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."
Try and stop me, Emperor Neckbeard.
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
...you can't use it when you don't have an internet connection. Why doesn't anyone think about this?
http://pinopsida.com
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
RMS is a bit insane?
On one hand, he's right, when someone else runs your program, they have your data. This has always been a concern with "cloud computing" and software as a service. What happens if the company holding my information goes down? What if they're attacked?
On the other hand, many businesses don't have the time, or the equipment to run this software on their own. It's great to say that they should run open source software, but that's an easy generalization. Sometimes there isn't an open source alternative (keep in mind, I am writing this on Firefox, running on Linux. I love open source as much as the next geek, I'm just realistic). Or even if there is, sometimes just renting 10% of some other server to run a service for you is cheaper than getting your own servers, and IT people to maintain it.
Overall, RMS has become the ideological leader of the free software movement. Like any good Libertarian (analogy, I'm not saying he's Libertarian. I'm not aware of his political affiliations), he doesn't allow for practicality to interfere with ideology. I mean, the idea of free software is great, just some compromises need to be made. One cannot jump straight to free software without any in-between.
Oh, and his complaints about people calling GNU/Linux just Linux are really starting to get old.
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 . . .
I have a business problem which a properly programmed computer can solve. I can either;
a) Hire a programmer, or a team of programmers, to create this application for me.
b) Utilize a proprietary application, with a contract to protect my rights.
Is the proprietary application free? No, but it does increase my efficiency 10x over. Would I get that kind of increase by hiring the programmers? Not after you take it to account all of the overhead I have with that plan. It just doesn't make business sense to go with option A, regardless of my personal belief on the topic.
As for my client? Ya, they simply do not care.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Or somewhere you do control. How many laptops are stolen every year? How many computer have keyloggers? ... No safe place.
the more I see him as an extremist.
If the world does not conform to his ideals, then the world itself must be in error.
And he's still using the incorrect name "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". It must really gnaw at him that Hurd has never progressed past the stage of vaporware. Yes, there's a LOT of extremely useful software in FSF and yes the GNU compilers, tools, etc are absolutely wonderful.
You can take a taxicab instead of owning a car that you can work on in your back yard.
You don't get to do mechanical work on the cab. You don't care.
You are paying for the service -- which includes not having to worry about maintaining the thing.
The whole point of SAaS is turning over control and headaches to someone else.
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.
The message if you Read The Lengthy Article, is that if they don't have and open license to the server code, don't use them. He seems OK with the idea that you use a server based application if they are covered by the GNU Affero GPL.
If you are reading this, you have a perfect example of software as a service, in an open fashion. If you want to make your own /. go download the slashcode and set it up.
The correct direction to charge with pitchforks and torches would seem to be pressuring the Gmail team for a G-Code release, or making SquirrelMail (or your favorite server-based e-mail) as robust and reliable and Gmail.
That won't be easy. Does anyone here have a good suggestion for a starting point? What's the best FOSS ServerSide E-mail server?
I should be running my own instance of /. at http://localhost/ ? Then I could patch /. to not have "idle" and editors I don't like. RMS, you're a lifesaver!
RMS: Hey! I've got this great idea
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Wow, that's really good. Let's do that!
RMS: Great, if you think that one was good, how about this one
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Hmmm, that one wasn't quite a good
RMS: Oh, well how about this one
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Erm... that's even worse than the last one
RMS: OK, hang on, what about this
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Yeah, you know what? You only had one good idea
RMS: That's not true! Listen to this
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Riiight... We've gotta go, could you switch off the light on your way out?
Summation 2
Can't you imagine all of the web based applications converted to work on a single computer...
Twitter - A single text entry box with a 126 character limit that appends to the text already displayed.
Facebook - An html file on your desktop that links to your media folder.
Google - Grep from a bash shell.
WoW - A virtual landscape with no other players, just lots of rats (this already applies to 2nd life).
StumbleUpon - A file browser.
Wikipedia - Man pages.
Where do I sign up?
One key underpinning of his arguments is that digital "property" is a much different animal the physical property.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Richard_Stallman
I don't think it's exactly news that RMS has an extreme view of what "freedom" means in the context of software. If at any moment you don't control exactly what every computer does on your behalf, your freedom has been taken away? Well, ok, let's put this in perspective.
What's more important -- freedom in computing, or freedom in what you eat? What would it take to have RMS-style "freedom" with respect to your food? Do you know that when you buy agriculture-as-a-service, you don't control the growing practices, the chemicals used along the way (sure, they may label it as pesticide-free, but how do you know?), the method of harvesting, shipping, the treatment of the workers, the sanitation of the food along the way, etc. ad nausium?
