Slashdot Mirror
RMS Says "Software As a Service" Is Non-free
BillyG noted an RMS interview where he says "'Software as a service' means that you think of a particular server as doing your computing for you. If that's what the server does, you must not use it! If you do your computing on someone else's server, you hand over control of your computing to whoever controls the server. It is like running binary-only software, only worse: it's even harder for you to patch the program that's running on someone else's server than it is to patch a binary copy of a program running on your own computer. Just like non-free software, 'software as a service' is incompatible with your freedom."
Seems uncannily like this story from a month ago: Richard Stallman Warns About Non-Free Web Apps
I'm no RMS fan (GPL2 all the way) but isn't this shit obvious?
The only point in software as a service's defense, is that at least you know you don't own the software.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
...for spotting the major con of software as a service. I'm sure companies and individuals considering the use of such services will now weigh this con against the pros and develop an informed decision about whether or not a given service is right for them.
For services where personal data is kept, I'm sure that concepts like security, trustworthiness, and portability of data are key concerns.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Does anyone give a shit anymore?
In any case, I use a few software as a service type websites that offer their software as a gpl download so I could install it on my server and run it myself.
In fact, I'm doing just that with dimdim (netmeeting software) for my work.
But seriously, this is getting old.
RMS is right of course. Software as a service is not free and one should always be at guard while using them.
Having said that, it is also important to realize that general public does not care, if its free. If you just ask them, "Do not use it." It does not help the cause. Shouldn't you instead try to educate them and warn them of the pitfalls ?
The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
The first hiccup in your company internet connection will have you scrambling to replace many of the services you signed up for...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Software-as-service is only free if you own or have consistent access to a given computer. For the millions of people throughout the world who have been given the ability to use online applications for free (at cybercafes, etc) even though they could never afford a computer, RMS' line is almost insulting.
And what does this mean for mobile computing?
I've got some really neat cloud for you. I'll set you up real cheap, free even . . .. You're gonna like this stuff. C'mon, give it a try. You won't get hooked . . ..
You can always quit later . . .
Exactly. I don't dry clean my own clothes. Theoretically, I could. The methods and chemicals aren't a secret. Instead I turn over control of my cleaning to a third party. Precisely how they do things I do not know... and if they use too much starch I have no way to debug the process.
But guess what, it's a lot better than wasting my time and money learning the process, buying the equipment and filling my basement with vats of noxious chemicals.
The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
Even RMS's organization offers software as a service: Savannah, a hosted free software development tool suite based on a fork of SourceForge.net's software.
Telephony as a service is not free. If you use a telephone carrier which manages your advance custom calling features like voicemail or call waiting you are at their mercy if they change software.
To be truly free you must manage your own PBX and voicemail system and it must be open source.
--
Payroll outsourcing is not free. If you use a payroll outsourcing company to manage your payroll you are not free. You must use an in-house payroll system and it must be open source.
--
Outsourcing your banking needs is not free. If you want to be free, you must own your own in-house bank and use only open-source software to manage it.
--
Outsourcing electricity is not free. If you want to be free, you need your own generators with fuel created or captured under your control. Of course, if you use computers to manage your in-house electrical grid, the software must be open source.
--
The list goes on. The point is: Duh. The whole point of contracting things out as a service is so we don't have to worry about is as much. With that comes the risk of vendor failure. Using closed-source software or for that matter open-source software that you yourself don't maintain is somewhere between the extremes of "doing everything in house, under our control" and "complete outsourcing, where we have no worries other than 'it better just work.'"
I bet most die-hard open-source advocates outsource their power and banking and most outsource at least some of their non-plain-old-telephone-service telephony needs. Even an open-source PBX or cell phone isn't truly open if it depends on a carrier whose failure would deny you phone service. In summary: To some extent, we are all p0wned by someone, and most of us like it that way.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and are not suited to doing it well.
If that sounds elitist, so be it. Reality is that people have all kinds of different skills, and a small percentage are good programmers. I can't run a marathon or play a cello, and I don't mind anyone saying so.
While I agree with RMS that software should be free, I don't believe that means that people should not simply use information services that are provided for them on managed information infrastructure.
In the 70s if you wanted information, you hired a programmer to write a program for you.
In the 80s and 90s if you wanted information, you used a program that was already written.
In this decade, if you want information, you use an service on the web.
Unless you are that most rare breed; an open source software geek, in which case you may still be in the business of gluing together or even modifying programs and web services.
I would believe more that free software was intended for the masses if it had in general any kind of document quality or code simplicity. But expecting Joe Six-pack to deal with maven builds, hierarchical make files, and package dependency graphs. Hah!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I believe he uses the word "must" as in "you must not try to check if your gas tank with a lighter". You are free to do so, but he wants to tell you that it is a bad idea. And in his opinion, it is a ridiculously bad idea. It is certainly worse than proprietary software, and we all know what he thinks of that.
I would have to agree with him. Preferring software as a service vs. software running on your machine is a bad idea. It might be convinient in many cases, but you shouldn't trust a third party with your data and your work, especially when you can avoid it. It might not look that bad, but as you already have the tools on your computer, it's not worth it even if the issues don't look like a big deal to you.
This does not apply in each case you use 'software as a service'. Examples of acceptable use of software running on someone else's server would include using Slashdot for news discussion, using web hosting services and using GNU Savannah for your software project. His point is not to use Google Docs to edit your private documents, and not to use Gmail to send your private mails, or to be more specific - not to let them become a replacement for your office suite and mail client/server.
