> OSS doesn't really solve the usefulness problem.
Most Linux kernel devs are paid professionals, making improvements that have value to their employer, and making the improvements available to all (a triumph of copyleft). It's not just hobbyists tinkering in ways they find interesting. Hasn't been that way for decades.
> It's good at producing software that's appealing to people who like using and tinkering with OSS software - but no one else really cares unless it's handed to them inside a product which has been assembled to be useful.
I have the choice of several different FOSS browsers, text-editors, C++ compilers. FOSS is quite capable of producing a 'finished product' that just works.
> even then it's about the product, not about a largely imaginary "freedom" which is inaccessible to most users because it specialised skills, advanced knowledge, and plenty of free time
It's not just developers who are affected by issues like tracking, intrusive telemetry, and even just unskippable ads in DVDs. It's true that developers are more aware of these issues.
I think that dismissal is correct. While both may be open-source, neither is "free" in the sense of the term that Stallman is using. Cloud services may run on Linux, but it's a very TiVo-ized form, where the free core is wrapped in many layers of proprietary code that serve to negate the freedoms that Stallman is pushing for. Similarly, Android, while it is open-source, is nowadays so dependent on Google Play Services (which is proprietary) that it seems hardly fair to call it free software in the same way that one would call a Linux desktop free software.
One example is firewalls. I'd expected Linode and Digital Ocean to offer cloud firewalls the way EC2 does, but no. When I create a new Linode instance, all ports are open to the world. On EC2, I can easily restrict new instances so that incoming connections are only permitted from my IP. That gives me protection against flaws in the SSH server. I think it makes good sense to handle this at the cloud level, rather than configuring a firewall inside the instance.
Another example is that Linode and Digital Ocean will charge me the full hourly rate for an instance even when it's switched off. To avoid this, you have to manually create an image of your instance, then later restore it. Not so on EC2, where they've really thought through all the abstractions.
I don’t have anything against those who take their free software views seriously. But I am very annoyed that the currency of “ethical behavior” is one that burdens the individual and benefits the corporation. Only individuals can feel guilty that their software is not free, can agonize over copyleft vs permissive, can feel obligated to pass up compensation in exchange for ethical currency, can feel drained by an internet argument, etc. Corporations meanwhile can mostly ignore this secondary currency and operate entirely within the system of money.
"Dope will get you through times of no money, better than money will get you through times of no dope."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabulous_Furry_Freak_Broth...
generally - things and stuff get you through times of no money better than money gets you through times of no things and no stuff. money is really a roundabout way of convincing someone to give you things and stuff, and offering shiny things and stuff is a way to get money. in the end money is for making landlords and bankers happy, its the things and stuff that help to mantle over the hard problems of real life.
So every company has the right to charge you for their software but once you acquire it you can use it however you wish.
Money solves one problem - how to get people to do things that may be useful to others which they wouldn't otherwise do - but causes much worse problems in return.
The most obvious is money is such a riotously inefficient way to decide what is and isn't genuinely useful, especially collectively.
OSS doesn't really solve the usefulness problem. It's good at producing software that's appealing to people who like using and tinkering with OSS software - but no one else really cares unless it's handed to them inside a product which has been assembled to be useful. And even then it's about the product, not about a largely imaginary "freedom" which is inaccessible to most users because it specialised skills, advanced knowledge, and plenty of free time.
This doesn't make it useless, it just gives it a different domain to operate in. There's some overlap, but there are many potentially useful projects that don't happen because they don't appear inside either the commercial or the OSS circles.