Is there any hope for Free Software? It seems that most programmers are not even aware what Free Software is, not to mention the users. Open Source is hip and cool but is not taken seriously, it is used to attract free labour and for marketing, but the end-user still receives a proprietary version based on the open source code. How could this change?
It seems that most programmers are not even aware what Free Software is, not to mention the users.
That's just the good old corporate subversion. People don't complain about corporations ruling their lives, but that they should rule them that way rather than this way.
Open Source is hip and cool but is not taken seriously, it is used to attract free labour and for marketing, but the end-user still receives a proprietary version based on the open source code.
It's taken plenty seriously. Work for free and maybe get a job at a corporation for a pittance. They don't even mention Free Software or copyleft, because then some people will get to thinking that giving away their work and asking for nothing in return is stupid. Plenty of people have written software thinking it's not important enough for a corporation to use it and then exactly that happens, because why not save money?
How could this change?
Proselytize Free Software. This isn't addressing how the entire software world is overgrown and stupid, but I suppose that's tangential here.
There's a chance everything one day will be streamed like Google Stadia. Having a personal computer will be a funny notion, like buying music on vinyl or CD.
How could this change?
Look at your own actions and see if they lead towards tyranny, and if they do, change your actions.
If you are a programmer, publish all your own software under the AGPLv3+.
Don't give a penny to the people who, if they could, would set up a toll booth in your own home.
>>3
I forgot to mention the AGPLv3 in my post, but I don't recommend the or any later versions clause. Don't trust licenses which haven't been written yet. I'll upgrade my software to the AGPLv4 iff I like it.
The or later clause used to be safe and is useful to distributions. But after the Chief GNUisance was forced out of the FSF it is worth considering whether you trust as yet unpublished versions from the rms-less FSF.
How could this change?
What resources do you have that capital doesn't? Clearly all you have is bodies and ideas, and ideas that do not effect material conditions at that. I'd argue the options are to organize among your community (the community of programmers) or to give up on world domination. A utopian vision of the former would be vast armies of programmers going on general strike together to enforce their demands of free software in their workplaces or even on their government. This is especially unlikely due to the lack of material benefits for such a thing.
An amusing method which feeds into the engineers bias for innovative technical solutions would be a cryptocurrency which is rewarded on the basis of various version control interactions, and with some mechanism to control against price volatility. It's difficult to imagine how such a solution could be made viable however.
As attention gets diffused by choice, intentionally hijacked by corporate interests, compromised and altered by demagogues, those with attention to give will readjust: it doesn't matter that majority doesn't know there's Free Software, more important question, how many hackers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? turns out not that many. we've gone through a phase when hackers got a little bit phased by all the available options, but i believe we're entering a new period, when people will spend energy on creating and maintaining their own exclusive walled gardens. i believe these gardens will continue being primarily Free Software, but maybe with some barriers to keep potential wreckers away.
>>8
I think this is giving up on world domination; I think it's the best option. It might be worth considering what one can learn from communities like that of OpenBSD and GNU itself where principles of some sort reign in spite of it all.
where principles of some sort reign in spite of it all.
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe with parts of these communities.
>>10
There are obviously contributors who disagree with the principles of the projects, but I'm not sure there are many actual community members which do so. I guess it depends on how you demarcate the community.
>>8
Welcome to the GNU/Ghetto!
>>6
We have the GPL, which seemed to work really well for a while.
>>13
It lost it's effectiveness as a strategic piece for obvious reasons. Like mindlessly pushing the gpl instead of using it as a strategic piece.
>>14
What do you mean? Using the GPL and AGPL for everything would be ideal.
>>14
Corporations rarely even mention the GPL or copyleft, because it doesn't advantage their position. People are encouraged to use permissive licenses which conveniently allow corporations to take free labour and contribute nothing.
We need more copyleft, not less.
>>15
They might mean that writing (A)GPL software, and advocating the license to peers is insufficient. This could mean that anon would prefer we focus on what >>12 derogatorily called GNU/Ghetto(s), or it could mean they want some of the idealistic solutions mentioned in >>6. Who knows.
>>15
Dual licensing and ignoring the gpl happened. Take a look at, https://heathermeeker.com/2018/04/30/first-gpl-case-in-china-or-is-it/ and this is when they have a court case to "save face".
