
When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - asymmetric
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html
======
lucb1e
I think the article makes a good point. Most comments complain about some
technicalities, like using the word "open source software development" vs.
"open source software", or mention that "no it isn't inferior!" (which is
true, but not the point).

A few months after meeting me, my girlfriend wanted to try a Linux system and
I was happy to help her install it. In the end she didn't see what I thought
was better about it. I thought I never said it was better, but apparently I
gave off that impression, leading to a false expectation.

And it's true, Linux desktops are still notorious despite being actually very
stable these days. Open source programs like Firefox, Chromium and Telegram
all work the same; and some others like the average file explorer is
functionally equivalent too. It's just not _better_ , at least not for most
people. It might even eat more battery because of inferior drivers.

The inherent advantage of free software being _free_ (as in freedom) is what
the article is about, and that is a good point.

~~~
slgeorge
The problem with this argument is that it doesn't achieve the aim of winning
more users, even if it is true.

The "open source" movement recognised that users don't _care_ about freedom,
but they do care about other aspects. In a choice between 'proprietary and
easy' and 'free but slightly-harder' users go with the first option: it's
actually worse that this because consumer users are actually willing to go
beyond 'zero cost' and actively sell their privacy in return for
ease/sociability etc.

I think the actual issue with the OSI's marketing is that it turns out these
words work for professional users of software and not for general consumers.
Professional users such as IT departments care about 'power', 'flexibility',
'maintainability' etc - general consumer users don't think that way.

End users (particularly consumer users) care about achieving _aims_ in very
straightforward, simple terms! Neither, the FSF or OSI philosophy translate
into perceived or real benefit for them.

To a large degree I think it's something like this:

Developers (care about freedom) <\---> professional users (care about
attributes) <\---> consumers (care about ease of outcome)

'care about attributes' is the wrong word, but professional users tends to
care about aspects of the software, they ascribe value to the software itself.

~~~
lucb1e
> it doesn't achieve the aim of winning more users

Winning more users is not an aim in itself, not to me at least. It's not a
cult that I want to win hearts for.

But if people see how wrong it is to have a single entity control your
computer (and almost everybody's computer), they are definitely welcome to ask
for help installing something better (in that regard).

I didn't respond to the rest of your post because it builds on that
assumption.

~~~
slgeorge
That's fair enough, there are lots of FOSS users who don't care about there
being more users. They care about their individual freedoms - it's a perfectly
rational view.

Perhaps I mis-spoke because I personally do care about there being more users
of FOSS.

Really, we're trying to discuss how the FSF approaches its aim to "preserve,
protect and promote the freedom" ...

Do you think that aim is enhanced by spending energy on what I consider to be
academic hair-splitting, rather than addressing and explaining the philosophy
to wider audiences such as users / academics / policy makers. Or am I
misunderstanding how Free Software is promoted by denigrating open source?

------
_pdp_
Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior by
definition. It is just software and its quality will largely depend on how
much effort the developer is putting into it.

Typically some form of commercialization is often a good incentive to improve
any type of software but obviously there are plenty of examples that go
against this rule.

It is common to see these days open source or free software that comes with
some form of commercial options and that's very good in my opinion because you
get the best of both worlds - still it doesn't mean it is better or worse.

Is Gitlab better than Github? It depends who you ask.

~~~
mordocai
> Free software or even open source software is neither superior nor inferior
> by definition.

Strongly disagree with your implication here and the rest of your comment,
though I agree with the literal text you wrote in this sentence.

FOSS is superior for the end user because it can help avoid vendor lock-in
(someone else can always take the code and run their own service/app that the
user can then switch to) and allows the user themselves to pay someone to fix
issues/maintain the software if it becomes unmaintained.

You are quite correct in your point that FOSS is not necessarily more
featureful, more secure, or easier to use than proprietary solutions though.

~~~
_pdp_
I understand where you are coming from but I disagree with some parts of your
comment.

FOSS is not superior to the end user because by no means it helps with the
vendor lock-in. Remember that the vendor in FOSS is the developer and when
they decide to ditch the product it does not mean that someone automatically
will step in to take the job. Therefore, the customer is locked in anyway. You
are assuming that the customer will support the product but they may not have
the technical know-how nor the interest to do it. What is the difference
between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-source product?

In fact, more often than not you see the opposite happening - someone creates
an open-source alternative of an already established closed-source products or
services to piggyback on the established success.

I am dissing FOSS. :)I am only only trying to present a balanced view that at
the end of the day all software is equal as long as it does the job for the
time it is used.

