Free software importance on rapid decline since 2007
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
According to an article at http://www.datamation.com/open-source/top-linux-trends-2012-2013-page-3.html about Linux trends this year, the author talks about the decline of free software in importance and involvement since its peak in 2007. Talks about how open source is the preferred method and terminology and how free software advocates are out of touch and not business friendly. Open source is the solution.
These are his words and I'm just relaying the info :-)
El 19/12/12 16:23, name at domain escribió:
> According to an article at
> http://www.datamation.com/open-source/top-linux-trends-2012-2013-page-3.html
> about Linux trends this year, the author talks about the decline of
> free software in importance and involvement since its peak in 2007.
> Talks about how open source is the preferred method and terminology
> and how free software advocates are out of touch and not business
> friendly. Open source is the solution.
>
> These are his words and I'm just relaying the info :-)
>
>
That is a perfectly acceptable opinion....as is saying the sun is
square. He is entitled to his opinion. But where I live it is the other
way around.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-600 8579
(593)98-454 8078
Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.
I'm sorry. I always fall for the troll.
I am a member!
No worries. It livens things up.
For my 2cents:
Relevance may yet be more elastic than it may appear. People are fickle and can return to freedom if and when it suits.
A thought experiment:
Put yourself in this situation. The free hardware community has arrived to the extent that you are now able to make a really super-cool high-powered device in your own lab with off-the-shelf hardware.
Now that it's complete, you need a software stack. When this happens do you say, "Okay, now. What restrictions am I going to put on myself?"
To ask that question is to answer it.
The current gatekeepers are relying on the fact that they control the firmware. That control ultimately will be exposed as an illusion. We WILL free the hardware stack and then free software will become more relevant than you can possible imagine!
(Yes, fun paraphrase of Obi-Wan.)
And your point in relaying this is...? We already know that there are people not friendly to the free software movement, if not outright hostile. The social, ethical and political arguments that the free software movement is making are still valid. An argument of that kind can't refute what the movement stands for. It can't affect the validity of what it says. People can disagree but what we stand for can't be made wrong by arugments of that kind.
I somehow came across the article through a datamation link I found. It also seems that guy has an agenda against free software as well from a prior article:
http://www.datamation.com/open-source/7-reasons-why-free-software-is-losing-influence.html
I'm not sure why you come to that conclusion. I read that article, and it ends with:
> As a free software supporter, I can only hope that the loss of influence can
> be reversed. Five years ago isn't so long a time, and in theory I see no
> reason why free software can't regain the ground that it's lost. If the FSF
> and free software advocates would engage current trends (to say nothing of the
> rest of the community), then in another few years it could be more influential
> than ever.
>
> The only problem is, will the free software leadership admit the problems and
> correction them? I hope so, but I'm not optimistic about the answer.
Just because someone throws that at the end doesnt change the context of the rest of the article. Its like he speaks his mind but then throws in a sentence to be bipartisan to give the impression to others that he isn't biased on one side.
I don't know. If he had said something about being respectful to the free software movement and not wanting to insult them, that would make sense, but the author specifically said that he is a free software supporter, taking sides with the FSF. The tone I got reading that was that he sees problems in the free software movement that he wants to be fixed so that it can be more successful. There's nothing wrong or aggressive with that. I kind of agree with some of it, too.
I don't think the author gets it, particularly due to this line from the article:
"Over the last few years, Richard Stallman has denounced cloud computing, e-books, cell phones in general, and Android in particular."
Correct me if I am wrong, but how can RMS warning me about these technologies constitute 'denouncing' the technologies?
It is FACT that Amazon can erase the Kindle behind your back, without your knowledge and without your consent. And they can do this with 'books' you have bought and paid for:
The fact is, Kindle can be erased, including legal purchases, without your knowledge or consent.
That's not the only time it happened either.
And if you email Amazon (name at domain) and explain why you will never purchase such a device, because as long as they can erase it without your consent, you can never fully 'own' the device, nor any books you purchase, they respond with some pat email that doesn't even address the issue raised. When you respond by raising the issue again, you will never hear from them again.
So I never bought a Kindle, because I was forewarned it was defective by design:
"we strongly suspect that it also has the back door capability to view and delete non-Amazon books remotely as well." (Paragraph 6, sentence 2)
What an awful man RMS must be to warn me of this scam by "denouncing ebooks." How awful it is for me to be saved from the hassle of dealing with a very specific device named 'Kindle (which is not 'ebooks' in general as the author suggests.)
The other issues mentioned are no different. I'll buy a smarphone if and when I can load my OS of choice on it and run it with totally free drivers. A smart phone is a computer, no different than any other computer I OWN, and will be treated as such.
How dare a consumer advocate warn consumers about anti-consumer devices.<---Attitude of the author of the article
I recall reading something in the past about Bruce Byfield making up facts. Here's another one to add:
Richard Stallman is not opposed to e-books. He has a page on his site where he recommends a particular e-book publisher: http://stallman.org/non-oppressive-ebooks.html. Of course the e-book doesn't contain DRM.
This is also interesting (in his latest news article):
> statements like those made by Richard Stallman [...] about Ubuntu's affiliate deal with Amazon are easily dismissed as being out of touch, especially when they are made two months after the story originally broke.
He made an unofficial response in October 2012 in an interview where he voiced some concerns about the Canonical/Amazon deal: http://benjaminkerensa.com/2012/10/12/richard-stallman-canonical-will-be-forced-to-hand-over-data-to-various-governments.
> However, what was significant about the free software position in 2012 was that it produced no significant story.
There's loads, actually. Planet GNU is always a good place to start.
Maybe some of what Bruce Byfield is true... I don't know. But it doesn't seem like he's exactly done any decent research on it. That's not journalism material.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios