Resisting the binary blob [LWN.net]

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 16, 2006 18:58 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190)
In reply to: Resisting the binary blob by emkey
Parent article: Resisting the binary blob

> I happen to feel that as a general rule open source software is a superior model that will win out in the long term, but with one qualifier... It has to gain significant market share first.

If it undermines or abandons its key point of differentiation to gain a few more users now, how is it *ever* going to acquire major market share?

The one thing free software has that can never be taken away is its ethical basis - but when so many people are so quick to advocate surrendering it wholesale for a little bit of convenience right now, perhaps it doesn't *need* to be taken.

Oh, and you want "a real alternative to Microsoft"? Buy a Mac; for if Microsoft were to release Windows under a free software licence, the community would welcome their conversion with open arms. Free software is about principles, not alternatives; choice is merely the shoddy counterfeit of freedom.

I refuse to subscribe to the view that principles are worth less than the sacrifices necessary to maintain them, which seems to be what is being advocated here. For those who think they are, there are two perfectly good operating systems out there in widespread use, and likely one or the other of them came gratis with the last computer you bought. But consider the adjectives usually used to describe people who postpone their purported principles to purchase petty popularity.

(Log in to post comments)

Today's quiz

Posted Nov 17, 2006 7:59 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

What in particular makes free software more ethical than for pay software?

Nothing, considering that free software can also be for pay software.

And can those rule be applied generally, or are they specific to software only?

If you refer to free vs proprietary software, yes: the rule is that helping others is good, while not sharing good things (like your knowledge) is bad. Not even primary school knowledge, this is kindergarten stuff.

Is free software actually free?

A very old question; the best answer is to define what you mean by free. This is why the GNU project publishes the free software definition. If you agree with the definition then it is free. Others have a different definition, or an even more different definition. So you get to make the decision.

I refuse to be sacrificed for a principle that A, I don't agree with and B, I don't believe to have a factual basis.

A principle which you don't seem to understand, since it is pretty practical in nature. And yet you benefit from the fruits of said principle... Well, whatever one says of your position, you are in good company.

Today's quiz

Posted Nov 17, 2006 16:13 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

You imply that the kernel guys don't understand a principle that normal people are supposed to have learned in Kindergarten? You can't be serious.

Today's quiz

Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:47 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

Not really. It is a bit confusing because there are two sets of principles here. The first one is the set of principles embodied in free software: that software must be free (just as speech, since it is another form of human expression), that proprietary (closed) software is bad, that binary blobs have bad consequences.

I explained that this set of principles applies generally because it derives from another, simpler set of principles: that helping others is good, and not sharing good things is bad. Not all children learn these ideas; remember the greedy kid in the corner who has all the goods but no friends. What is worse: we tend to forget those principles as we grow up.

What our correspondent here (as well as certain kernel developers) don't seem to understand is that both sets of principles are very much the same; or, being more precise, we do not agree to the extent of the equivalence. Both are practical in nature, since they have immediate, real-world consequences (as the Open Source crowd likes to point out). Both can be theoretically justified (as in games theory or elaborate essays). And both have ethical consequences which you have to consider.

Many kernel devs don't think that the Kindergarten principle of helping others necessarily applies to their work, which is fine -- but wrong. Torvalds in particular seems to think that it is only about sharing code between professionals (tit-for-tat, a famous Kindergarten principle + games theoretical concept [as I have just learned]), but that Tivo-like locked down systems (which do not certainly help others) are OK. Again, not enough thought is given to the consequences of one's actions, which is not so surprising since you have to be a bit obsessive to think things through in this manner.

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 22, 2006 14:25 UTC (Wed) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> I refuse to be sacrificed for a principle that A, I don't agree with and B, I don't believe to have a factual basis.

As I say, there is plenty of other software from which you can choose; some of it is even gratis. But you appear to be demanding that people who started doing something on a point of principle discard that point of principle to make your life easier, and that's not "you not being sacrificed" - that's you behaving like a petulant child.

Resisting the binary blob

Posted Nov 22, 2006 14:30 UTC (Wed) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Oops - should have said this before posting my other comment.

> What in particular makes free software more ethical than for pay software? And can those rule be applied generally, or are they specific to software only?

Free software is not "more ethical than for-pay software", and I didn't say it was. I said its ethical basis - ie. the moral decision which led to the creation of free software as a concept - was its differentiator; I didn't imply anything about whether that moral decision was better or worse than others.

I guess, from this, the real problem you have with free software is that *it makes you feel judged*. Except it doesn't - YOU make you feel judged; free software only sets and seeks to protect its own standards, it doesn't seek to bring the rest of the world into compliance with it. That certainly accords with one generally accepted definition of freedom.

> Is free software actually free?

Now that question has to be a piece of FUD right up there with some of Ballmer's finest... Careful; your agenda is showing.