What is your opinion of Free (Libre) Software?
I feel that supporting Free Software is an integral part of building a good future for us and generations to come. Why? The reason is simple. Proprietary ideologies are the enemies of human progress. If we, as a species, cannot contribute to the world, have others view and add to our work, or protect our technological rights, then we will never advance. Transparency is paramount to the betterment of humanity. How can we ensure that the technological advancements such as brain implants or bodily augmentations we receive in the future function as they are supposed to (ie. no corporate backdoors) without reviewing and auditing the code?
fuck off with your dual edges
>>53555333
>>53555327
Why does rms take or has somebody else take so many pictures of him? Is he an attention whore?
>>53555327
>What is your opinion of Free (Libre) Software?
It's shit. Philosophies and ideals are great but software needs to be usable and well designed.
Free fucks focus entirely on ''muh ideals'' and completely neglect everything else.
It's no wonder the vast majority of free software is dogshit that nobody outside of GNU cultists wants to use.
>>53555327
>rub that clit luv
>>53555333
How is his position edgy? It's a fairly mainstream concept.
>>53555333
>dual
>gets trips
0/10
>>53555510
>software needs to be usable and well designed.
Open software does not conflict with this. No one is saying that people have to look at and modify their code but it's nice to look under the hood if you so choose.
>>53555773
>Open software does not conflict with this.
They obviously don't give a shit about it either.
Freefucks need to realize that the ONLY way people will start using free software is if it offers them the same quality, options and ease of use as proprietary ones.
But no, instead of actually improving the software itself the only thing they do is antagonize people and tell them ''you don't need this cause I said so and thus you must use our shitty free software alternative''.
>>53555510
How does imposing license restrictions magically make the software well designed?
You make a strong case OP.
Wait:
>How can we ensure that the technological advancements such as brain implants or bodily augmentations we receive in the future function as they are supposed to (ie. no corporate backdoors) without reviewing and auditing the code?
You'd have to stand behind them compiling it and distributing it anyway.
>>53556021
>You'd have to stand behind them compiling it and distributing it anyway.
>>53556170
*as they compile it.
>>53555826
I think a better way of putting it, at least in addressing the issue of people not using free alternatives, is that 'free' movement typically fails to understand users at a basic level.
They put themselves in a Catch-22. They want more people to be on board with free software and use it, but they don't want to put the effort to 'simplify' their software as Apple/Microsoft and other large companies have done that make consumer based software. When someone says "This is needlessly complicated" and then you reply "Well deal with it, at least it's 'free' as in 'free', now get good or get out.' They'll typically do just that, they'll get out and buy software that actually meets their requests/specifications. People have no problem paying a little bit for proprietary software if it means it will save them time in the long run.
I think Stallman said something about Canonical along the lines of how Canonical values 'convenience over privacy' and spins it in such a way that one should feel bad for taking such a position, however; the reality of the situation is that the general public (i.e. the ones who dictate the route consumer technology travels) just don't give a shit about whether or not their information is being harvested. They really don't. This has been the reality for decades now.
>>53556290
I thought that's what you meant, but I was just making sure.
>>53555327
I think its kind of meme. Programmers are bullied into releasing their code for free and and maintaining it. You give your code to society and it doesn't even guarantee that you won't die of hunger.
With basic income it would be at least kind of fair, but as of now it isn't.
Also I specifically don't like that stallman ignored open hardware for decades. It is ridiculous that neckbeards try to get secure system by compiling their own kernel while still using proprietary hardware that is ridden with microcontrollers and full blown secondary processors like Intel ME that have full access to RAM and network (!).
Another point is that with rise of ML/AI conventional software will increasingly take a backseat to proprietary ML models that are trains on big data. ML models can do things that conventional software simply cannot. This marks a change in software economics: you won't be able to create state of art software withou t considerable ML skill, data and compute, in other words capital.
That being said, I use OSS and contribute to it a bit, but most of software I develop for myself remains proprietary. Also I think that saas is a viable business model (and I want to eat, you know).
>>53556328
>When someone says "This is needlessly complicated" and then you reply "Well deal with it, at least it's 'free' as in 'free', now get good or get out.'
