Slashdot Mirror
Evaluating the Harmful Effects of Closed Source Software
New submitter Drinking Bleach writes "Eric Raymond, coiner of the term 'open source' and co-founder of the Open Source Initiative, writes in detail about how to evaluate the effects of running any particular piece of closed source software and details the possible harms of doing so. Ranking limited firmware as the least kind of harm to full operating systems as potentially the greatest harms, he details his reasoning for all of them. Likewise, Richard Stallman, founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation, writes about a much more limited scope, Nonfree DRM'd games on GNU/Linux, in which he takes the firm stance that non-free software is unethical in all cases but concedes that running non-free games on a free operating system is much more desirable than running them on a non-free operating system itself (such as Microsoft Windows or Apple Mac OS X)."
Having XFCE and ubuntu earlier today granted me with some artifacts tween the gimp and firefox which built up until the screen was complete garbage, and its been a number of years, possibally since windows 98 days since I have seen that on the MS side
Windows may suck for a long list of reasons, but for some odd reason, will millions of brilliant nerds working for a goal, more shit gets screwed up on OSS systems, more frequently. Personally I went from a windows only mindset in the mid to late 90's to a linux only mindset in the 2000's, just to end up dreading having to boot linux in the 2010's
Whilst I can see the points being made, and understand them, there is little difference between closed and open source from an ordinary end-user point of view. If they are unable to examine, update, modify, and build the software themselves there is no real difference between open source or closed source software. To the contrary closed source is likely to better serve their particular needs as the closed source vendor has to persuade them to spend money on it.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Cory Doctorow considers closed source setups unethical because it gives the devs the ability to hide any function they want from the user. If the user can't see what's running, how can they defend themselves from spying, censorship and propaganda? If a user can't be allowed to view and control what runs on his hardware, he can't be sjre he has any other digital rights either regarding his hardware. And that contradicts the very definition of ownership of property
Hectice, baby, Mercator says hello to you
then the user is most welcome to write his own s/w. this whole argument is shit. do you think about who's gonna spy on you when you talk on the phone, when you watch tv, when you drive your on-star car?? accept it, you can't have total control over stuff that you didn't make yourself. and you can't make everything yourself.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
in which he takes the firm stance that non-free software is unethical in all cases but concedes that running non-free games on a free operating system is much more desirable than running them on a non-free operating system itself
Why single out games as "potentially not as harmful"?
Moving from non-free to free is a process. It is a process that does not happen overnight. First get the vendors to compile for Linux. Then, if any feel like it, they can move to Free Software and make money through support like IBM, Oracle, and SAP make the vast majority of their profits on support (the actual sales of their closed source software is a minor component of their profits).
Without getting major companies to start moving their paid, closed source software to Linux first, you/re /never/ going to see Autocad or the like as Free Software on Linux.
Absolutism is counter-productive and turns off the people and companies we need to get on the side of Linux. I'm sorry, but ESR is full of himself and full of shit.
--
BMO - Long time Linux user, and user of Free Software and believer of Free Software as a laudable end goal, but the world is not as neat as ESR thinks it is, can be, or should be.
"Developers gotta eat" is no more an argument for why closed-source is ethical than "robbers gotta eat" is for robbery.
I disagree with RMS that closed-source is unethical, but supposing his arguments to be correct, the answer isn't "it's ok anyway, because it's my career", but to find a different line of work that is ethical.
But copyright, or asserting any similar "right" to unilaterally control what others do with data you've voluntarily sent them, is unethical -- if you don't want people "taking" your code, either don't distribute it, or make them agree to a nice bilateral contract before they receive it.
Stallman writes "If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation."
Doesn't seem too fixated to me, just keeping his actions as a change agent to a manageable subset of all the things in society that need improvement.
I spent the best part of 10 years playing with Linux on and off, trying desperately to convert to Linux because I was influenced by such figureheads like Stallman as well as fanboys (Slashdot included) telling me it was better than Windows and I would benefit from the freedom. All I ended up with was tons of wasted time, a lot of substandard software, very few games, a ton of FUD and promises that never came true, and I'm fucking angry of all the time I could have spent just continuing with Windows and enjoying actually USING my computer instead of tinkering forever.
My motive is that I have a huge chip on my shoulder and I don't like seeing people misled by Stallman, the FSF and such folks. And yes, free software is no big deal. People use proprietary software all the time and make plenty of useful things with it. For goodness sake, life doesn't have to be a battle all the time. You can use closed-source software without feeling bad about it.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
Or maybe YOUR response is shit?
Not if the OS doesn't LET HIM. That's what the bootloader fight is about.
Of course. That's why there are laws AGAINST PHONETAPPING, because some people thought about that before you were born. I guess you didn't know that?
There are default rules about privacy here too. That's why you need to VOLUNTEER to be monitored by Nielsen ratings, for example.
How about YOU ACCEPT it and leave the rest of us to figure out how to save our privacy in the future?
Total control isn't even remotely the issue. What is the issue is freedom. Freedom to do what we like, freedom from being spied upon, and freedom from being forced to accept the economic slavery that we are being pushed into.
It's not difficult. Companies are welcome to do whatever they like so long as they DON'T break our freedoms. Each time they do, we'll just have to complain about it, figure out what it means, and keep talking about it until we find a way to smack them so they stop.