software for free there's
not much you can do other than appeal to people's better selves and implore
them to pay for your software instead of choosing the exact same copy for free
(even though that's something both legally and ethically completely allowed by
your choice of license).

At that point it's just a donation model with a suggested donation, which
really isn't all that different from "free as in beer."

Under most circumstances "free as in freedom" is a superset of "free as in
beer."

This is the reason why open source businesses focus on paid add-on products or
services rather than monetize their nominal core product.

~~~
nextaccountic
When you say paid add-on products.. you mean, that's the reason "open source"
business focus on selling proprietary software? As in, "open core".

~~~
dwohnitmok
Effectively yes. Sometimes it's not quite "open core" in the sense that they
don't offer two versions of the same piece of software, but rather separate
programs that are meant to work in conjunction with that software (or a paid
cloud version of the local program), but the end result is similar. There is
some nuance in how this affects community uptake of the software if it is
divorced at the software level.

------
jerome-jh
Personally I am increasingly concerned by deceptive SW, free or not.

Take the enrollment tunnel of a brand new Android phone, or Google Play as a
whole. Deceptive wording everywhere, trying to make optional steps pass for
mandatory. You could say it is just as bad as many ecommerce site (eg Amazon
with Prime).

I know Google Play and key applications of the Android ecosystem are not open
source, still it is based on a pretty large free codebase (on which my
employer, hence me, make a living by BTW). But that makes one of the largest
open-source contributor, Google, act quite devilishly. And other large
contributors (I am thinking of Redhat) act devilishly too.

In short, there were days when being an open-source contributor meant being
ethical. These days are definitively over.

------
ocdtrekkie
I've found refusing to use an app on privacy or security grounds often doesn't
curry a lot of favor. Even if I can demonstrate concrete examples of harms.
But I generally try to invite people to open platforms when I can.

So if I need to share something online with someone, I share using my
Sandstorm server. Sometimes they ask what it is, sometimes they don't because
it works for what we are doing and nobody found need to comment further.

~~~
ethanwillis
I'd never heard of Sandstorm but it looks great. The similar alternative I've
been using owncloud for things like this, but will give Sandstorm a shot!

------
mjevans
Also linked from this is a set of Libre (Freedom as in liberty and also often
Freedom as in usually beer recipes also) communications tools.

[https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/better-than-zoom-try-
the...](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/better-than-zoom-try-these-free-
software-tools-for-staying-in-touch)

Voice: Mumble, Asterisk/SIP

Video calls and presentations: Jitsi, Jami, OBS (and presumably an RTMP
server?)

etc

~~~
voltagex_
Hahaha, have you ever set up an Asterisk server? It's difficult to do right.
Then you've got clients - there aren't many good SIP clients for Android, let
alone free ones (CSipSimple is long abandoned)

~~~
29083011397778
I've never used Asterisk, and perhaps I misunderstand what you're trying to do
with SIP, but wouldn't the built-in VOIP client work for AOSP-Android?

It may be hidden based on your carrier, but it's configurable if you remove
your SIM, reboot, and set it up under Phone > Settings > Calls > Calling
Accounts. Settings you enter will save if you reboot after as well.

------
erikerikson
I don't think it's fair, but when I read Stallman it always feels he's part of
a Machiavellian ploy to suppress wages.

------
unwoundmouse
What sort of an economic model makes open source software feasible at large
scale?

~~~
Kednicma
I would flip everything around: At scale, doesn't a private enterprise run out
of money to support large codebases?

This isn't a facetious suggestion. Every employer I've had in the industry has
been drowning under their heavy codebases. They have massive amounts of
vendored dependencies, and long tails of single-author modules. The bigger
employers have to create special teams just for pruning codebases and cleaning
up after old projects.

And they're losing the battles. Code sprawls between multiple cloud vendors.
Services exist in ecosystems so large that they have echo chambers, network
effects, and politics. New languages are slowly introduced and even more
slowly removed, with most code being written in mid-level glue modules. Code
ontology and navigation is primitive and limited to indexed search.

What makes FLOSS different? Political discussions have to bring technical
justifications to the table, mostly; this is Linus' famous "talk is cheap, so
show me the code" slogan. The openness of collaboration ensures that CI
systems, code repositories, and other shared services are available to folks,
although this is still a cultural situation that isn't quite uniform yet.
(There's too many folks who only publish tarballs and don't share the rest of
their infrastructure, which is fine but not very collaborative.)

The resulting ecosystem _can_ directly and openly compare codebases, and
deprecate code which is shown to be inferior or unsafe or otherwise
undesirable. We have shown an ability to not just change code artifacts, but
the protocols and languages which we use to communicate, at a very rapid rate.

~~~
Chlorus
> We have shown an ability to not just change code artifacts, but the
> protocols and languages which we use to communicate, at a very rapid rate.

Results may vary for the C language, IPv4, X11, GTK, ALSA, and massive swathes
of the CoreUtils.

~~~
Kednicma
Rust, Zig, IPv6 in Linux, Wayland, EGL, PulseAudio, PipeWire, and of course
BusyBox. Compare and contrast with the fact that the banking industry is still
searching for COBOL maintainers.

------
mwcampbell
> If you tell one organization you won't use its “portal” or app, so you will
> deal with it by phone, that helps.

If those are the choices, I think using a proprietary app might be better from
a non-religious, consequentialist perspective than adding to the stress of an
overworked and underpaid call center worker.

Also, for some people, using the app isn't just a slight convenience. I don't
know this for sure and would be happy to be corrected, but I imagine that deaf
people greatly prefer an app over using a TDD or a hearing interpreter to
communicate with a phone-based customer service rep.

~~~
srtjstjsj
Call center reps prefer having work to do than being unemployed.

------
ramshorns
It's good to be reminded that every choice makes a difference and it's not all
about being self-consistent. Kind of like how, even though I left home without
a mask yesterday, it's still better to wear a mask today than not.

------
incadenza
My disagreement with the fsf is pretty fundamental. I don’t see anything
wrong, all things equal, with paying someone for software that is closed
source provided there’s some way to ensure it’s not doing things wildly
unexpected or malicious. Perhaps it’s impossible to verify such a thing
without source code, but the core ethical claim seems off to me.

~~~
mhh__
It's not about maliciousness it's about owning the machine. If you bought a
radio in the 1950s, you could take it to bits and fix or upgrade it. You can't
do that's with today's software.

It's not comfortable for companies but it is a simply better way of doing
software development both ethically and in terms of quality.

------
pcunite
The donate button at the bottom of the page is telling.

~~~
mhh__
Why?