Things like the system library exception and general tools make it harder to use the gpl strategically, you can say it's not copyleft enough in this case if you want.
>>16
Violating the gpls intent isn't specifically about corporations and corporations aren't the only abusers of free labour that could be deterrent by the gpl. Corporations use things like the gpl for cheap new age media sensationalism when they want, which is worth a lot and makes people fall into traps like dual licensing and clas or the old bait and switch. Might want to say free labour isn't completely correct since everyone using code must pay in their own labour to use it at varying degrees.
We need more copyleft, not less.
With this viral copyleft license having the same intent as that one, this viral copyleft is incompatible with that one, due to it's viral nature, until one party agrees on a license change and pulls in all the contributors or in worst case everyone loses and the court decides the intent is the same. Did you mean gpl compatible copyleft licenses? The gpl may have exceptions but that doesn't make the other copyleft license stop being viral so it can be gpl here. There's even faq entries about this.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#Consider
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatIsCompatible
The fsf even decides that you should go into their cla for enforcement, which I'm not an expert and sure what enforces them to act in good faith but this is the same as allowing dual licensing without the lead programmer being the one benefiting from the agreement. Saying this is a perfect arbitrator, how many purely gpl projects really do this?
>>17
I prefer and want everyone to focus on the ideas and the how the system are designed and have worked, then use that for furthering whatever they're doing but didn't want to say that since it feels like pumping ego instead of working with ideas and designing systems.
Well that's part of it but sssh.
We need a fully libre vtuber (virtual peertuber) that talks about Free Software.
>>20
I thought about doing this, but I have no idea what such a person would even talk about, or what couldn't be more efficiently conveyed in text-form.
>>20,21
Code/copyleft lectures, programmer's humor, livecoding, streaming use of programs and debugging, answering audience questions related to programming/copyleft/software in general.
What ActiveX controls /prog/ recommends for browsing?
>>21
Some personified gnu.
Video is its own medium. Many prefer it for whatever reasons. I see it as an aesthetic choice. There's no universal "best medium." Each medium reaches a different audience.
>>25
Sure, but it also is the medium for a message, and different messages are expressed better in different ways.
>>22
Code/copyleft lectures
If you have good code advice, you probably don't have that much legal advice, and vice versa.
livecoding, streaming use of programs and debugging, answering audience questions related to programming/copyleft/software in general
Are there Free Software tools for this?
Are there Free Software tools for this?
Write them yourself to satisfy your licensing terms, you have the time you can do it!
>>21,22
It could be more user centric and showcase free software, do tutorials, demo new features, etc. And of course livestreaming SuperTuxKart speedruns.
vtubers
https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/videos/fsf-heroes/videos/The-University-of-Costumed-Heroes-720p.webm
>>29
I have the feeling that that video should be forgotten.
>>30
It was that or the communism presentation.
communism presentation
?
>>32
Old meme about some nonexistent panel rms did on communism.
>>20
Luke Smith
>>8
Urbit's agenda
>>9
If we give up, other's won't.
Will they have as ethical means as us?
>>27
Looks like that isn't necessary any more: https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/pull/3250
>>34
Luke Smith is a meme spouting retard and not a vtuber. vtubers have cute real time computer generated anime avatars.
The amount of people who actually care about "free as in freedom" software are a small group of a small group of nerds (programmers). I don't think the idea will ever spread very far because of this, and would say it's easier to convert people to the idea of digital privacy than to "free as in freedom" software.
The amount of people who actually care about "free as in freedom" software are a small group of a small group of nerds (programmers).
I think that's wrong, and with the macOS fiasco from a few days ago (https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/) I think that there is a potential here, while digital privacy is a much wierder battle: People semi-conciously give up privacy for compfort, and I don't think they are wrong. Most people just don't have that much to loose from producing adversiting-data.