~~~
mordocai
> What is the difference between a dead closed-source product and a dead open-
> source product?

The difference is that with an open source product you can always choose to
pay someone to maintain it, even if just for long enough to move away from it.
With a closed source product you are SOL and may not even be allowed to use it
anymore after the company goes under depending on the details.

------
alephu5
I respect that ethical motivations of free software in an age of mass
surveillance, retail tracking and the copyright war but I routinely use
proprietary software.

In practice when a free clone lacks a feature or has a bug that stops me, I
have no choice. I seldom have the skills and time to pop the hood and fiddle
with the code.

If I need to read a document typed in MS Word that is unreadable in libre
office, I'm going to download MS office viewer...

~~~
rglullis
You "may not have a choice" at the _exact moment_ that you need to do
something that only a proprietary solution can provide, but those that really
want to support free software can still adopt a strategy to avoid such
moments: every time one "consumes" proprietary solutions, take a percentage of
the value spent and donate to a free alternative.

Imagine if every graphic designer that "has no other choice than Photoshop"
decided to donate $10/year to Gimp, and that took one hour week to use it,
provide bug reports, feature requests, etc.

Imagine if every web developer that uses Apple "because it is a better desktop
than Linux" decided to donate 5% of that to Canonical (or Fedora, or Arch) and
took a few hours every month just to _try_ to get their issues sorted out.

Imagine that every company that is so invested in AWS (or GCS or Azure)
realized that there are cloud providers that are based on free software
solutions and have no lock-in, and that they made a commitment to make
quarterly donations to them.

~~~
mfukar
No, that's not the way it works.

Consumers pay for services rendered, not for R&D.

~~~
rglullis
First, I am not telling all consumers to do it, but the ones that "really want
to support free software"

Besides, with software (and free software even more so), services rendered
_is_ R&D.

~~~
mfukar
So, if a consumer has the reasonable expectation to pay for something which
fulfils an immediate need, they do not "really want to support free software"?

Surely you must understand how that is a meaningless phrase?

Software services are R&D _at some point in time_, which is also a meaningless
phrase. Right now I can go buy Microsoft Office and fulfil all my document
editing needs I'll ever have. However MSOffice to me is a product, not some
distant R&D objective.

Maybe FOSS could be better guided by focusing on what a product really is.

~~~
rglullis
If your focus is only on your editing needs and you buy MS-Office and stop
there - then no, you do not really want to support free software.

If on the other hand you have a document edit need that no free software can
provide, and you understand that you can buy MS-Office to fulfill a need and
_also_ donate/support to LibreOffice or any other project you might be
consider worthy of support - then you are at least walking the walk and doing
something in support of FOSS.

It seems to me you are making an either/or proposition: either you are a
_consumer_ or you are an _contributor_ of software. It doesn't have to be like
this.

~~~
mfukar
It is an exclusive proposition for non-FOSS. As a customer, I can't contribute
to MSOffice.

However, I can contribute _and_ be a customer to FOSS. That's not what we're
talking about, though.

~~~
rglullis
To be honest, I think we both lost the point of the conversation.

All I was trying to say is that those that (1) respect/value FOSS but (2) end
up buying/consuming a proprietary solution due to the current shortcomings of
the free alternatives can _still_ support FOSS, which might lead to (3) not
needing proprietary solutions in the future.

I don't want us to be arguing past each other, so please help me understand
what you mean by "this is not how it works". Does it mean that you think that
such strategy can not work? If so, why not?

------
ns8sl
I once was on an elevator with Richard Stallman at MIT with my 14 year old
son. He turned to my son and asked him what OS he used. My son replied
'Windows', because it's free.

Stallman might have lost his mind at this point, but instead smiled and said
'Windows isn't free and free software isn't free'.

This post reminds me of that exchange.

~~~
acedinlowball
I was with my son and my wife and the same thing happened to me.