That's how it should be. If you're not willing to learn, you shouldn't be anywhere near technology.
>>53556328
>the reality of the situation is that the general public (i.e. the ones who dictate the route consumer technology travels) just don't give a shit about whether or not their information is being harvested. They really don't.
That's not really true. What is true however is that people will choose something that is ''convenient'' but doesn't value their privacy over a badly designed piece of shit that is overcomplicated because its designers are anachronistic fucks.
Most people in the free software community seriously think that he average user should use a CLI and GUI's are stupid. Let that sink in for a moment.
And fuck Stallman for patronizing people so much for wanting something good and easy to you. If he has that much of a problem then maybe he should spend time working to make free software as ''convenient'' as proprietary instead of expecting people to switch just like that.
>>53556425
This is the type of retard I am talking about. Don't worry, free shitware will never, ever be successful because of this :^)
>>53556437
>https://audio-video.gnu.org/video/2014-11-07--rms--copyright-vs-community--part-1.webm 54:40
>Freedom sometimes demands a sacrifice... when people say: "Yeah, I wish I could use Free Software but it's inconvenient in a certain way". What they're saying is: "I don't value my Freedom enough to make any sacrifice." and you're not gonna get Freedom if you do that.
>>53556425
Again, this is the exact kind of mentality that I'm talking about. When you have this attitude about your software, if an easier alternative exists (especially when your user base is a bunch of elitist shitheads.) where do you think people are going to go? They're not going to muck through inefficient design, while be accosted. They're going to bite the bullet, pay a few dollars, and get software that is easier to understand and has actual support (i.e. not elitist shit heads).
You may not realize it, but it's this exact attitude that prevents free software from being truly popular in the consumer/small business desktop environment.
>>53556497
>Freedom sometimes demands a sacrifice
>AKA I am too much of a lazy faggot to work towards making free software a viable alternative so I should blame the users for not switching over
What a sad fuck. Then again, he is a luddite who doesn't use any piece of technology beyond the 80's.
Free software ideology is destructive, because it defines "ethical" practices in its own narrow terms, and attempts to disseminate the idea that only the FSF's ideals are ethical.
The result of this is that people who can't or won't adopt the rigid standards of free software are discouraged from considering ethics in their practices entirely.
>>53556437
>Maybe he should spend time working on making 'free' software that's easy to use.
I agree. Like I said, most of the free software movement exists in a idealistic fantasy world where everyone using a computer is intimately familiar with how it works. The reality is quite the contrary, and as long as they continue to ignore the reality of the situation, the Free Software movement will never be anything more than just a very annoying, elitist corner of the internet.
>>53555772
But it's dual trips, anon.
>>53555327
Views are good but I don't if I even use some. Pleb here.
>>53556425
That's not humanistic. There is a probability that I'm a better programmer than you, but for me programming is really just a tool to build a better life for myself and others. I want software to be as friendly to users as possible, to the point of disappearing from sight and fulfilling their desires expressed in, say, natural language.
Tech is for people, not for itself.
>>53556559
nice dual dubs
>>53556606
>Tech it for people, not for itself
But at what point does that tech move from being helpful to harmful? How can we prevent that move?
>>53556623
>nice dual dubs
Retard
The Free Software movement is the most important thing that happened to this industry since the introduction of the personal computer.
>>53555327
I more of an free as in cracking it guy.
ITT: newfags
Many companies stand behind free or at least open source software/hardware.
See, Tesla, for example. Or all the game engines that have been open sourced for a reason. Or AMD who set the standards for DirectX 12 by creating Mantle and starting off Vulcan with the source code.
Open source is around all of you at all times for a reason, shitheads.
>>53556328
>now get good or get out
That's why I like piracy more. Better service for a better price.
>>53556677
Google has some open-source initiatives too, but it's important to remember that open-source does not equal libre.
>>53556635
It depends on motivation of the agent that controls said tech. E.g. Facebook is using cutting edge ML to make people addicted to its product. That's slightly bad, IMHO. Deep genomics uses literally the same ML to build genotype => phenotype models. That's good.