Normal day for Elmo
Elmo be takin bitches virginities and eating fried chicken
Suddenly, the smell of timber fills the air
The sound of jackhammers nearly deafens Elmo
A bright light in the sky
Bob the Builder crashes to the ground like a meteorite
Bob the Builder screams 'I must keel u elmer'
Elmo is infuriated at being called 'elmer'
Elmo lunges at Bob the Builder and slaps him across the face like a little bitch
Bob the Builder is sent flying to China
While Bob the Builder is on the floor crying, Elmo starts punching him in the face with his 20 inch furry cock
Elmo then gouges out his eyes and eats them
Blind Bob gets up and can't see
Accidentally walks off cliff and dies
Elmo b like 'U SHUDNT HAV MESED WIF ME BAWB'
Suddenly, Bob grows fairy wings and flies back up
Elmo pulls out a submachine gun and shoots Bob like 837 times
It's no use
Bob pulls out a jackhammer, turns it on and throws the drilling jackhammer at Elmo's dick
Jackhammer leaves huge hole in Elmo's crotch, his once-cock is now mutilated on the floor
Blood everywhere
Bob then picks up a saw and starts cutting open Elmo's stomach
Elmo's intestines ripped out by Bob's evil hands
Bob fucks Elmo's bloody crotch hole with his intestines
Elmo dies from blood loss, dead in a pool of blood and organs
Bob whispers in his ear 'Don't cause a prob with the Bob'
Bob walks away, laughing hysterically
He thought Elmo was dead
He was wrong
A strange echoing of Elmo's voice can be heard
Earthquake occurs
Bob looks over his shoulder and his horrified
Elmo has transformed into ELMOXXX
ELMOXXX pulls out a shotgun and shoots Bob in the legs 20 times
Bob can no longer move
ELMOXXX then rips apart Bob's asscheeks, exposing his now-bloodied rectum
ELMOXXX pulls out his 200-inch cock and impales Bob with it, turning his entire body into a shish kebab on ELMOXXX's cock
ELMOXXX fucks Bob's entire body and releases toxic cum into Bob's bloodstream
A now poisoned Bob is writhing around on the floor in agony, dying slowly and painfully
ELMOXXX then grabs a chainsaw, rips out Bob's liver and feeds it to him
Bob is screaming a lot and tries to scream for help
Before he could, ELMOXXX cuts out his jaw with a machete
Bob dead on the floor
To finish him off, ELMOXXX shoots him 10000 times with a minigun
Bob's mutilated body in a pool of blood
ELMOXXX turns back into Elmo
Continues fucking bitches and eating fried chicken as usual
>>37
That's the problem, Free Software is about the user's freedom, not the programmer's. It made sense to appeal to programmers when the software was missing, but today most effort should be spent educating the users, both in theoretical (what is Free Software, why use it, how to recognize it, etc.) and practical (how to use this or that Free Software, what alternatives exists, where to find it, etc.) topics.
Your computer now serves a remote master
Without Free Software, it always did. This is what people need to realize.
>>37
By far the best argument for Free Software, currently, is proprietary software. Corporations aren't content to simply rule the roost, but must gain ever tighter control. Now, they don't even want to sell software, but rent it indefinitely. People complain about being able to purchase support for software, but I can see a future where it's easiest to do that with Free Software. I need not even explain how these corporations gladly accept money, and still spy on their customers and leave them beleaguered by advertisements.
Make no mistake, proprietary software is going to fuck itself over eventually, because this is what capitalism tends to do. Currently, corporations are most preoccupied with subverting Free Software so there are no alternative choices, but this may very well fail, so long as we and others resist it well enough, and make certain to pull back the curtain and reveal the real criminals behind this.
>>43
It already failed, ousting rms is damage control.
>>44
Do you really think that the RMS-canceling was a coordinated effort? I always interpreted it as an unfortunate encounter of opportunists at the right time, at the right place. Sure gets you a few more followers that looks better on your resume.
>>45
I think you're looking for the word planned not coordinated. The amount you are questioning this is the effort I put into making that post.
unfortunate encounter of opportunists at the right time
Archived mailing lists with high profile people like rms don't have this, there are always lurkers that will spread something like this. There was no opportunists or right time. Calling those lurkers opportunists is a compliment.
Do you really think that the RMS-canceling was a coordinated effort?
Maybe not a coordinated take down, but more like SJWs jumping at the opportunity. Remember, they were already mad at him for refusing to take down that abortion joke in glibc.