------
nxc18
I think a core issue here is that despite being a buzzword, 'free' just isn't
all that meaningful or important to most developers, especially since the
freedom that is granted to end users is explicitly not given to creators (see
GPL). Open source however, especially with something like the MIT license, at
the very least gives you access to read and hack at cool source. F is not the
meaningful part of FOSS unless you happen to be a lawyer or really enjoy
lawyering.

~~~
peller
It's true that the definition of "free" is somewhat overloaded, and means
different things to different people. But to say it's not all that meaningful
or important is, I think, going way too far.

As for your point about creators' freedom with copyleft, that limitation is
explicitly to ensure that end users' freedom remains unrestricted. And, by
logical extension, that creators are not exploitive of the original authors'
efforts. Think of it as "locked open." So yes, it may be less "free" in the
strictest sense of "do whatever you want free" \- but we as a society have
clearly decided _that_ level of freedom is unacceptable (see eg, murder,
slavery). GPL has simply chosen to draw the line closer to rights for the
people than rights for the ruling class (ie, end users vs corporations,
respectively).

------
jmnicolas
> "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
> software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary software."

IMO open source advocates should stop defending and start making better free
software. (most) People use what's good not what's ideologically pure. Example
: you don't have to defend Linux as a server OS because it's an excellent OS
for servers. Now if we're talking as a desktop OS ...

~~~
davexunit
The "I'll use it when it's better" argument is self-defeating. If we can
convince people why this software that may be practically inferior is better
for our society and get them to invest in that mission, the missing features
and bugs can be addressed more easily.

~~~
mfukar
If that's not a self-defeating argument, I don't know what is.

~~~
jpetso
Suggesting a long-term investment instead of a short-term one is a self-
defeating argument? Or the suggestion that convincing people about the value
of long-term investments is feasible?

~~~
mfukar
The 'argument' is an infinite regression. At the end of it, if we can convince
everyone that FOSS is better for our society, we can make it better for our
society. But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better?

~~~
davexunit
>But how do we convince everyone? By demonstrating it is better?

That would be an infinite regession, but free software is not about being
better in a practical sense, but being better socially. You also make an
assumption that everyone needs convincing, which is also not true.

~~~
mfukar
If FOSS is not about being better in a practical sense, it can't possibly be
better socially. Not in our capitalist societies, anyway.

------
grigjd3
I think one has to be fairly pedantic to hear the open source argument and not
realize that some open source projects are better than others. That said, the
philosophy is a bit dated. Good, solid software often comes from having a
large user base. With lots of people using a tool, issues get identified
quickly and there is more motivation to fix those issues. What can make the
open source method so powerful is that it opens the door for numerous people
to improve the software. For important projects, like cpython or boost, this
often means having significantly more resources than proprietary software. Its
not an absolute rule, but it can often play out that way.

------
simonh
So if I'm reading this right, the freedom that in principle someone could make
the software better is more valuable than actually having better software?

So the freedom isn't valuable because of what it achieves, it's just valuable
intrinsically by existing in principle.

That's not completely bonkers. I've never been to Arbroath in Scotland, but I
could if I wanted to. That freedom has value right? But only if I can actually
exercise it in practice.

------
prions
It feels as though the open source community (I'm talking about the Linux
Desktop space here) is being pulled in two different directions at the same
time.

On one hand, there's a strong desire to have a closer to the metal experience,
allowing more veteran users to quickly adapt and modify the software to how
they see fit.

On the other hand, there's a push to bring new users in and create a more
beginner friendly environment.

Frequently these two objectives clash with each other, especially when trying
to find solutions for common problems. It's pretty common to see senior
members complaining that the user is at fault for not reading the appropriate
doc/guide (not to say the user is totally absolved from reading them), or
seeking an "easier" solution that doesn't involve applying advanced terminal
commands to people who have rarely used one before.

After using Debian based distros for a while, I switched to Arch. Installing
wasn't too bad except for a few weird hiccups. The amount of looping from the
help forums to the Arch Wiki, which doesn't contain your issue, would make
your head spin.

~~~
st3v3r
But those two objectives don't have to clash with each other. MacOS is able to
support both objectives quite harmoniously.

------
fermigier
This piece looks to me like a major strawman argument example.

Let's get back to the sentence that's quoted at the beginning:

"Open source is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open
source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost,
and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

1\. This sentence is about "open source development method", not "open source
software" (two different classes of objects). Software can be open source (if
its licence is open source, i.e. acknowledged as such by the OSI) but not
developed using the "open source method" (i.e. if, still quoting the initial
sentence, it doesn't "harness the power of distributed peer review and
transparency of process").

