Linux.com

First, let me thank you for a really interesting discussion. I would like to add one more freedom which seems essential for me: the freedom to simpy exists. Here is what I mean,

Proprietary software produced by corporations which in their finality ALL exist to serve the need for $$$ of their shareholders exist as long as the corporation's business plan and financial interests are served. There is a HUGE cultural mistake made today (at the age of turbocapitalism and corporateering) which assumes that the market's interests are the same as the people's interests. Of course, they are not. Free software has to exist as the collective product of a COMMUNITY rather than of any one CORPORATION. Then it cannot be bought, sold, terminated, or otherwise limited in its life and growth. That is the key-freedom which allowed GNU/Linux to survive against the multi-billion dollar "evil empire" in Redmond (let's face it - MS coul purchase Mandrake or RedHat tomorrow morning without even noticing the costs of aquisition on it's next board meeting). Of course, there is a potential threat now from the SCO lawsuit against not only IBM, but the GPL license. But look at it again this way. As long as free software remains the product of an essentially anonymous community it cannot be shut down by court order. One or several US-based Linux-companies might have to comply with some fascist and corrupt court order, but the COMMUNITY? It will continue hacking, illegally if need be. And we might win the same way Zimmerman won against the Federal Government for making PGP available. Imagine thousands of Zimmermans spread throughout the world and you will have the distributed power and freedom of our GNU/Linux community.

To use a military comparison, we don't present our enemy with a usable target<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Also - we are free from Gurus. Look at the Apple dummies who worship Steve Jobs and who like to say that Macs took a plunge down when he was away from Apple. They are collectively dependent upon this one guy even more than Windoze users depend of the image (not substance, of course) of Gates (so much for "thinking different). We can like or admire Linus, or RMS, or Knopper or anyone else, but essentially, WE DO NOT *NEED* THEM! They are not our gurus. If tomorrow Redmond succeeds in buying off and hiring ALL of them (however unlikely this is) what would it do to GNU/Linux? NOTHING AT ALL! That's also something which is a freedom of being the product of a community which cannot be collectively bought!

On the long term, it seems to me that this freedom, the one of being the collective child of a distributed community, might be as important as the freedoms you list above. And for that, GNU/Linux MUST remain free in RMS's definition of freedom.

#

Right. Corporations producting proprietary software may be creating 'usable' software, but it's not fully intellectually usable... which means that there's more 'bang for your buck' with software that allows more intellectual usability. It's not mistake that Free Software is more intellectually usable - it gives users and developers alike the same freedom.



The SCO issue seems... transient. But it's also educating a lot of people on some very good issues related to Copyright.



The real issue is the ability to patent software. Patents limit the intellectual usability of software, and that means the freedoms are being choked.

#

Life today is too complicated for us to expect to live the way people did in the early 19th century. Today, capitalism is the ecosystem in which we humans live -- particularly in places like the US and Europe. We need it to go on living (e.g., food and housing). While the market's interest is not the sole interest of the people, it does play a fundamental role in everyone's lives. If it were to completely fail, there would be few indeed with the time to continue making free software -- they would be too busy finding a way to live.

Ecosystems are about maintaining a balance. I agree that the current balance is tilted too far in the direction of proprietary software, but it would be just as bad to tilt it entirely the other way. The balance is correcting itself, we just need to have patience, and keep doing what we're going now (because that's what's doing the correcting).

On another topic, you mention that the Linux community is free from "gurus". It is not, they just don't get paid for their efforts , unlike Jobs and Gates. Every community has leaders, and those leaders are seldom appointed, but rise to the top due to their personal traits and expertise. In a highly technical area such as Linux, these leaders are indeed "gurus". And, while you could certainly replace Linus, or RMS, note that you would be replacing them with someone who is pretty much the same -- the same traits that made the originals rise to the top would be in their replacements,too. Really, only the names will have been changed. The leader of a community is a product of the community. In that respect, the free and proprietary software communities aren't all that different, however much you would like them to be.

