Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise. Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
> if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
I very much disagree with this sentiment and I think it is very sad to see how pervasive this idea is that earning a living is first.
There will be good software even if people making software are not paid for it, just like there will be good music even if it is unlikely that good musicians are ever be able to "earn a decent living".
Maybe rather than trying to find new ways of making a living we should try finding new ways of living instead, ways that don't perpetuate exploitation under the pretense of a job "market".
> most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
This shows the difference between "open source" and free software. That's why I call it "free software" and avoid the term "open source". This doesn't mean, however, that free software advocates do not have fun writing software ;)
Yes, but I don't see how that's a benefit of proprietary software. Before bitkeeper there was some Sun version control system that had a very similar model to git (which might've been released with the OpenSolaris thing, I'm not sure). The point is that "you got some free software because of proprietary software" is not relevant. Free software
> Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name.
GNU is a free software replacement for UNIX. You could argue "clone" and "replacement" are the same thing, but I'd argue the intention is different.
> Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise.
Except you can't copy proprietary software due to software patents and a miriad of other "protections" that are designed to mistreat users. People make free software alternatives to proprietary software because they want people to have access to technology without losing their freedom.
> Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
The free software movement has always been about freedom. The main advocates of the open source movement have always tried to ignore the freedom aspects (in particular, Eric S. Raymond who is a very unpleasant character). However, many people in the open source movement actually do care about freedom if you explain the free software movement to them. The fact that the "open source movement has won" is very sad because it will raise generations of programmers who will gladly give up their freedom for no reason.
> > if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
> If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
SUSE has offerings in the same space (disclaimer: I work for SUSE).
> Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
People do pay for free software (myself included). However, the primary funding model in free software cannot be "for the actual software" because that wouldn't work. You need to have a new business model with free software
> But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
I disagree. Many large free software projects (FFmpeg, VLC, all of GNU, Debian) refer to themselves as "free software". This isn't a typo, it's because they care about software freedom and were started to offer free software alternatives to users like myself. There are many, many more smaller free software projects which do the same. While it is true that some developers don't care about free software and work on free software projects, that's like an author claiming that they don't care about freedom of speech while writing satire about a politician. There's a disconnect in that logic, and we should recognise the innovation that free software is.
There are some people like you who have an ideology that pushes them to always choose free software. There are some people who care a bit about free software but will abandon it if the costs are high enough. Then there are some people who don't care about it at all.
You better at least have something to offer the second group if you don't want to die out.
Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
> There are some people like you who have an ideology that pushes them to always choose free software. There are some people who care a bit about free software but will abandon it if the costs are high enough. Then there are some people who don't care about it at all.
> You better at least have something to offer the second group if you don't want to die out.
Free software isn't going to die out. And this skirts around the fact that free software has plenty of innovation behind it. In any case, people are quickly rediscovering issues of freedom with the whole eBook thing. It's very condescending that people don't care about freedom. It all depends on how you frame the solution. "This open source software is always better" or "This free software protects your freedom".
> Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
I don't mean to speak for hyperpape, but I think that was the point: it's evident that some users value convenience/features/usability/etc over the control of their computers, so unless free software is as good or better than nonfree alternatives then these users won't have control.
> > Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
> I don't mean to speak for hyperpape, but I think that was the point: it's evident that some users value convenience/features/usability/etc over the control of their computers, so unless free software is as good or better than nonfree alternatives then these users won't have control.
If that is their choice, sure. But most users I've talked to (this is completely anecdotal, and I usually talk to strong-willed people) recognise the importance of free software and will do something about it. Maybe they won't replace all of their software with free software, but they usually are willing to lose some non-mission-critical functionality.
And besides, free software usually has better features, but that's not the pitch we should give. It's the wrong lesson to teach. The right lesson would be "it has almost anything you want and if you want more you can modify it, pay someone to improve it or ask a community to improve it without dealing with a company or developer which doesn't give a shit about you." Why not start the conversation about free software with "it respects your freedom, and usually has more features / is more reliable but you have the freedom to improve it or get others to improve it for you" rather than just "it has more features".
To many people, non-free software is sub-par because of its non-freeness.
Using (tacitly agreeing with and supporting) non-free software is consequently contra to their ethics.
No horses are involved.
You don't see a lot of pragmatists telling free software proponents that they should be using non-free software. Unfortunately, the reverse situation is very common.
Here, I think, we're talking about free software projects sending wrong or mixed messages to their users & contributors. Which is the adverse effect alluded to -- it obliges your users to use non-free software.