>>47
Yeah, that's what I mean by "unfortunate encounter of opportunists".
I know this in some sense isn't free software, but I wonder what your thought would be on explicitly stating that an AGPL project for example was available for alternative licensing for pricing that could be worked out on a case by case basis (or even a fixed price). This makes it clear that there are damages in the event of the AGPL being violated without compensation, which would make a legal case far more viable. You could even refuse to do business with those that would violate the AGPL, but still claim damages if they violated so long as you weren't picking and choosing.
>>49
I've thought of just this. I like to entertain the thought of having an important AGPLv3 software and making an arrangement with a corporation in exchange for a large fixed-cost and profit-sharing. This would perhaps give violators a way out without complying with the license, but not without a heavy cost.
>>49,50
On reflection I think this might actually be the engineering bias in favor of technical solution to social problems again. It seems clear that while this might secure the respect for one free software project, this does not put free software in a stronger position. It's maybe a viable way to create a small engineer directed company, like some of the old small lisp shops, while still creating free software. Even in the respect given previously I'm not sure how viable it would be.
On reflection I think this might actually be the engineering bias in favor of technical solution to social problems again.
Maybe they have children and don't like risking their lives for more radical changes.
risking their lives for more radical changes.
I wasn't talking about protracted peoples' war or something; programmers aren't a revolutionary class. What I meant was organizing, that is to say building organizations, potentially with a broad material justification. For example in addition to free software you focus on the deprofessionalization of the industry, the formation of the precariat, and housing cost. There are many types of software development where unions are feasible, although they've been crushed in the past. Further a wise organization only strikes when it is certain it can win, although often this is very difficult to judge.
I genuinely think the bias for technical solutions is a bias, if something always seems to work you are more likely to look for that type of solution in the future, and in many domains, especially for someone with good technical skills, technical solutions help.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/help-us-set-high-priorities-for-2021-send-input-by-jan-8
The FSF is looking for suggestions to update its list of high-priority projects, or rather "areas where people feel they are heavily pressured or even required to use proprietary software". The current list is: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
What are your thoughts on it? Phone software is definitely the worst in my case, along with drivers.
>>54
The only non-free software I feel pressured to use is my university's CMS, and email beyond this I'd like to see more free hardware, at a reasonable price point, even if with relatively low performance. In reality most of what I would like to see in computing is now orthogonal to the FSF goals, perhaps with the exception of having software and hardware that fits-in-head, and is secure.
As an example it's great that the Mozilla Corporation releases the source to Firefox, but what use is it if it's too large to be understood by one person in a reasonable timeframe, allows users to be easily fingerprinted by websites, leaks information about their users, has a couple thousand CVEs, and can't be built on a machine with a reasonable amount of memory (iirc requires 8GB of ram or something similar)?
To me it seems like the FSF has won, according to their initial mission, but the end result has been unacceptable for other reasons. The free-software is neccessary but not sufficient for users to be in control of their machine. We need to go beyond the FSF if we are to acheive this goal.
>>55
PaleMoon is largely maintained by 2-3 people, its a fork of firefox.
8gb
Having 8gb of ram is mandatory nowadays. I think my next machine
will have at least 64gb.
You can probably argue that minimizing resource consumption, or at least keeping it below a certain level, is necessary to make Free Software available to the majority of people in the poorer regions of the world, who can't afford to buy 64 GB of RAM. But as far as I know this is not a general problem with Free Software.
I wouldn't be surprised if some kind of "sustainability" project would appear on the list, although I am not sure what it would mean in the context of Free Software.
PaleMoon is largely maintained by 2-3 people, its a fork of firefox.
Editing and maintaining a package is different than fit-in-head. As an example I can certainly modify my GNU Emacs system to my will, but this does not mean GNU Emacs is a fit-in-head program. The issue is concerning understanding.
Having 8gb of ram is mandatory nowadays. I think my next machine will have at least 64gb.
I'd be the first to admit that this was the least interesting of my points. Regardless my machine has 2gb of ram, and I think it's completely absurd that a markup renderer would require much memory at all to compile. Other than compiling a heavyweight web browser (neccessary for my university CMS) I have no reason for more memory. I would like to be able to maintain my own pachset to firefox, but this is not possible.