#

capitalism is based on GROWTH. You CANNOT have capitalism without growth, agreed? (that's really economics 101). ok. our environment is FINITE. No matter how effective we can become is using its ressources, we cannot avoid the fact that our earth is finite and we are exceedingly unlikely to escape it in any demographically meaningful numbers (or only in our dreams). Agreed? Ok. what do you call infinite growth in a finite environment?

The medical definition would be: cancer.

Make your own conclusions before advocating capitalism.

As for replacing RMS of Linus buy "someone who is the same" that would be rather difficult to do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

besides, you fail to explain WHY such a replacement would be needed. What do you want to replace them FOR?

#

I think you are mistaken. Capitalism is one explanation of an aspect of the ecosystem mankind lives in.

Ecosystems are not about maintaining a balance. The term is used to explain balances that exist, and how such balances are created, destroyed and otherwise affected. It's used to attempt to understand these balances, and it's never 100% right because of the unknowns that constantly raise their heads to disprove equations.

The GNU/Linux community, I agree, will always have Gurus, just as there will always be people learning from the Gurus, or deriving benefits from the entire movement. I believe that the point that was trying to be made through the post you are responding to is that we are not dependant on select people to be Gurus. Yes, there are parallels between CEOs and FOSS Gurus, but they are parallels - which means that they do not map.

Ballmer can say 'OK, Microsoft, verily we shall do XYZ'. Do it or find another job. With FOSS leaders, there's discussion and popular opinion must be weighed and accounted for.

So perhaps it's appropriate to say that there are no proprietary Gurus - there are Proprietary Monarchs. And there are FOSS Gurus.

#

I might be mistaken, but you have not shown why or how. I do not say that ecosystems are about this or that. I say two simple things 1) capitalism cannot exist without infinite growth 2) infinite growth in a finite environment kills that environment.

Besides, capitalism, as an *ideology* directly PROMOTES growth.

While there are plenty of unknowns out there, there is nothing anyone as ever suggested which could resolve the "infinite growth in finite system" conundrum.

#

Please refer to www.capitalism.net (or actually take an economics 101 class) and educate yourself prior to making statements like "infinite growth in finite system" about capitalism.

#

Actually, I did show why. The concepts you are building on suffer flaws. Capitalism as an ideology does promote growth, but so do numerous other methodologies. Someone who had previously responded to your post Freely gave you some Intellectually Usable advice which you are at Liberty to take.

And that has little to do with freedom. But as far as intellectual usability, capitalism was never meant to keep things intellectually unusable. Rather, it was meant to sustain growth - and that requires intellectual usability of a high degree. And that fits into your point on Capitalism, whereby Capitalism promotes growth. If you're a true capitalist, you'll understand that intellectual usability as described is very important.

#

that is a mix of non-sequiturs and even logical nonsense. I give up this futile discussion.

#

This thread seems to be getting a little personal and ego-involved.
Capitalism at best is one componant of a stable and balanced econo-system. By itself it is not a stable force. Unchecked capitalism leads to a boom-and bust cycle of universal poverty, followed by the creation of wealth, followed by the accumulation of wealth, followed by the collapse of that wealth as the imbalances accrue (too few left with enough wealth to buy).

A stable system has a mechanism for wealth accumulation (capitalism) balanced by a mechanism to redistribute wealth (socialism). A third mechanism, creativity, is required for wealth to grow beyond a stasis point. Free software is basically socialist, but it doesn't prevent anyone from capitalizing on it -- it just prevents others from monopolizing that capital. It also nurtures creativity. IMO, it provides the balance that allows intellectual and productive wealth to not just accumulate, but to grow.

#

I have often wondered, after 20 years of existance, Free Software is still popular in very limited (read developer) circles. One reason I could think of is that the normal users *do not* need freedom of reading, changing and propogating the software. All they want is to use it. My grandmother does not want to look at Windows sources. It is *ME* who wants to look at it, because I am myself a developer and want to know the details about Windows, so that I can incorporate the knowledge gained into *MY* software. So, people conserned about FSF are *developers* or technical people.