This may discourage some of your potential users & contributors, and that may reduce the quality of your project. And that, in turn, may be something you as someone running a free software project had not considered, and, on reflection, do not want.
Slightly perturbed you're using the word pragmatist as a synonym for someone that uses or advocates non-free software.
Arguably anyone casting an opinion is 'on their high horse', especially if it's orthogonal to your own opinion.
The exact same argument was made about not discouraging non-technical users who don't want to bother with the arcane-ness that is IRC, and the reply was that they don't matter.
> The exact same argument was made about not discouraging non-technical users who don't want to bother with the arcane-ness that is IRC, and the reply was that they don't matter.
Then they can email you if necessary. If there isn't a mail bot which takes email patches (or just emails) and converts them into IRC messages then that's something someone should be working on.
However, as cyphar observes, there are always alternative methods for users & contributors to gain access - git repos (PR's), email - direct or lists, twitter, bug trackers, etc.
Slight aside -- I suspect there's some correlation between sophistication of question / contribution a user may be asking / making, and ability to navigate IRC. Either way, I don't see IRC's alleged complexity as being a barrier to any one who's serious, especially (as noted) in almost any project it won't be the exclusive method of communicating with members of the project.
Even more of an aside, I don't get this whole 'arcane-ness' (and similar) claims levelled against IRC -- is it genuinely that tricky? Most projects I've seen that includes IRC in their 'How to contact us' page provides links to IRC clients, clearly identifying their network & channel names, and even sometimes a link to a free web client that drops them straight into chat (so about the same level of convenience as Slack etc).
Can someone explain to me how having to create a separate account for every project you have a question about is a "better" than anything?
Devil's advocate: the only way to have a single "account" for all of your projects on IRC is if they all use the same server. Is that not a weird, perverse amalgamation in and of itself? Taken to the extreme, every project that wants to truly control its own destiny ends up using its own IRC server, and you're back to N tabs open somewhere.
Slack does have a few ways which can make it a little easier to sign-in on mobile, though, such as sending you an e-mail link that opens the app and signs in for you. Likewise, once you setup the desktop client, you don't have to relogin unless your password changes.
It's a small initial overhead -- one that IRC doesn't present if you're going to the same server as you mentioned -- but one that I don't think is quite that bad. I've never been in more than five distinct Slack teams, though, so, maybe this would just explode if we literally tried to replace IRC with Slack for the top FOSS projects.
I'm struggling to think of a time when it's ever a good idea to cast pragmatism aside.
> I'm struggling to think of a time when it's ever a good idea to cast pragmatism aside.
When choosing what ideals you want to strive for and what you want to see in the world.
It seems incredibly reductive to state that using proprietary software, in any way, somehow makes a FOSS project send an implicit message that it... I don't know what you meant, but, disrespects its users?
Did I disrespect the users of FOSS projects I worked on by using Windows / Visual Studio?
No, what you do on your own computer is your business. No one else has to use your proprietary setup. Other people do have to use your Slack channels to talk to you, which is an endorsement and enticement to run proprietary software.
In the case of IRC, it doesn't matter if there's a Free Windows client, because there are plenty of alternatives.
- I'm an author of some FOSS software
- I use Slack as the communication platform for said project for XYZ reasons
How do you suggest I word the README for my project? Do I tell/advise people to try other, less functional software if that software is subjectively more "open" than mine? Would my project somehow be "better" if I run all of my own infrastructure for it -- chat, bug tracking, etc -- using only FOSS software on FOSS hardware in my basement?
I mean, the logical conclusion here is that no FOSS project is really a FOSS project unless Richard Stallman could look at it and say "sure, morally, I have no problem using that project", right?
(This is off the path of the blog post in question, but I'm really interested in this sub-conversation.)
This highlights the difference between "open source" and free software: by using and recommending Slack, you make a statement that the freedoms of those who would collaborate with your project are not important. In general, projects that identify with the free software philosophy or the "open source" development methodology can collaborate with either community just fine---there are shared interests and goals. But if you use a freedom-denying service, then you cripple a community of contributors.
It does not matter if RMS personally says that he is okay with a particular project---the four freedoms are clear and basic; we don't need his personal endorsement. Further, just because you use Slack, that doesn't mean that your project is less free than another---if it's free software, then it's free software. But the community surrounding your project is shaped by your actions. And if the pressure is great enough, there may be no choice but for free software users to fork the project, and perhaps hope for better collaboration in the future.
Do you personally feel more safe, or better, whatever the adjective you want to use would be... about logging in to a remote server that uses software you can read the source for versus software you can't read the source for?