You could go self-sufficient, if you have the skills and the up-front money to make that happen. Thoreau would advocate that. But the thing is, that's not the life most people would choose (and isn't that what freedom is about -- choice?). And interestingly enough, if everyone today decided to live that way, the population would be unsustainable.
So, yes, you're handing some control over to someone else. Yes, it's something you have to weigh as you exercise your freedom to choose when and how to use these services. And yes, that issue has been enough to keep me from using some services. But there's a world of difference between knowing that a service isn't the same product as traditional software, and saying that you "must never use" the former.
The problem with RMS is, he divides the world into products that give you complete freedom, and products that have zero value.
And not only are you trusting your business data to a third party, I see numerous companies trusting their entire web presence based on some flaky business models of third parties.
Perhaps Gmail won't vanish in the next month, but do you really want to trust some brand X hosting site that says they can make enough money to maintain and run your website based on a couple google ads running on your site? How long before they ad more and more ads... how long before they just give up can close their doors with no notice.
Not only are you opening yourself up to the cost of making changes to your site ("oh, sure we can rescale images on upload, but that will cost an extra $2000 to write the handful of lines of code to invoke ImageMagick, and we'll have to bill you more each month to handle the immense CPU overhead! That will of course mean some CSS changes to move stuff around on the page to fit the smaller images, so that will be another $2000..."
Outsourcing some "services" may be fine: companies trust ADP with their payroll... but they are also aware of the risks. "Do we want to give ADP our payroll? What happens if they go out of business? (again, not likely with ADP, but with a smaller payroll company? It could be a real risk.)
This is all very obvious, though, and RMS is spot on. In cases where you have an alternative: Do It Yourself or hire someone local to provide as much as possible and insist on Open Source and ownership of data so if he sucks he can be replaced with someone else that knows the platform. In cases like Payroll, bite the bullet, grumble a lot, and hope that some day you won't be trapped into a contract because "well, we have no choice... if they raise their rates 20%, well, we will just have to eat that loss."
I once saw a website that was not only stupidly expensive for what it did, the code was encrypted, the data formats undocumented, and even better: the contract allowed the software company sole authority to place ads in the web page and collect all the revenue.
They went under a year later, leaving the site owner with... nothing.
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.
Loved your post, but a minor correction here:
"Socrates (another filthy slob who couldn't keep a normal living arrangement, and lived in a barrel) "
You must be referring to Diogenes the cynic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope.
Socrates was not as filthy and he actually had a wife and a normal house.
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?
If the undocumented formula produced much better results, I might adopt such a policy.
You're right - take all your money out of your bank account(s) right now.
"'Sewer as a service' means that you think of a particular sewer as doing your poop disposal for you. If that's what the sewer does, you must not use it! If you do your pooping on someone else's sewer, you hand over control of your poop to whoever controls the sewer. It is like using truck-stop toilet paper, only worse: it's even harder for you to wipe an ass that's sitting on someone else's toilet than it is to wipe an ass sitting on your own bog. Just like dye-free Charmin, 'sewer as a service' is incompatible with your bowel freedom."
Blog,Twitter
One single question of about twenty five regarding 'software as a service'. Your article title and selective quote does tend to give an erroneous impression as to what the article was about.
Maybe so, but you're also guilty of some selective quoting. Shortly after what you've chosen to include is...
Having an aim to actually remove consumers' choice as to whether they are allowed to choose proprietary software is indeed a little on the fringe-y side, you have to admit. I think that, based on this quote, the summary is fairly fair...
The CB App. What's your 20?
If you get the service you want, this is bad why?
As long as you get the choice of discontinuing service and move to another provider at will, who really cares? Until you are *forced* to use provider A, there really isn't an issue that they 'control your computing'. ( they really don't )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Many people have a much broader view of "freedom" than RMS does. That doesn't mean that they value it any less than he does.
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.
So if I remotely log into a linux server running 100% GPL software, and use that software to crunch data, it's non-free and I must not use it, because the server is owned and controlled by someone else.
So now software isn't free by it's license, it's free only if it's got a free license and it's on your personal box.
Ironic, because I was introduced to free software on my universities mainframe (e.g. emacs, LaTeX) and now I find out that wasn't free at all because I didn't have the money to buy a computer that could run it locally.
We must only do what RMS tells us we may do. Then we shall be truly free.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
You can still WALK if the taxicab grinds to a halt. You can hail one from another company, beg a ride from someone else who owns a car.
A better anology would be to have ONLY privatly owned cars and no public transport of any sorts, no bicycles, no footpads. How much power do you think big oil would have then?
The problem with having your data in the cloud is NOT just that your data is out there, but the way you use it is as well. If gmail fails I only not only use my emails themselves, but all my settings. What settings? Oh okay, but imagine a spreadsheet, you can copy out the data, but for complex spreadsheets the setup/layout/whatever is often more valuable then the data. If I loose that because I can't run the computations myself, then I am in deep shit. That is what he is warning about.