So when we strip it down, FSF is about developers wanting to take a peek at what their competitors have wrote.

If FSF is really concerned about end-users, let them write software that is easy to use. Not easy to peek!

Yes, we love open source, but let's not kid overselves that it is for the end users (my grandma). It is for *US*.

#

Actually, you may find that Free Software is becoming increasing popular to governments and non-profit agencies, as well as developing countries as a whole. There are various reasons for this, and that's a completely different article.

#

Just think of the mass chaos and social ruin we would have if poets were allowed to peek at the works of their competitors!

Moron.

#

Personal insults and name-calling aside, do you write poetry? Maybe you do, but I certainly don't. Why? It's simply not my area of expertise. Specifically, I can appreciate a poem by Keats, Dickinson, or Donne, but I simply cannot find within me the capability to capture an aspect of beauty in the world and capture it in a few words. As such, I am an reader of poetry, not a writer of it.

Likewise, my mother has no desire to learn even the most basic aspects of computer software design. She couldn't care less; in the mean time, she struggles with how to use Outlook Express. As such, she could care less whether or not a product is open source - she just wants to read e-mail. Yes, she may have to pay for this closed-source program. But, for her, the economic benefits outweigh the costs. She pays a bit of cash, but reaps the benefits of usable e-mail software.

So while Linux advocates preach the benefits of having twenty text editors, ten graphics programs, fifty distributions, and thirty window managers, the rest of us will boot up Windows XP.

#

Likewise, my mother has no desire to learn even the most basic aspects of computer software design. She couldn't care less; in the mean time, she struggles with how to use Outlook Express. As such, she could care less whether or not a product is open source - she just wants to read e-mail. Yes, she may have to pay for this closed-source program. But, for her, the economic benefits outweigh the costs. She pays a bit of cash, but reaps the benefits of usable e-mail software.

Seems to me that she could save some cash and use <A HREF="http://www.mozilla.org/" TITLE="mozilla.org">Mozilla</a mozilla.org>. If money is that much of an issue, they do accept gratuities for putting out a superior product.

So while Linux advocates preach the benefits of having twenty text editors, ten graphics programs, fifty distributions, and thirty window managers, the rest of us will boot up Windows XP.

Well, that's your choice, and one I won't pretend to understand. But if you're going to use Windows, why not check out the <A HREF="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/" TITLE="gnuwin.epfl.ch">GNU Win II CD</a gnuwin.epfl.ch>? Very good Free Software for Windows.

Though I'm not the person who you responded to, I'll mention that I am a poet, and even as a poet reading Keats, Dickinson or Donne doesn't make me as good as them (of course, to be a good poet you're supposed to be dead). But isn't it great that poets can read those works you mention, using 'poetic license', and create derivative works which you may appreciate? It's just a thought. Poetry itself isn't as much a functional work as software, but it is close. Recipes would be closer.

#

I may have my attributions confused, but I think it was Dali who said
"Mediocre artists borrow from the work of others. Great artists steal it."

#

Slow news day? This is the third day in a row that an article has been posted here saying the same thing, only in progressively "nicer" ways. Each time, it generates the same polarization between those that agree with the "free software" philosphy, and those that take a more pragmatic approach. Nothing anyone can say will convince either side that the other is right, so what's the point of covering the same territory over and over again? Give it up, and let's move on to less divisive issues.

#

Actually, I found the second article you're referring to confused two separate issues. There's usability of GNU/Linux, and there's usability of Free Software. GNU/Linux usability inherits from Free Software usability.

#

Computer people, and I count myself as one, and just as guilty as the rest, have a bad habit of taking ordinary dictionary words, and give them new "tech-speek" meanings. Sometimes I swear it must be our version of a secret handshake or something.

I think it would have been better for all the articles to have refrained from using words like "free" and "usable", and instead give a clearer explaination in plain English, since the meaning of each can be misread.

I've seen funny phrases like "free as beer". Don't get that one. I pay for my beer, then pay for it again after drinking too much of it. I must be out of the loop.