Still, defining unambiguously what is "good" for people is a hard problem.
>>53555327
I think free software is important as an ideology and for general progress, but proprietary software also has it's purposes.
I wouldn't go to a restaurant, buy food, then complain when they won't give me the recipe.
Software patents and stuff like that are bullshit and should die, though. If you really want to have progress made, kill off those.
>>53556677
open source is not free software
you might as well just delete this post
>>53556623
kek
oh wait, shit, you got dual dubs too! le upvote xD
>>53556768
Pardon my ignorance, what is ML? Modelling language?
>>53556854
Machine Learning, anon. You will hear it more and more as the time goes.
>>53555327
I agree with all of that ... but faggots who push inferior software on others just because it's free, should fuck off and die.
If I could choose between good free software and great proprietary one, I'd go with free. If the choice is between okay free software and good proprietary one ... well, fuck freedumbs.
>>53555835
It doesn't, but potential to make more money usually attracts a solid designer here and there. As Microsoft shows, it's perfectly possible to create ugly software with huge budget too, after all.
>>53556394
>With basic income it would be at least kind of fair, but as of now it isn't.
Kinda agree, although not like hunger and absolute poverty is possible in the first world unless you actively try to. Though yeah, even more reasons to push for basic income.
>>53555327
>What is your opinion of Free (Libre) Software?
If software is free, how will programmers make money?
>>53556936
>Look Mom, I posted it again!
>>53556936
If your painting won't sell why be painting at all amirite?
>>53556936
How do Facebook and Google make money?
>>53557117
well facebook alongside selling user data, monetize every video people upload there.
When people steal videos from youtube to be cool and upload them on Facebook ( this happens pretty much every time ) - Facebook monetizes the video, and it usually takes 1 week + if the owner reports that for it to be removed, enough time to make some $$$.
But this is just one shit they do alongside other evil stuff, Facebook is an evil company I hope none of you retards actually have an account there.. I hope you just meme when you talk about it - otherwise you're pretty stupid for a human.
>>53557117
They are advertising companies, not tech companies.
>>53557163
>Google doesn't have any business beyond advertising
>>53555327
as a developer, i would do another job if oss didn't exist.
Every software is based on a highly structured platform, and i don't want to be a client of that. I need to be part of a community and i want to know everything about platform and tools i use.
>This thread
>>53557086
Ignore that fag, I'm the one who posted that thread a few days ago, and it was intended to be a real question.
>>53557092
Comparing programming to painting is ridiculous. Programming is not a creative work, it's a logical work.
Also not really a good point. There are a while lot of starving artists out there.
>>53556437
>Don't worry, free shitware will never, ever be successful because of this
But for people who use free software it is already successful. My OS's repo has more than 50,000 packages of which I've installed roughly 3,600. There I want to do but can't do on my OS that I could accomplish with a MS or Apple OS. I don't if 14 year old kids and grandmas find the command line intimidating. It doesn't effect me. I'm grateful that my software doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator.I consider it a good thing that my software is so feature rich that most people can't use it.
I have no desire to spread the free software gospel. I sometimes worry that people will realize what a botnet Windows 10 is and decide to switch to free software. I'm worried that developers will start to dumb down their software to cater to these people.
Open source software is already usable for the people who use it. Why I should desire that more people use it, let alone desire that to the point that I would use dumbed down software, escapes me.
>>53556651
nice dual dubs
I don't support the concept of copyrights as they are so I find it hard to support free software which are inherently reliant on them.
>>53558678
>I don't support a creators right to be able to profit in any way from their creation.
lololol
>>53558712
The way copyrights are currently implemented gives the "creator" an indefinite monopoly on their particular idea. This is the part I disagree with. Copyrights disincentivize creativity if they don't expire.
>>53558712
>implying copyright is there to protect the creators
It's a huge clusterfuck that protects the license owners, who are rarely the creators and rarely give too much from their earnings to the creators either.
Ideally a copyright would protect you from somebody niggering your work and making money off it, nothing more and nothing less. Free software does this already.
