Follow

New versions of Windows might change the UI or underlying components, but they don't change the only thing important to know about Windows: it's nonfree software. Choose software that actually respects its users instead. u.fsf.org/3eu

@fsf that's not the only important fact about Windows, don't forget it's also glorified spyware

@Reiddragon @fsf That's part of the problem with nonfree software. You never know what it is doing without your consent (or with your legal consent when you click "I agree" on a 20 page legal document).

@fsf Never listen to people who tell you that software developers should work for free. Never listen to people who tell you that earning a living by selling software is bad. Never listen to people who tell you that people should only use open source software.

@dogaar @fsf the problem isn't with selling the software. The problem is with selling the users.

@dave @fsf If you worry about your government having access to your data, then your problem is with the government, not with any particular software vendor. If you worry about an application vendor selling your data, then your problem is with the application vendor, not the OS vendor. If you’re accusing Microsoft of selling Windows users’ data, then you’d better show the evidence, nay, you’d better show *A LOT* of evidence.

@dogaar @fsf The FSF does NOT advocate for developers to work for free. On the contrary. You are encouraged to sell your work. With "Free Software", your only mandate is to respect the FREEDOM of your client, so they can use, inspect, and modify the code that is running on THEIR computer.

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.htm

@nicemicro @fsf That link is about monetising the distribution side (Linux distros etc), not the software production side. Also, when is the last time you've paid for a Linux distro?

With free software, the user says: "Give me the software you've developed for free, and *maybe* I will buy support services etc from you. And by the way, I can fork your software and become a direct competitor when I want."

FSF has no idea how the software business works, but you're welcome to follow them.

@dogaar @fsf
The example on the link, maybe, but how is the software production side any different?
And BTW, free software doesn't mean you have to give away anything for free. You only have to provide the source code to those who use your software, no one else.

The FSF has a very good idea on how the software business works, and they find their behavior unethical, so they fight against it.

@nicemicro @fsf There's little money in distributing open source, no matter who does it.

Also, how is giving away your source code for free "not giving away anything for free"?

The FSF is doing its best to transform the software sector from a high-yield product business (selling software) to a low-yield service business (support services etc).

The only place where open source makes sense is when companies need to collaborate on non-differentiating software such as Kubernetes, 0 money in that.

@dogaar @fsf
On your comment about "not giving away anything for free": you are giving away your source code to the people you give your software to.

Your characterization of the software business as "selling software" is just not accurate. Actually, the only people "selling software" are Free Software companies. All non-free software companies sell licenses, and not software. You don't buy a copy of MS Win, you buy a 60-page license you don't even read before "agreeing" to its terms.

@nicemicro @fsf By "selling software" of course I mean "selling software licenses". So you are up for bickering on such minutiae?

Also, and I quote:
❝the only people "selling software" are Free Software companies❞.

Do you really want to do this? OK let's go, repeat after me:

"Free Software companies don't sell software licenses, they sell their man-hours by providing support services and other types of services."

@nicemicro @fsf Also: if open software is so very much business-friendly, then vendors of closed-source software surely must be on the brink of bankruptcy? Surely MacOS & Windows must have been made open source by now?

No wait, those are not open source, and Apple & MS are two of the biggest companies the world has ever seen. I wonder why that is …

@dogaar @fsf
Sure, but in the same way you could say, that why do we do any safety and environmental regulations? Factories with no safety standards and just pumping industrial sludge in their back yards could make much bigger profits, than the ones that are doing the ethical thing.

Just because it is legal for software companies to exploit their users for profit, that doesn't make it right.

And, as a user, definitely doesn't make me want to pay for the product.

@nicemicro @fsf Keeping your software closed-source is legitimate, and it's not the same as polluting the environment or selling user data.

There are things that free market can solve by itself (if you don't like a company selling your data, buy from a competitor), and things that need government regulation (anti-pollution regulations).

As for not wanting to pay: wouldn't the world be great if you didn't have to pay for anything, right ??

@dogaar @fsf
Keeping software "closed" / non-free is legitimate, if you think it is legitimate to do things someone else's computer to something they are not allowed to know what it is doing.

When you use non-free software on the personal computer, that is full of your personal data, or your business PC full of business secrets, you are basically letting an outsider to do to your PC, to your data whatever they feel like.