"Usable" a bad word to use, since it presupposes the listener knows who the user is, and what the task is. Is Linux usable? To whom? For what purpose? I have a shovel that isn't very usable, since I have a bad back and live in a second floor apartment. Why do I have a shovel? I don't know, but if I ever need it, I'll have it. See what I mean?

I agree that the whole thing could have been made clearer. Maybe tomorrow's article on the subject will do the trick!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

"Usable" a bad word to use, since it presupposes the listener knows who the user is, and what the task is. Is Linux usable? To whom? For what purpose? I have a shovel that isn't very usable, since I have a bad back and live in a second floor apartment. Why do I have a shovel? I don't know, but if I ever need it, I'll have it. See what I mean?

'Usable' used in general terms with reference to an Operating system is fallible for the same reasons you mention. However, 'intellectual usability' is a capacity for intellectual use, and therefore lacks the issue of 'usable for whom'.

With the intellectual usability defined by the four freedoms, there's not much cause for confusion in this regard.

I agree that the whole thing could have been made clearer. Maybe tomorrow's article on the subject will do the trick!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Ever we try to explain what we mean.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

well, I suppose this goes to show that some of us like thinking a little deeper on issues which we hold to be fundamental and crucial. why don't you just ignore any such future articles? Do they bother you?

#

"(0)The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
(1)The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
(2)The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
(3)The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. "

All those can be summed up as freedom from powers owners have over users as stated in the why-software-shouldnt-have-owners document on www.gnu.org.

Freedom from the power owners have over people is the core ideology of socialism (and communism). In a communist society (the word communism comes from the word community) private ownership is forbidden. The free software foundation wants to outlaw proprietary software, proprietary software gives owners power over the users.

In a capitalist society freedom is defined as freedom to trade property (physical or intellectual). Property is the core of the ideology.

It's really just different views on what freedom is. People have different perception of it and there are probably as many different ideas of this as there are people on the planet.

Quite a lot of people, however, seems to beleive they have some kind of god-given exclusive right to push their idea of what freedom is down everyone elses throat as well.

#

Freedom from the power owners have over people is the core ideology of socialism (and communism).


Friend, you forgot Democracy. Or do you think democracy does not match this description?

#

Democracy is about selecting the people who will govern (it can be about selecting the laws as well, as California's "Propositions" demonstrate), not about who owns what. It is entirely possible that the Soviet Union could have been a communist democracy, as strange and unlikely as that may sound, if things had gone differently.

So, no, Democracy does not match that description. The main alternitive to socialism and communism is capitalism, not democracy.

#

Ahh, but a democracy permits people to decide who controls what.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) And if the people want control over something, democratically they will arrive at the same conclusion.

Everyone who's quick to nail down something as an 'ism' or 'acy' should look beyond the definitions in textbooks and try to reason why these things even existed. They were all created to try to maximize the Freedoms within a society. Some did better than others, but the freedoms were a central theme. 'Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness' was not said by Lenin.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

I have seen at least four posts under different stories with you spouting your socialist/capitalist nonsense.

Are you the new FUD writer that Microsoft has assigned to this site?

Linux has nothing to do with socialism versus capitalism.

Linux is Open Source, which simply means that end users have the ability to change the code, or to ask or pay someone else to change it.

For example, I don't know how to change the Linux source code, yet my son has introduced patches to improve my Linux system -- patches that involved changing the Linux kernel code.

In other words, I benefitted from the fact that Linux is Open Source, even though I can't change the code myself. Thus your "Open Source is only for power users" argument is nonsense.

Likewise, the top executives at IBM don't have the time or ability to edit the Linux source code, yet they pay others to do it for them. Do you think that IBM is doing that in order to promote socialism???

Open Source is to software, as Credit Unions are to banking, or Co-Ops are to farming. In each case, people work together to perform a service for themselves that otherwise they would have to pay a company to provide.

Just as a Credit Union allows someone to improve his banking experience, even though he has no idea how to invest the money himself, and a Co-Op allows a farmer to improve his marketing experience, even though he doesn't have the marketing skills himself, Open Source allows an end user to improve his computing experience, even if he doesn't have the programming skills himself.