2\. A "promise" is just a promise. Whether it's realised or not is still, to a
large part, up to the talent and determination of the developers, or
organisations, doing the work on the project.

3\. Also, "better", "higher", "more" and "lower" should be defined in the
context of which object we're talking about. In this case, this is implicit
but I guess the comparison should be with similar software not developed using
the open source method, i.e. with not distributed peer review and no
transparency of process.

4\. Last, I'm sure that both FSF and OSI agree that putting "an end to
predatory vendor lock-in" is a good thing. Two bad the FSF doesn't mention it
in this text.

~~~
rini17
You probably missed the part where they say how many sourceforge projects have
only one developer. That clearly says something about the development method,
and how often are these promises realized.

~~~
gmluke
I don't think that proves anything at all. If you said to a free software
advocate: 'Freedom is pointless because most of us don't exercise most of our
freedoms' that would clearly be a nonsense argument. Enumerating open source
projects and counting their contributors is barely more coherent than that.

------
slgeorge
This article is an example of what over ~20 years has steadily turned me away
from the FSF. How does this article do any good?

At the bottom of the page it says:

    
    
      "Our mission is to preserve, protect and promote the freedom ..."
    

And yet, they're endlessly stuck dividing the world into smaller and smaller
cohorts of purity.

It's 15 years since the OSI. Open Source as a term has done more to get FOSS
into business than anything else: Open Source is the Heineken of Free Software
whose slogan was "reaching the parts that others can't"! And yet, they still
don't get it!

There is value in being controversial as it makes headlines and spreads the
word. But, they're too insular - arguably, at a time when the values of FOSS
needs more positive explanation and engagement, given the direction of
software and technology today.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-
sourc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-
source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source)

~~~
stinkytaco
>There is value in being controversial as it makes headlines and spreads the
word. But, they're too insular - arguably, at a time when the values of FOSS
needs more positive explanation and engagement, given the direction of
software and technology today.

What direction are you referring to? As I see it, Open Source has won. The
shift to cloud based solutions means more people are using at least _some_
open source than ever before, whether it's portions of their browser to
massive Linux or BSD server farms, they are engaging with open source.
Companies that once sold proprietary systems are moving more and more to open
source solutions (e.g. Microsoft).

The irony is, of course, that as open source _software_ has won, freedom has
actually been damaged.

~~~
slgeorge
I feel like FOSS is growing/winning for developers and shrinking/losing for
users.

FOSS is _used_ a lot by the major SaaS companies to deliver their solutions,
but none of their solutions are themselves FOSS. For example:

    
    
      Google search, Google email (I mean why not?)
      Facebook
      E-bay
      Amazon
      SalesForce
      LinkedIN
    

All of these companies now believe in Open Source for developers, and not for
users.

And I think that division has firmed up over time, a new generation of Web-
centric developers have come through. Challenger app developers are highly in
favour of FOSS for infrastructure, but I don't think they even consider it for
the application [0]. For example, Asana, <and a bunch of stuff I don't use>

If anything, I think the steady move towards apps/closed-gardens is a big risk
to FOSS as a vision for _users_ , though the vision for _developers_ continues
to grow.

[0] what everyone is doing may well be rational from their perspective, we've
learnt since the 90's that open source is a development methodology not a
business model.

~~~
rekado
This is why I find it important to use AGPL3+ for my code. We need more
developers who are committed to user freedom and who work not only on free
software but specifically software with a strong copyleft.

~~~
serge2k
Yeah but the FOSS guys decided it would be too hard on companies to make the
AGPL provisions part of the GPLv3.

I think that makes them hypocrites, but oh well.

------
amelius
The risk of software not being maintained anymore now or some time in the
future is important in most contexts, especially if data formats are specific
to the software.

This risk is higher with open-source projects, especially if being developed
in academia, or by few developers (not a community).

~~~
vbezhenar
It's exactly the opposite. With open source software there's no risk at all.
You can always hire developer to support this unmaintained software, because
sources are available, or just to export data. With proprietary software you
just can't do it legally and if you want to reverse-engineer it (allowed in
some countries), you'll need exceptional expertise.

~~~
amelius
It depends on the amount of money you can spend on it. For most companies,
where money is not an issue, it is better to have commercial support for
software.