As an example it's great that the Mozilla Corporation releases the source to Firefox, but what use is it if it's too large to be understood by one person in a reasonable timeframe
LMAO, you think it would be possible to understand any Web browser that works with HTML5? Dream on, loser.
you think it would be possible to understand any Web browser that works with HTML5?
If by works with HTML5 you mean completely implement the standard you might be correct. WWW is marvelously byzantine, its fleshy walls are stuffed to the brim with the bubbling puss of arbitrary abstractions which disregard their domain, covered in sores of text based protocols leaking just enough of the puss to keep it from overflowing as it constantly makes more. Arms protrude from its sides grasping for whatever they can subsuming users when they get close as blistered mouths with missing teeth scream in agony, “coders” building their miserable fleshy houses in the puss.
>>59
Libdom might make this possible but it's a pipe dream.
>>55
Lucky you. Over here we have Zoom everywhere and I've already done some campaining for a faculty owned Jitsi instance, but it's not like it's going anywhere.
>>56
I don't know what you're doing on your compootie-wootie, but in normal use I never manage to go above 2GBs.
>>60
Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
You have some skills, anon.
i never manage to go above 2GBs
software setup?
what kind of compilers, browsers, os?
>>60
html5 isn't that big by itself, its just bloated OOP code in chromium/mozilla
codebase thats 95% one page files implementing some dumb class.
>>64
The WATMG HTML5 standard is 1000 pages iirc, and it includes as part of this the DOM. If you exclude the DOM, and don't implement some of the more wild tags like <canvas> or <video> etc. then it is quite small.
Over here we have Zoom everywhere[...]
Ah, yes, my university just makes everything optionally asynchronous, so I never attend zoom calls even though they are available. Lectures never really worked for me anyway, I learn better from books.
I'm not sure what you want to achieve by making a single person understand the whole of Firefox. The social division of labour exists for a good reason.
>>66
I don't think it's feasible to understand Firefox entirely, and I don't think software can be at once correct and incomprehensable. In general programming is a reification of ideas it should have more in common with writing and mathematics than with the production widgets and textiles. One should at least be able to write something a reader can understand and assess correctness of. I woudl like to be as certain as possible that my machine is under my control, and as aware of it as possible so that I can use my control over it more effectively.
>>68
Firefox is not incomprehensible, it can be understood thanks to this neat little trick called `abstraction'.
>>68
I understand this perspective but disagree vehemently. Abstraction should be a useful shorthand for something you already know, not a tool to avoid thinking, and understanding. This doesn't help you gain certainty that your software is under your control, or is correct, but if anything allows the opposite, “productivity” despite lack of understanding.
>>70
ayylmao
The secret to understanding Firefox its that its mostly JavaScript/XUL on top of c++ runtime.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Multiprocess_Firefox/Technical_overview
One greek teenager manages to work with entire firefox codebase.
Learn this weird trick:
https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox
>>69
Have you completely understood the compiler, the standard libraries, the kernel, the firmware, every single transistor in your CPU? Why are they any different than Firefox? If you can't trace a single key press down to particle physics, what the fuck are you even talking about? How can you be certain of your understanding if you can't be certain of the correctness of the instrument you use to understand, i.e., your own brain?
The argument here seems to suggest the modern codebases for apps
have grown in complexity to be be unmaintainable and prone to code rot:
however the feature-set they provide is still unmatched by everything else.
Suppose you forked Firefox with the intent of removing all bloat:
What features would you exclude from Firefox and what is their overall percent vs total size of codebase?
>>1
The free software world already has a solid foundation for computing. The fundamental OS and GUI desktop features are already mature as a platform for daily desktop computing. What's needed are resources going into various industry sectors in order to replace the proprietary software that the industry normally relies upon. To do this requires more activism and more communication skills to convince more people that a free society must have free software. This in turn will attract more financial investment into developing free software replacements.
>>73
I would like to completely understand the compiler, the standard library, the kernel, the firmware, every single transistor on my CPU. They are not different from Firefox. I would like to be able to mentally trace a single key press down to an understanding of particle physics. I would like to understand my own brain to the best degree possible, both in order to prevent common errors and to better be able to maintain and operate in my world. This is not reductio ad absurdum, this is exactly my goal, and I would argue this should be the goal of all thinking creatures.