Would you also argue that Credit Unions and Co-Ops are anti-capitalist?

#

AGREED. I usually try not to flame posts, but I will say it as I feel it: the narrow-minded brainless morons who call GNU/Linux socialists are just about as stupid and uneducated as it gets! Dammit guys, open some history books, some economics 101 college books and read a little. You don't even know the differences between socialism and communism and you want to make such idiotic comparisons?

"The ghost of McCarthy" as Roger Waters was singing... either that - or really a Redmond paid FUD-disseminator

#

Let's say I am running some software that has usability problems.

If that software is Open Source, then I or someone else can improve the software, and fix the usability problems.

But if that software is closed source, then all I can do is cross my fingers and hope that the publisher will fix the problems, rather than make them worse.

In other words, given the choice between an application that is somewhat more usable, and an Open Source alternative, I will choose the Open Source alternative, because the Freedom that I gain will eventually also give me the best usability.

Let's look at some examples...

Over the years, the Linux kernel has become faster, and more usable, Mozilla has become faster and more usable, Apache has become faster and more usable, and so on. In fact, I can't think of an Open Source product that reached maturity, and then went backwards in terms of usability.

On the other hand...

When Microsoft made changes to DOS that caused Geoworks to break, I lost the use of Geoworks. I couldn't fix it, and Microsoft had driven Geoworks out of business.

When Microsoft made changes to the Windows API that cause AmiPro to break, I lost the use of AmiPro, my favorite word processor. I couldn't fix it, and when Lotus eventually came out with a replacement, WordPro, it was not as good.

When Microsoft added links to the Windows file system, they didn't change the Windows 3.1 file manager to match. Thus I lost the use of my favorite file manager. Sure, Windows Explorer had advantages, but it didn't have the feature I considered most important, namely, side-by-side directory listings.

When Microsoft changed to an MDI interface in Word 95, I lost the ability to view multiple documents in different windows. In effect, Word had gone backwords to a Windows-1.0-style interface. Now, five years later (and too late for me), Word 2000 has gone back to an SDI-only interface, and other people are upset about that. Contrast that to Mozilla, which added a tabbed interface, yet still allows you to have multiple Windows open as well.

Windows Internet Explorer has stagnated for five years, while other browsers have added modern features, improved standards support, and so on. But no one can do anything about it except hope that Microsoft will eventuall improve IE.

Microsoft propaganda notwithstanding, most of my friends consider Windows ME and XP to be a step backwards in usability from Windows 95/98. But they can't do anything about it. They also can't continue to use Windows 95/98, because Microsoft won't fix any new security holes that crop up, nor can they work together to fix the security holes for themselves, because Windows isn't Open Source.

And when DRM and Palladium are integrated into Windows, it may make Microsoft and the RIAA happy, but it will be a step backwards in usability for Windows users.

In conclusion...

Open Source tends to guarantee continuous improvement in usability. If one developer tries to introduce a change that reduces usability, then other developers will reject that change, and introduce better changes.

But with closed source, as often as a product might improve, that product can also stagnate, go backwards, or stop working altogether, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

The Freedom of Open Source guarantees me usability over the long run., whereas a closed source product that is usable today might not be tomorrow.

#

Yes, Free Software guarantees Intellectual Usability. It's unfortunate that the term 'Open Source' has been abused such that it is sometimes thought to include non-Free licenses.

#

Free Software (Free with a capital "F" as defined by the FSF) obviously refers to something more specific than Open Source Software (Open Source with a capital "O" and "S" as defined by the Open Source Initiative).

For example, the BSD license would fall under the definition of Open Source, but not under the definition of Free.

In general, when I am discussing pragmatic issues, such as software usability and the ability to change the code, I refer to the term of Open Source to cover a wider scope of software.

When I want to discuss the philosophy of software and intellectual property rights, then I will use the term Free Software in its proper meaning.