In fact, there is one sector we have seen this very clearly. MMORPG's. Kill the server, kill the client. Star Wars Galaxies New Game Experiency upgrade was widely resented by its users but because they don't control the server or the software on the server they had no choice but to swallow the bitter pill or loose all the value they had put into it.
When I take a cab, I am not committed, when I use cloud services, I shouldn't be either.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why does this sound like a really bad Infocom game?
Because the software required to make the hardware or make it work is non-free.
If server-side processing is a bad thing, shouldn't he also be against X, SSH, VNC, and HTTP?
And if you consider the CPU as the "Client" then server microcode not on-die must also be remote, such as coprocessors, daughter boards, and peripherals.
Not to mention Beowulf clusters of anything.
I think you mean "Really good one" sir.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
What do you think subcontracting is?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I will use what I want to use, which will be the tool I think is the best for the job. I am free to choose what I want to do and don't need RMS or anyone else telling my what I should and should not use based on some bullshit ideology.
Fuck you very much.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
The last time he made this sort of noise, we ended up with GPLv3, and look how well *that* has turned out.
Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
Your example fails because "software as a service" is geared towards solving problems that can be solved with "off the shelf" software. The fact that there was no "off the shelf" solution to your problem does not invalidate the usefulness of "software as a service. It certainly doesn't support RMS's statement that one should not use software as a service, at all, ever.
Your anecdote says "These tools didn't work for us, so we got a different tool." That does not mean that the tools you rejected are not suitable for many/most other people.
In fact, your post really sounds childishly self-centered, assuming that because it didn't do exactly what you wanted, it should not be used by anyone, ever.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
While I agree in principle with Stallman's concerns, there is in my mind a bigger economic concern that doesn't seem to bother him:
When that happens, we will have lost even the anemic facade of "ownership" of the software we use. Big Software salivates over the arrival of that day.
The further economic abuses and concentration of wealth that software-as-a-service will bring is, to me, a far bigger loss of freedom than what worries Stallman.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be raped by a Gnu.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
The real point I'd say you are making is that freedom for its own sake is stupid.
Let's return to your dog for a moment. You are correct, house hold pets are very oppressed, in that they are subject to the rules of their owners. However in trade for that there are some major benefits:
1) A safe, reliable food source. One major problem for wild animals is obtaining food. Starvation is not an uncommon way to go. Not a problem for a house pet. You ensure that they have a steady supply of food. Not only that, the food is provided with no risk. They don't have to kill it (and risk it fighting back), it is there for the taking.
2) Shelter. Again a big problem for wild animals is protection from the elements. Your dog has a house that is superior to any natural shelter it could find, and that house is kept up for it.
3) Protection from predators. Nothing dies of old age in the wild. If you don't starve, well then you get older and slower until something is now fast and strong enough to eat you. Your dog needn't worry about that, your house is free from any predators that might want to eat it.
4) Love and comfort. Dogs are social creatures that like to feel loved, and you do that for it.
Basically, a house pet has no care in the world other than when its owner will next be around to shower with attention. It is an extremely good life. I imagine if a pet were capable of understanding the choice between being a house pet and a wild animal that they would gladly chose the house pet option. Yes they are giving up freedom, but what good is freedom just for its own sake?
In fact, those of us that choose to live in a stable Republic like the US make the same choice. By necessity, you give up some freedom in a society. People have to get along with one another thus your freedoms must be limited such that you don't infringe on their freedoms. Also, government being what it is, the limits will expand beyond that to some extent.
Well, you don't HAVE to put up with that. You can pack your shit up and move to Somalia, or the Congo, or the like. You can go to a country that doesn't have a functional government, a real anarchy. There you are free to do whatever you can get away with. Whatever you have the power or skill or cunning to do, you can do. Grab a gun and go act as you please..... However the same is true for everyone else there, so don't be surprised if your life is rather short, or if someone who is more powerful than you imposes their will on you.
If that doesn't sound like fun, well I don't blame you. However don't fool yourself in to thinking that you aren't choosing to give up some freedom. What you probably realize is that it is freedom not worth having. The freedom to rape and murder isn't worth the fact that someone could rape and murder you. While you might technically be "more free" it isn't a freedom worth having.
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
If RMS is not authoritative on this subject, I truly cannot imagine what a person could possibly do to achieve that status.
On the subject of "What he defines as freedom?" Absolutely, he's an authority, and even has his own cult of...uhh... zealotry[0]. But outside of said group, I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously.
[0]The term "Cult of Personality" just seems so misapplied when RMS is involved.