@nicemicro @fsf About not trusting/wanting to use closed-source software:

That's your prerogative, but know that if you limit yourself that way, then you'll be using inferior software in most cases (Linux is a notable exception), because writing high-quality & full-featured software generally requires big investments, which the open source guys don't have.

Ever played Forza Horizon 5? You can always dream of it being made open source.

@dogaar @fsf
Ohh, yeah, the glorious gaming industry, that exploits both its employees by the worst type of employment contracts and random downsizings, while also exploits its users with selling unfinished games, overpriced "early access" keys, DLCs, etc.

Honestly, I don't really care about games, so no, I don't dream about, in fact I couldn't care less if Forza Horizon 5 never could be made open source, I wouldn't even care if it never existed.

@nicemicro @fsf About your comments regarding the gaming industry:

I've noticed that you are trying to start, or have started, a small service business. Best of luck with that, but that's no valid reason for firing at gaming companies and others that are massively successful.

@dogaar @fsf I am sorry for not being impressed by the "success" of a business model which relies on hiring as many people for as low as you can and fire them as soon as the crunch is over, while on the customer side selling buggy, half-finished products.

And these are not "shots fired" at the gaming industry. These are facts about their business model. I would think I am allowed to not like it, am I?

@dogaar @fsf
On your "As for not wanting to pay" comment: I am okay with having good-faith disagreements, but I don't like when people try to put words in my mouth.

I said, I don't want to pay for software which exploits me. I pay for services, that actually serve me.

You know who don't like to pay in general? Big software companies, raking in million dollars, while utilizing free software that they never even donate a penny to.

@nicemicro @fsf About your "not wanting to pay" comment:

Free software users don't want to pay for software, and they don't pay, period, no matter what anybody. Trying to make developers open source their software by pretending there is money in open source is distorting the truth so much out of shape there's no truth in it.

Also: all your comments never address my core point, which that the open source movement transforms the software industry from a product industry to a service industry.

@dogaar @fsf It is NOT a product industry. Colloquially of course, we can say "Microsoft sells software", but when we are debating the details and the ethics of software, it is an important distinction, that Microsoft doesn't make money on selling a product. You pay them so you can run something on your PC they don't let you investigate what it is doing.

A convenience store selling you food is in the product business. A hardware store selling you a hammer is in the product business.

@dogaar @fsf So in short, I don't think, that the software industry was ever a product industry.

It is and almost always has been a service industry. The FSF is campaigning for the software industry to move forward a more ethical way of providing services instead of an exploitative business model based the enforced ignorance of its customers.

That is the point I'm trying to make: that the premise of your main point is flawed.

@nicemicro @fsf You have a lot to learn about business.

Service businesses sell man-hours to their customers. So how much man-hours is a software license worth? Zero, because when you sell software you're a product business.

Now, all product businesses have a service component which they try to keep to a minimum (customer support etc).

15 days ago I've sent a bug report to Instagram, they fixed it within days. Instagram still isn't a service business.

No flaw in my reasoning.

@dogaar @fsf
OK, I can accept your reasoning that selling a license is not a service business. It's not how I would define it, but I'm not gonna argue that.

However, I unfortunately can not accept the reasoning of the "product business of the gaps" argument. Just because you'd define a license as a non-service business model, it doesn't make a license a product in my eyes.

When I buy a product, I have certain expectations that are not met when I'm given a software license.

@nicemicro @fsf About Windows not being a product, and convenience stores being product businesses:

I am an inch away from blocking you on Mastodon.

@nicemicro @fsf Here is a story for you (true story!):

1. A guy with the initials RS finds some printer company's behaviour questionable, because they don't want to grant him access to their source code.

2. The guy decides to found the open source movement to prevent this type of behaviour by software vendors.

That's it, the thought process is no deeper than that. There is no deep thinking about whether the software industry might be negatively affected. He just scratches his own itch.

@fsf
The fact that it's closed source is not the biggest problem. The fact that it's the badly made least user friendly piece of software is. The fact that something is not open source is not enough not to use it. But knowing that you are paying a lot of money to get a product that is only using for tracking and forcing you to use other software that's just as bad is. So many antitrust cases they avoided by just paying or lobbying.

@gloopsies @fsf Yeah, but if it was Free Software instead of nonfree, most of the problems would / could be avoided.

@gloopsies @fsf The unfortunate truth is, that in the case of nonfree software, no one has a chance to even try to check.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Hostux.social

This service is offered by alarig.
Beer, privacy and free software lovers. Join us!