It seems like a sticky problem because even if Freenode purports to be open, and you can read the source code of what software they say they use, you can't actually see the source code powering their service, right? Like you can't just SSH to the boxes, and look at the source and say "ok, they haven't messed with anything, so I'm ok signing into their servers".
Like, you could see the very JavaScript running in your browser. You downloaded it, it's running locally. You can't see the backend, though. You can't tell how your data is being used. That's the thing that feels scarier to me, although admittedly, I use plenty of services based on closed source software as well as open source software, and it doesn't really give me too much pause.
I guess I just don't really understand the fervor around the "openness" aspect if you're not actually the one running the service. You're still at the mercy of a service operator who could be eroding the "freedom" you think you have.
I'm not sure how hard it would be, but conceivably you could join freenode and host your own ircd? I think the federation part (and ability to migrate/self-host) is the most important part here.
I don't think it makes much sense to bever let other projects/org run part of your infrastructure - the key point is that those organisations are open (so you can join Debian and take over an orphaned package you use, or you can run your own email and federate with others that use email).
IRC vs Slack is a bit one-sided, as IRC has some real problems at the protocol level - jabber/xmpp and Matrix are probably more sensible alternatives. But even then I don't think the main point is that everyone should do all the work of hosting all their infrastructure - just that it's goid to choose an infrastructure with as little lock-in as possible - and infrastructure that one can easily contribute to (eg: submit a patch for ircd or one of the bots etc).
Ah, sorry, I see where the confusion is. This is a different issue entirely:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
You can try to bludgeon and guilt people into using open source tools, but the problem is fundamentally that the tools that are Open Source are /failing/ a set of users. If you fixed the tools and ran HipChat and Slack out of business with Open Source competition, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Lecturing people about Freedom(tm) and "Devsplaining" to users why they don't want the features they tell you they want isn't going to work.
If you want people to get off of Slack write an Open Source alternative that Slack users will freely choose to use instead. Compete in the market and win -- or else you're just pissing into the wind.
That makes no sense at all. Firstly, most people working on free software don't make assertions like, "My free software is good enough for you." Most of us are much more realistic and assert something more like "My free software might be good enough for you, here's why you should consider it."
Secondly, even if one were making that assertion that one's free software is good enough for others, why would that mean they should believe all free software is good enough for everyone? It just doesn't follow.
I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!)
This isn't relevant. Your personal communication preferences are not universal. Slack's popularity shows people don't care about this.
But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom
Most developers aren't as dogmatic as this. You're in an extreme minority. Which is totally fine, and you should try to convince others if you feel they should be convinced, as long as you recognize most of us aren't in your "we". It's not true that I must reject Slack.
There is no reason that an open source project shouldn't use proprietary software. This isn't a religion.
So like IRC? Telling everyone to "use Freenode" is no better than Slack, both are centralised. You might have more client choice, but you're still logging into someone else's server.
I'm no fan of Slack, but I don't get the claimed conflict when using it with an open source project. Would it also be bad to host the project's source code on GitHub, or the web site on IIS?
Actually it's not completely irrelevant, as the fact that the host platform of proprietary software is free software has value in the security-based argument in favor of free software, but that's only tangential to the topic at hand.
Would it also be bad to host the project's source code on GitHub
Not necessarily, if really all you're using github for is hosting, then there's nothing wrong. That is, if you don't use their issues/PR system or other auxiliary services. This is how, for example, the linux project uses github. In this case, all that you're asking people to do is use git (free software) to download some stuff from servers owned by Github, Inc.
Running the website on IIS is fine though; this imposes absolutely nothing on your users or contributors.
Also it's worth noting that github's entire UI, at least for browsing (I didn't try creating an issue or editing a file), works just fine with javascript disabled.
Even if you can connect to GitHub without ever touching their proprietary JS, that's clearly not the typical route. Just like you can connect to Slack using nothing but open source clients, but one is "enticed" to use the proprietary client.
You can clone/pull anonymously from github and eg: email patches.
I'd say using github just for hosting read-only/read-mostly git is a bit like running http on IIS or email on Exchange - or indeed a propietary XMPP server that allows federation.
I'd prefer Free projects to use Free infrastructure - but building on established open protocols is good. Contrast with bitkeeper: you'd have to reverse engineer the protocol to pull/push - or with slack: there's no way to set up your own server snd federate with it.
So OK, sure, github is as bad as slack.
Some Free Software people certainly think that. It is imho at least problematic. For example, the unicorn web server developer, finds github problematic from the 'UX' side in addition to dependence on proprietary software and infrastructure (which creeps into the commit messages).
