Comments on: The Big Failure of the FSF /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/ Notes from a disciplined software developer Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:07:23 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.4.16 By: Balzac /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-19615 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:32:45 +0000 /?p=13#comment-19615 Gustavo, I disagree. The audience of the FSF and GNU websites was mainly developers and IT professionals for many years.

That’s because the state of the software usability for most users was pretty far behind proprietary products, so it made sense to focus on developers, IT professionals, and other power-users rather than everyday users.

Nowadays free software has advanced to the point where it is extremely competitive as a choice for those with little to no experience with computers.

It’s a good time to take your concerns into account, but I wouldn’t call it “The Big Failure of the FSF”. I’m more focused on the big triumph of the FSF.

]]> By: Gustavo /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-28 Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:30:11 +0000 /?p=13#comment-28 Matt: Yes, indeed the way Freedom-depriving software hurts societies is not so tangible (if compared to wars, for example), but I believe that many of the biggest global problems would be solved if societies adopted the Free Knowledge philosophy (and Free Knowledge requires Free Software).

]]> By: Matt /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:02:38 +0000 /?p=13#comment-32 > After all, there are many things that hurt societies and everyone doesn’t have enough time to support/learn about everything that’s going wrong nor how to solve it.

Well, yes. After all, there are much bigger issues in the world.

The principle of freedom is an important one, but if we look at the actual real-world effects of software “slavery”, we find that most of the evils caused by non-free software are limited to relatively minor inconveniences for well-fed, well-housed, literate, healthy people who are rich enough to afford computer hardware in the first place.

While thousands of people die every day of hunger, for example.

A wider perspective on the world suggests that, while free software is a very good thing, the attention of people is needed elsewhere.

]]> By: Gustavo /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:57:10 +0000 /?p=13#comment-31 Jastiv: I think the “industry” does what people wants and changes if people want it to change, so we should focus on people.

]]> By: Jastiv /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:13:12 +0000 /?p=13#comment-46 Why don’t we target the free software philosophy at the people who get people to use proprietary software in the first place? What I mean is, the game developers, the artists, the makers of the “hot new applications” that users want. The problem with the current marketing of the free software philosophy as it stands, is it does not appeal directly to kids who just want to create the next Final Fantasy or 2d platformer. For them, the most important thing is having a lot of fun games that you can modify and redistribute. You shouldn’t have to deal with the headaches caused by the proprietary software distributions model. You should not have to fight with removing the DRM, hex editors, take down notices, warez, product keys, no cd cracks, monthly fees for single player games, windows update breaking your favorite game, bad game design flaws that you have to beg the company to fix, etc. Free Software could fix all of these and more problems, such as games that are considered too expensive to produce so they don’t get made although they have a large target audience.

]]> By: Wonderbird /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-49 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:57:52 +0000 /?p=13#comment-49 I think we need to come up with several catchy logos / variations on a common logo.

A “software freedom” rating. Diamond / Gold / Silver / Bronze / Wooden Nickel… Have only one body that “authorizes” use of a particular logo… Blanket authorization could be given to various licenses… Just get people into the habit of looking for how high the software “freedom rating” is… Closed software with no free trial / test environment options would be “wooden nickel” – If they have a full time-limited version free without restrictions they could be one step up from wooden nickel. Onerous restrictions like not being able to discuss performance or run benchmarks would put them back in “wooden nickel” territory again…

Debian could be “diamond” Distros like Red Hat / Mandriva / Ubuntu that make all source for everything they create could be “Gold” Linspire and distros with proprietary stuff mixed in without source available could be labeled “Silver” Bronze could be something like embedded systems based on open source where there is little you can do… (tivo / media players / pdas, smart phones, etc…)

]]> By: Gustavo /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:49:17 +0000 /?p=13#comment-48 Robuka Kenderle and SPM: Sorry for publishing your comments so late, but they were caught as spam.

Robuka: I agree with you.

SPM: I’ve never said that we should not support GNU anymore, nor something similar. Yes, I feel the FSF isn’t doing enough about approaching the common computer user and the best I can do to solve this is keep working on GLM.