In this case, in the grandparent post, I wasn't talking about Intellectual Usability.

Instead, I was talking about software usability in the regular sense, meaning the ability to look at the user interface and understand it, and the software's ability to do what the user wants.

#

Free Software (Free with a capital "F" as defined by the FSF) obviously refers to something more specific than Open Source Software (Open Source with a capital "O" and "S" as defined by the Open Source Initiative).

I am happy that you can make the distinction.

For example, the BSD license would fall under the definition of Open Source, but not under the definition of Free.

FYI, this is true of the <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php" TITLE="opensource.org">original BSD license</a opensource.org>. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the <A HREF="http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5" TITLE="xfree86.org">modified BSD license</a xfree86.org>? It is listed as a <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#TOCGPLCompatibleLicenses" TITLE="gnu.org">GPL-Compatible, Free Software License</a gnu.org>.

In general, when I am discussing pragmatic issues, such as software usability and the ability to change the code, I refer to the term of Open Source to cover a wider scope of software.

When I want to discuss the philosophy of software and intellectual property rights, then I will use the term Free Software in its proper meaning.

So you agree that Open Source and Free Software have different meanings, yet you believe that Open Source is a subset of Free Software? Certainly, there are common goals, but distinguishing between the two as you have said may confuse people, and you'll spend a lot of time explaining it. I know this first hand.

I would have to say that Open Source is not as intellectually usable as Free Software, with the original BSD license as an example. The more freedoms that are absent, the less intellectually usable something is.

Yes, in your original post you were talking about that software usability - but that software usability is only there because of the intellectual usability that was there before, which existed because of the Freedoms of Free Software. And that's the point.

#

> Yes, in your original post you were talking about that software usability - but that software usability is only there because of the intellectual usability that was there before, which existed because of the Freedoms of Free Software. And that's the point.

Point taken.

#

Your post reminds me of Planned Obsolescence. That is the prerogative of the Manufacturers, giving them power over the Consumers. My conclusion is that anything a lowly Consumer can do to keep from being steamrolled over by Manufacturers is his right. Corporations are probably an American thing, because America is still stuck in the Wild West days.

#

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary usability deserve neither liberty or usability.

#

The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage. - Thucydides (471 BC - 400 BC)

#

I can just about imagine how some of the microcephales posting around here are going to react to this quote:

"COMMUNIST! SOCIALIST! LIBERTARIAN! ACLU FELLOW TRAVELER! ENEMY OF CAPITALISM! FOE OF THE FREE MARKET! KGB AGENT! NAZI! ANTI-SEMITE! TERRORIST!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

Oh well, thanks for posting this anyway - its refreshing to read this post!

Cheers (and ignore the flamers!)

#

While that makes a great sound bite, it's not always practical in the real world. I'm a photographer who uses Photoshop a lot. I'm also expert in GIMP, but it lacks the tools I need to let me get a photo to the point where I can sell it. If I use GIMP I'll lose sales - it's that simple.

It's wonderful that people can write additional functionality into their programs, but I'm not a developer, I'm a photographer. I can code software about as well as a fish rides a bicycle.

I'll continue to keep an eye on GIMP and hope that it becomes useful to me, but in the meantime I'll continue to use a proprietary tool that lets me get the job done.

It sucks when the real world collides with ideals, doesn't it?

#

Valid point, and that's pretty much what Stallman was talking about... Free Software has to be written to fill these voids.

#

Your example (professional photographer, PhotoShop vs GIMP) is much more the exception than the rule. The vast majority of home computer users could easily replace Photoshop with the GIMP, Internet Explorer with Mozilla, and MS Office with OpenOffice (for example). And many of those could also replace Outlook with Kmail (or many other mail clients) and Windows (98, XP, 2000, 2003,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) with Linux. Even more so if assisted with the installation. The list of Free/Open Source packages that can replace proprietary equivalents (in both function and usability) goes on and on.

The hard part is bringing the masses out of their distorted view of reality based on the fallacy that the only viable solutions come out of a shrink wrapped box.

#