"Contributing to unicorn is socially as easy as contributing to git or the Linux kernel. There is no need to signup for anything, no need to ever touch a bloated web browser."[0]
[0]:http://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140801213202.GA2729%40d...
The web browser may be free, but all of the JavaScript you are running is proprietary.
>And there are many closed-source IRC clients.
But there are many free ones, and there isn't an official client that is proprietary. It's possible to use Slack, more or less, over IRC or XMPP, but they are second-class citizens. The recommended way to use Slack is via their proprietary web interface.
And even if the JavaScript files were not minified, they likely aren't available for user modification and redistribution because they are protected by copyright and a license that says "all rights reserved."
But the next point you make — "but you're still logging into someone else's server" — is not necessarily true. IRC is not a federated system, but a good way to think of it is as a federated protocol that has a central point of control at the federation level. Kind of like geopolitical federation: individual states in the US (theoretically) have sovereignty within their borders, but when it comes to interacting with their peers, the other states, they are controlled by a centralized power known as the US Federal Government. In the same way, a single IRC server can act independently so long as all the recipients of all of the messages that all of the clients are sending are also connected to this server. Once a recipient of a message is connected to a different server, then the irc network (the federal government, if you will) takes control.
Now, this all is mostly of theoretical interest, because in reality if you objected to the centralization of an IRC network, you'd be much better off just running your own network than applying to run a server for an existing network.
The reason to prefer Freenode's brand of centralization over Slack's is the same as the reason to prefer Debian to Apple. Debian and Freenode are community-run organizations, staffed by volunteers, which push to advance the values of free software. Apple and Slack are for-profit corporate organizations which are driven by the wills of their investors, not their users.
Yes, a proper federated IM network would be better than Freenode. But there isn't one, and just because Freenode isn't the best solution, doesn't mean it isn't better than Slack.
>> Yes, a proper federated IM network would be better than Freenode. But there isn't one.
Ah the short term memories of Silicon Valley.
http://xmpp.org/ + Pidgin. Support for DNSSEC. Support for TLS[1]. OTP is provably uncrackable. Support for that too! Though it has no major company backing it, the protocol's RFC has been published and there is public source code for both clients and servers. (There was support for Google until they realized 'uh we can make more money by Walling in our Garden' and in 2013 Hangouts came out, but there is a proper federated IM network that's secure(ish), agnostic and fairly robust).
>> But a good way to think of it is as a federated protocol that has a central point of control at the federation level.
Eh. IRC is inherently only as federated as the opers who choose to run their links and leaf nodes in a united fashion. In the late 90s/very early 2000s -- back when Freenode was OPN and even blackbox took tens of minutes to compile! -- there was so much drama with where people would fork off networks over trivial BS. I have a disagreement with my bud John, and drama ensues and a network gets forked. I can't just 'fork' off from the US. Some gentlemen in the 1860s tried to do it and didn't fare quite well.
[1] To be fair, STARTTLS can be chunked into basically any protocol. My point stands.
I use my own server (running free software, of course) to host my source code now:
And I should add that I'm only human, imperfect. There are very few people that never use proprietary software. We all make compromises, myself included, but I do my best to use and promote free software and reject proprietary software as much as I can manage.
That's the crux of it. Some people just don't care and want to communicate. What is easiest to use is the only valid metric for the majority.
Then maybe those other free software projects should get good.
1) People who can actually spend the time to do the work of implementing improvements.
2) People who are willing to make user experience a priority over other things.
The first requires skilled people to spend a significant amount of time. This is time that those skilled people could be spending with their families, so they usually expect to be paid for it. The supply of skilled time that doesn't cost money is very limited.
The second requires incentives to be aligned in favor of getting and keeping inexperienced users. If you aren't willing to delete some code you spent a bunch of time working on in order to improve the user experience, you aren't going to succeed.
None of this requires the software to be proprietary. But it does require that it is monetized somehow -- Perhaps through patreon for example, but that is also non-free software.
It's not interesting and serves no purpose on HN.
(earlier comments in furtherance of said pissing match deleted)
No you don't. You send the message that you're using what you believe are the best tools for your team.
A lot of the features you mention are better served by email, and I am completely opposed to editing messages after they are sent (chat is append only!) There are IRC bots for ticketing/build integration, and they were around long before anyone used Slack!
But ultimately, even if Slack has more convenient features, we cannot rightly use it because it doesn't respect our freedom. Centralized network services are increasingly removing our control over how we communicate, and we must reject them for our free software projects. The ethical replacements (not alternatives, because Slack cannot be considered as an option) aren't going to get better if people aren't using them!