]]> By: Gustavo /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:33:02 +0000 /?p=13#comment-60 jasper:

> but they have missed a key point: If the average computer user is not on our side, we’ll get nowhere.

Where does this get nowhere coming from? Five years ago you would not have heard about the FSF nor would anyone care about them.. and look at it now. The reality is despite not having the “average” computer on our side, the FSF and all that it stands for has grown by leaps and bounds.
Things can be better I know.. but this sentence does does not bear the facts..

What’s getting famous exponentially is Ubuntu=Linux being cool, not the Free Software philosophy per se. Have a look at Digg, UbuntuForums, etc… How many of them support the Free Software philosophy over the ‘coolness’ of Ubuntu?

> Therefore, our most important concern must be how to approach people.

huh? I dont know about that.. To make this more important than freedom is dangerous. I mean when you approach people, what do you say to them? If you aim to please.. You might end up like the guy who tried to please everybody..

I’m afraid you missunderstood what I said: I meant our most important objective must be to introduce the Free Software philosophy the user-friendly way.

cies:

> If the average computer user is not on our side, we’ll get nowhere.

you sound like you think the average user is currently not on ‘our’ side; so do you really think ‘we’ (the free software movement) got nowhere?

Yes, I think the average computer user is not on our side. Some average computer users have made the switch to Ubuntu because it and Open Source are cool and then look forward to pollute again their system by installing Freedom-depriving games, codecs, applications… Again, have a look at Digg and UbuntuForums. So, no, the average computer user is definitely not on our side.

Many technicians and politicians are on our side, though. And most of our milestones are thanks to them.

We’ve just won many battles, but to win the war everyday computer users must be on our side.

> Getting people’s attention is even more important […]
> There would be no need to develop a free alternative to the Google Earth […]
says who? this is your opinion, but in the free software movement everyone contributes what ever they contribute for their own reasons. there is no boss to choose for more budget on clever marketing (and less on development of –in your eyes– unnecessary software).

I’m only talking about advocacy for Free Software and you’re talking about general contributions. Of course everybody contributes the way they want, but in the case of the FSF, it defines itself as an organization that “promotes the development and use of free software, particularly the GNU operating system, used widely in its GNU/Linux variant”. Just think coldly and tell me if you think that getting people attention is more important than trying to develop free alternatives to successful Freedom-depriving software? Again, there would be no need to develop free software alternatives in a free software-aware society, as software would always be free.

Jose: I am disappointed on the lack of interest in the average computer user, while they define themselves as an organization that “promotes the development and use of free software”.

Soyuz: I fully agree with you about fork projects. GLM and the FSF might team up to develop/endorse a given project, but it’s very unlikely that we’re going to give up our differences with the FSF.

]]> By: SPM /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-59 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:21:35 +0000 /?p=13#comment-59 I can’t really understand this blog. There is nothing to stop anyone evangalising GNU, and there is no need to fork anything. Is you feel FSF isn’t doing enough about appealing to the common computer, why don’t you and everybody else who feels like this do something about this at grass roots level.

Maybe you can organise to speak about GNU and GPL products at schools and colleges, and hand out copies of OpenCD after explaining to teachers and students how you can get the same functionality of MS Office Pro for zero cost, how you can install it on as many PCs as you want for zero cost. That will be a real eye opener for a lot of people.

You could also start a charity, and collect money from businesses on the basis of giving school children free Office suite, image manipulation, web page authoring software and DTP software etc. (OpenOffice, GIMP, Nvu, Scribus, etc.) at $1.50 per set (the cost of CD burning.

]]> By: Whydoyou Needan Emailladdress /blog/posts/the-big-failure-of-the-fsf/comment-page-1/#comment-58 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:12:39 +0000 /?p=13#comment-58 Lock: Goddamnit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!
Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

Neo: I can’t go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? I feel I owe you an apology. We have a rule. We never free a mind once it’s reached a certain age. It’s dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go.

Perhaps normal users cant be freed on their own… the matrix has to be remade around them.

Software freedom is something that just developers need to believe in. Monkey boy Balmer knows what im talking about.

]]>