Of course, avoiding any software services is nuts, it is not needed, and it is not even possible. And running a program on your friend's server doesn't hurt, either. You should, however, be well aware of the risks. Unfortunately, in many cases you have to trust your data to a third party. Read stories about leaked private information here lately? Then I say you shouldn't let your word processing and spreadsheet needs become a part of those cases. Simply don't do it.
I completely trust a restaurant's food suppliers, chef, wait staff, sanitation, and even their "non-free" recipes, when I outsource meal preparation because I'm feeling lazy that night. So? That's the whole point of it. Let someone else worry about it, and understand that you're making some compromises. I'm not sure which is worse, The Prophet's loopy, hippy-dippy hyperbole, or his condescension and patronizing nonsense.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We must only do what RMS tells us we may do. Then we shall be truly free.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
I was in disagree-with-RMS mode right up until I read your comment.
What motive? Money. They've shut services down before for exactly that reason. If a software service isn't profitable to its operator, it could go away. Or, the service's provider might decide it would be more profitable to change the subscription terms.
With SaaS, what you are getting is bounded by contract, ToS, and not much else. If you assume it's like a program on your computer, and don't understand the limitations -- if you say "what reason would they have to take away what they're giving me right now" -- then you are an audience that creates a need for a warning like RMS's.
(However, I still think his argument is driven too much by one-sided idealism and too little by pragmatism; and that the assertion toward never using a non-free service only hurts his credibility.)
I believe he uses the word "must" as in "you must not try to check if your gas tank with a lighter". You are free to do so, but he wants to tell you that it is a bad idea. And in his opinion, it is a ridiculously bad idea. It is certainly worse than proprietary software, and we all know what he thinks of that.
I would have to agree with him. Preferring software as a service vs. software running on your machine is a bad idea. It might be convinient in many cases, but you shouldn't trust a third party with your data and your work, especially when you can avoid it. It might not look that bad, but as you already have the tools on your computer, it's not worth it even if the issues don't look like a big deal to you.
This does not apply in each case you use 'software as a service'. Examples of acceptable use of software running on someone else's server would include using Slashdot for news discussion, using web hosting services and using GNU Savannah for your software project. His point is not to use Google Docs to edit your private documents, and not to use Gmail to send your private mails, or to be more specific - not to let them become a replacement for your office suite and mail client/server.
Of course, avoiding any software services is nuts, it is not needed, and it is not even possible. And running a program on your friend's server doesn't hurt, either. You should, however, be well aware of the risks. Unfortunately, in many cases you have to trust your data to a third party. Read stories about leaked private information here lately? Then I say you shouldn't let your word processing and spreadsheet needs become a part of those cases. Simply don't do it.
I totally disagree. I realize there may be some inconveniences with using online services sometimes, but we should try and face the challenges to solve those issues, instead of simply tagging them as evil.
If there are privacy issues, we should look for ways to avoid them, by using cryptography or legistlation where necessary.
It's all about progress. We wouldn't be doing ourselves a favor by just rejecting it. We should embrace it and fix whatever issues show up in the way.
diegoT
As a small example: just recently I had Yahoo! inform me that their "briefcase" service was going away, and that I should download my stuff before it gets deleted. It was nice of them to inform me, at least. It was handier than (ab)using gmail to store stuff, though. I used to use Yahoo! notes, too -- and again, gmail just isn't quite right for that, nor are (that I can see) any of Google's other services. So it's sad, but I'll live. I don't have a good competitor to run to, but it's not the end of the world.
More so than just your processing living on someone else's servers, though, you should be worried about your data living there. How many of the services you give data to will let you re-export all of it? Can you easily take all that wisdom you posted to that forum site and save it offline, in case the forum goes belly-up from one day to the next? That was an issue when BrickShelf was teetering on the edge of disappearing -- did we have a good way to get all our stuff back out? What about all those product ratings you posted online? Sure, you were part of the mob, and the value comes from the mob -- but those were your product ratings. Did you keep a copy for your records? If Amazon goes away, do you have a backup of your "likes" and "dislikes" so you can easily shop elsewhere? All that time you spent updating that Wikipedia article -- did you keep a copy of your work in case some court decides you can no longer access the site in your country?
We don't, but we ought to, demand that services we use and trust also give us a way to leave -- or at least to keep a backup of our data. Wasn't it ma.gnolia.com, recently, that went down and didn't have a useful backup? Do you demand to know what the backup policies are from each service you use? Do you have a way of verifying this? Do you ask about security? Is their server in a rack, protected by a crack team of techies, biometric locks, with security cameras -- or is it sitting under a dingy old couch?
You're putting value into these social sites -- are you being treated as a value producer?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Mr. Stallman, and the ever shrinking group of people who care what he thinks, need to grow up. Nothing is free. Absolutely nothing. Everything has a cost. And everybody is subject to constraints on their knowledge, wisdom, and actions.
If we are lucky, the costs are well within our ability to pay, and the constraints are not heavier than those that rational civilized men place on themselves for the sake of good order and pleasant society.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Ever been unable to connect to Google? Did you stop using google?
No, I use them to host my email and the few times the mail server has been down have not been critical (at least for the time they were down for)
Ever noticed that Amazon suddenly messed up (e.g. thousands of items no longer catalogued)? Did you stop using Amazon?
Actually yes, EC3 outages scared me off hosting on that service.
Ever had a black-out? Did you stop using electricity?
Yes, kind of - bought a backup generator long ago exactly because of unreliability where I was.
Bet you didn't.
Pay up smartass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley