What proprietary software is being used on servers? I believe most Android users don’t know about user freedom, and those that do would greatly prefer a more generic, “pure” Android experience vs the poor quality applications installed by default on most non-Google phones.
You’re confusing the initial ideas that were attributed to open source — seperating the software from the campaign for user freedom — with the free software community. Open source and free software are different movements with common results. The GNU/Linux operating system was built long before open source was a thing, and those founding principles of user freedom are attacked by proprietary software.
Please find someone that worked in the field during the 70s. They hopefully will kindly re-educate you on this BS.
Also if you’re talking about the OSI of the late 90s I’d argue that gnu/Linux was not long before that. Those initiatives pretty much grew together.
I’m talking about the creation of the Open Source Initiative in 1998 and their initial distancing of software freedom from any practical benefits of the software created by the free software movement.
I don't have anything against that kind of attitude, it's great and I approve those guys though I myself also like to buy software. "Fundamentalism" IMO describes it pretty well and I don't see the negative connotation.
From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fundamentalism :
> The tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts.
Using such a strong word to define your adversary's position is a way to discredit them.
I can understand thinking it's a "fundamentalist" mindset if you're used to Windows or Mac and software being proprietary by default but if you're a un*x poweruser who doesn't hesitate to hack the source code of the software to customize it it's a very pragmatical approach I think.
How about no adjective?
> not welcomed by the creators of the operating system
No, it wasn't. Linux was created because Linus Torvalds was in love with the OS running on the VAX at his university and wanted something just like it that he can run on his desktop at home.
> you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system
The DFSG and the OSD both prohibit discriminating against fields of endeavor, so the ability to run proprietary software on open-source operating systems is essential to the OS actually being open-source.
The DFSG and OSD are criteria for evaluating free and open source software and more specifically their licensing terms. The discrimination against fields of endeavor means you can’t make a license that says “the government can’t use my software” or “no military use” and call it free software or open source software. It has absolutely nothing to do with being able to run non-free software.
It's just impractical to have high quality software for every niche be built by the FOSS community. Even non-niche products (like, let's say email) leave a lot to be desired
If I could pay companies for these products I would. But I don't because they don't make products for Linux because they think we only want FOSS programs
Also, yes the creators probably don't condone proprietary software but who cares. They're not the market. The users of the OS are the market. And I want high quality software, free or not, source be dammed!
Linus Torvalds was pretty widely quoted as saying If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won. I'm pretty sure he was being sincere. The guy has praised PowerPoint, of all things.
The GNU fundamentalists are a noisy minority. That's not intended as a commentary on their usefulness or the correctness of their position, it's just a statement of fact.
I agree that not every type of software will be built by community efforts alone, which is why many companies are contributing to free software.
Out of interest, what free software would you like to see?
So I can't confidently say I've tried it all but when I booted up Ubuntu within the last year it was hard to find...
- simple email client with good html template support and conversation threading (thunderbird was meh)
- simple pdf viewer
- pdf editor
- an oscilliscope app that works with those usb oscilliscopes
- image editor (gimp is a slow nightmare to use)
- Microsoft Office suite replacement (Open/Libre Office is also a UI nightmare)
- A diagram app ala draw.io (Admittedly I haven't looked too hard for this one)
- Music library organizer (Also didn't look too hard)
- Desktops shells (Gnome/KDE/Xfce)
- VLC
- Firefox/Chrome
- Package managers
- Music players (generally bearable)> relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
I think it's fair to say that the gospel of saint ignucius is interpreted strictly in some circles.
It's a real problem and one of the main reason osx was able to eclipse desktop software usage on linux in such a short amount of time.
Responses like yours are the real problem.
If you want linux desktop software to grow, there needs to be room for proprietary software.
Support doesn't work for many small companies, because you just don't have the manpower, so proprietary software is necessary.
Hah, what am I saying, ignoring incentives like that is easy and commonplace, I'm sure they pay it no mind at all.
You can probably make money by selling Windows binaries of OSS software. See ntopng, where compiling on Windows is not that straight forward as compared to Linux.
A major hassle is that sometimes the GUI is showing something different then what is configured. Especially in networking. I configure an IP address, I want it to show in the GUI. I don't care if it's configured via the shell.
So "having an aversion" means that you're a fundamentalism? That's a bit extreme, no?
>If you want linux desktop software to grow, there needs to be room for proprietary software.
Judging by how I feel more miserable and less in control every year with the dumbification of the Linux desktop I genuinely don't want that. People keep adding abstraction layers in order to lure the mythical "average joe" to Linux, except that he doesn't care anyway so I'm the one who ends up having to deal with that bloat that doesn't offer anything to me. I'd use FreeBSD instead of Linux if I could because I prefer the way it works but I can't because of... proprietary drivers that are not available on the BSDs.