In reality most of what I would like to see in computing is now orthogonal to the FSF goals, perhaps with the exception of having software and hardware that fits-in-head, and is secure.
The free-software is neccessary but not sufficient for users to be in control of their machine. We need to go beyond the FSF if we are to acheive this goal.
I completely agree. I want to name a subset of Free Software which fits my goals. I believe more people should be able to write their software alone. If the standards stay simple, and more servers and other things run custom software, this is better, and makes widescale attacks less feasible.
The issue with Firefox is a symptom of the issues with the WWW in general, which are the result of corporations vying for control by purposefully making things large and incomprehensible.
>>77
glad someone agrees, and I agree with your additions.
>>77,55,78
The GNU project believes in the community working together by choice to maintain complex systems.
I personally believe that "simple" systems naturally conglomerate into "patched up" complex systems. I point to Unix as my main example. It is natural that systems that were good for one point in time become outdated and patched up as system requirements change over time. There becomes a point where it's probably better to reimagine the systems to account for the current state of requirements. I point to the Plan 9 OS as my main example.
>>79
in my opinion it's lack of upfront thought which leads to patched up large systems. when you don't put in thought ahead of time you end up needing a bunch of bloated heuristics to fsck up your poor design choices, or you end up with a large herd of programs implementing similar functionality without abstraction (think drivers, cli parsing, graphics programming, etc).
The GNU project believes in the community working together by choice to maintain complex systems.
This obviously has issues, if only because of corporate subversion. If software strives to be as simple as possible, there won't be such maintainance issues. There are GNU programs with more files than I've ever written lines of code.
Unix was never good. It was always a castrated Multics built by idiots. Plan 9 also sucks.
>>80
I think Urbit is stupid, but at least it's doing something different than ``True Unix has never been tried.'' like Plan 9. The systems we use are rotten from the hardware up. The firmware probes the hardware to be probed by the operating system to be probed by programs. Only by becoming more crystalline and mathematical, and not how Urbit proposes, will software become worth a damn.
>>81
Why do you keep talking about software when there are much more immediate problems if you wish to understand everything? Do you not tremble with fear each time you have to bite into an apple that you could not observe maturing? Who knows what kind of pesticides they used, maybe it's GMO, maybe it was even poisoned! Complex software might be annoying but this could get you killed.
Why do you keep talking about software when there are much more immediate problems if you wish to understand everything? Do you not tremble with fear each time you have to bite into an apple that you could not observe maturing?
Fear is not necessary to motivate understanding, this is /prog/ so software is more relevant both to this thread concerning the FSF, and to the forum in general. Further picking any order on exploration tends to stifle curiosity in my experience.
Who knows what kind of pesticides they used, maybe it's GMO, maybe it was even poisoned! Complex software might be annoying but this could get you killed.
It's true there is a banal poisoning of food in our society, and I've harvested many tasty pumpkin pies, baked sweet potatoes, and salads from my garden. Unfortunately it will likely be many years before I'm able to grow all my own food. I'm upgrading to a small orchard and around a 16m2 garden this spring, but trees take time to grow, and I don't know when livestock would become practical. My interest in gardening is largely independent of curiosity regardless.
In any case I'm no longer interested in this conversation. While conversation is a great way to sharpen tongs and try on masks I have other things I'd rather be doing.
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167642318300030
>>84
There seems to be a translation from an ought to an is here. Also odd that they mention rationalism and empiricism but not transcendental idealism. I'll read this later in more detail thank you for the materials.
>>81
I don't understand this idea of corporate subversion of free software. Aren't all public free software managed by source code revision systems such as Git? Is there a problem with purging commits that have come from a proven bad actor? Is there a problem with forking projects and ripping out the bits that are not required?
Only by becoming more crystalline and mathematical
Hmm yes, very specific and not hand-wavy at all, I'm sure this will get done.
Your Free Software is disgusting word play.
What's the pun?
>>88,89
Seems sort of like they rearanged some words from an earlier thread and applied them to this one tbh. Not sure they actually have meaning in this context.