------
yxhuvud
From what I can see, the whole

> For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or
> a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a
> problem to be worked through.

is a big unexplained pile of garbage, and without that the whole thing falls.

~~~
mikegerwitz
> is a big unexplained pile of garbage

What is unexplained?

If it respects your freedoms, then it's a viable replacement for an equivalent
program, even if buggy or lacking in certain regards. If it's completely
unusable, then obviously that's not practical, but if you reject proprietary
software, then the alternative is simple: nothing.

A good example that I'm experiencing right now is Replicant. It lacks many
features---not to any fault of its own---that require proprietary drivers. The
front-facing camera, wifi, bluetooth, GPS, NFC, certain video drivers, etc
simply don't work. Consequently, it can't take video or run certain programs
like FF/IceCat that require special drivers for rendering.

But I can do everything I need to do with the phone except for take videos of
my children.

~~~
yxhuvud
So your problem is that some totally separate pieces of code are not open
source. Yeah, well, that is not the fault of open source.

Whoever wrote Replicant could just as well have written it in GPL and it would
have made absolutely no difference unless some of the driver makers chose to
distribute Replicant. Open source is friendlier for gradual adoption of
openness, and that can make the process a lot simpler. It also allows users to
have mixed stacks which adds a whole new set of people that can contribute
code.

~~~
mikegerwitz
> So your problem is that some totally separate pieces of code are not open
> source. Yeah, well, that is not the fault of open source.

No, I don't have a problem. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is until
someone develops a viable replacement. My understanding is that the Android
version in Replicant 6 will solve many outstanding issues.

In any case, it's the fault of the developers of those drivers.

------
golergka
All the product qualities have value only as long as they're important to the
customer. "Respecting the users' freedom" referenced here is a thing that most
users don't even understand, let alone value. In their eyes, free (or open
source) software doesn't have this inherent advantage the author talks about —
and for most professional users (as in those who make money using the
software) the "free as a beer" isn't that important as well.

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent. [1]

More to the point, some of them are regular contributors to free (and open
source) software projects:

[http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-
source-2...](http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-
source-2016-9)

[1] Says rms; gee, thanks Doc.

------
danschumann
I use a lot of open source, but there are definitely times I prefer to write
something myself because it's faster than learning how someone else
implemented it, and needing to hack a lot for special customizations. My
favorite open source project is probably three.js.

------
na85
Honestly I grow tired of rms and his Ivory-Tower ideals. I'm sure that if I
lived in my office, had no family, and someone paid me a salary to do nothing
but give the same talk over and over, then I too would have lots of time to
wax poetic about how freedom is more important than actually being able to use
the software.

But I don't.

I have a job, and when I come home I have a family to pay attention to, so I
don't have time to hack away at my desktop environment or perhaps my phone's
OS. I'll just stick with Android, even though it is not strictly "free",
because for me the choice is between nonfree and not having a phone.

~~~
pavlov
_...for me the choice is between nonfree and not having a phone._

Surely it would be better to have the free option too? That would just give
you one more choice.

That's why RMS takes the idealistic position. If no one does it, the available
choices inevitably get watered down to "nonfree or nothing at all", as you put
it.

It's like human rights: the principled stance is important in itself and must
avoid the appearance of corporate or government influence. You wouldn't want
the American Civil Liberties Union to be controlled by Wal-Mart and
ExxonMobil. For the same reason, we shouldn't want open source to be
controlled by Google and Facebook.

~~~
na85
Oh, absolutely.

If given the choice between free software and functionally equivalent nonfree
software, I'll choose the former.

But in my line of work, the only real choice is proprietary software. Same for
my phone, frankly.

I'd love to live in the world rms lives in but most of the time free software
just isn't good enough to be a viable option.

~~~
PeterisP
Even while it's not good enough to be a viable alternative, it _does_ act as
competition - it provides a "floor" of price/performance that noone can afford
to breach and acts as a (weak, but still) limitation against a particular
proprietary product exploiting a de facto monopoly position.

Even if _now_ the only real choice is one particular proprietary software
package, then you probably can imagine some level of price increase and/or
usage restriction where the currently poor free alternative would be worth
considering, if you and others put some effort and/or money towards it instead
of the proprietary licence - and the proprietary vendor can imagine this as
well, so the existence of the free alternative by itself is putting a limit on
how much they can exploit the market.

~~~
na85
Perhaps in some markets, you may be right. In aerospace there are very few
free alternatives and most of the clients are large enterprises who can afford
multi-thousand dollar license fees.