If people like to eat crap that's their problem, I don't see why I should force my self to get a taste for it just so that we can eat at the same table.
The problem with thinking of GNU/Linux in the same way as Windows and Mac OS X is that it assumes a world where proprietary software is the norm, or is okay. I believe that is isn’t okay, and that it is harmful.
It is plain impossible to live from selling desktop software with source code available, without having others in the first week come around and re-bundle it, Sourceforge style.
A lot of desktop software is commodity stuff — mail clients, office suites, browsers, photo editing and the like. But there are some areas where we need to be better, such as video editing.
I love FOSS, but people like you (yes, "fundamentalists") can't deal with the idea that some forms of software are probably better as paid transactions between well-informed parties. The laughable state of open source office suites and any serious competitor to most of Adobe's products suggests that this model has its limits.
The thing I zero in on here is that I have literally zero problems paying for software. But I am wary of purchasing software that I don't get the rights to build, modify, and contribute to.
My worry with software like this is that vendors come and go, and people get their workflows destroyed because the software can't be "saved" when the business is gone (yes, when, not if! always plan for that "exit" that ruins people because the products are gone).
Would I prefer the software to be FOSS? Absolutely. I am also absolutely willing to pay for FOSS, and a good number of Linux users are too.
I'm even willing to take open-core style models if it means there's some FOSS code release, as much as I don't like the model.
I use a mixture of FOSS and proprietary software all the time, not because I want to, but because I _must_.
And in my workplace, FOSS solutions (even ones we pay for) are infinitely preferred over proprietary ones. Desktop Linux support is a must, as well.
I do think that vendors should have to put things into some form of shared-source or open-source escrow (possibly shared as they might not have IP rights to open source everything they've done) with a kind of 'dead mans switch' arrangement (i.e. you walk away without updating or responding to bug fix requests, you trigger escrow).
I'm perennially concerned that the fundamentalist attitude to proprietary software is suppressing innovation in some areas: especially complex desktop software where there is (a) a heavy requirement for the kind of tedious UI work that FOSS projects clearly don't bother to do and (b) where most or all of the product is "right there in the code" (i.e. once you have Photoshop, you can go to town and edit stuff, and you're not really all that dependent on having access to some other product or service which can be monetized).
The attitude reaches its most extreme in software tools. Best expressed by Andy Gocke with his great tweet: https://twitter.com/andygocke/status/1017509689695715328
'Developer tools seemed like a good industry to be in, "sell shovels in the gold rush" and all, but it turns out developers prefer to dig for gold with their teeth.'
Whatever I wrote about the limits of "FOSS" software can be multiplied by a solid order of magnitude for "free only".
The most popular OSes are proprietary:
* Android (almost useless without the Google stuff, plus 99% of Android apps are unfortunately proprietary)
* Windows
* MacOS (I know about Darwin, everyone uses MacOS for the proprietary integration bits)
An open source GMS implementation exists, and might gain traction with the recent Android/Google antitrust lawsuit in EU. Have you tried LOS + microG recently? Have you seen the utter garbage frolicking around on Play Store? Quality, not quantity. At least with F-Droid, you know what you're getting. Same with Aurora, as it has Exodus support.
For the core things the basic, inter-operable, standard should be fully open and free. This includes protocols, data formats, reference applications/servers/clients and anything similar.
A user should not need to pay to communicate. This is a natural right and one of the cornerstones of a free society.
However I don't mind proprietary products as OPTIONS that allow someone to do the above better or more effectively (while still following open standards for external APIs!), or for 'toy' tasks like games or fun. That's a premium feature or recreational extra.
For the logical retort about who should be funding the development and maintenance of the core items? In some cases (hardware APIs) manufacturers might want to form standards bodies (E.G. Khronos maintains OpenGL and Vulkan) and provide open standards. In other (most) cases governments maintaining civil infrastructure should contribute. I would love if every university had a course where existing code repos were examined by students for completeness and safety and the students actually signed off on their reviews and maybe even submitted patches (or at least bugs if the answer isn't obvious/requires architectural changes) for flaws.
Why should software development be any different than any other profession where people get paid for their work?
This is incredibly rude. You may not like it, but GNU/Linux was built by people for user freedom, not for proprietary email clients.
Instead of using words like “fundamentalist” please instead consider that you are doing something that is not welcomed by the creators of the operating system and a large number of the long-term users.
A little understanding would go a long way.