Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

So as an anarchist, "kill your heroes". I shouldn't expect greatness from the FSF because I shouldn't expect greatness from any person or group of persons.

But I did and do want greatness from the FSF, and I think they are a disaster:

  1. Misogyny and pedophile apologetics.
  2. Counter-productive militancy in pursuit of their goals. Being active on Facebook and Instagram, for example, would give them the widest possible reach. Advocating mixed free/proprietary software as a stepping stone towards totally free computing would increase their appeal.
  3. Horrific marketing. "Software As A Service Substitute", "Defective By Design", and website aesthetics right out of 2000.
5

mima wrote

Being active on Facebook and Instagram, for example, would give them the widest possible reach.

People will see them as hypocritical if they do that. It also encourages people to stay on Facebook and Instagram, IMO, instead of having them migrate to free and libre platforms.

Advocating mixed free/proprietary software as a stepping stone towards totally free computing would increase their appeal.

That can actually backfire by discouraging people from ever writing free counterparts. If I don't see the need to write a replacement because this proprietary software I still use still works, then I won't write a replacement, because why do I need to?

There's already a way to get new people to use free software without compromising your principles too much, by writing free software on proprietary platforms. GNU already does that with Emacs for example on Windows. They don't advocate for keeping proprietary software on your system, but they give the option for new users to try out free software on their proprietary operating system (maybe this is what you meant?).

website aesthetics right out of 2000

I don't see the problem with this. I often like older design better than newer ones, because the older ones have matured enough to be stable, and they often use less resources.

3

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

People will see them as hypocritical if they do that. It also encourages people to stay on Facebook and Instagram, IMO, instead of having them migrate to free and libre platforms.

You can't reach the public by shouting messages from an isolated island. A good idea nobody hears might as well not be uttered, and the people listening to the FSF on free software platforms are already FSF supporters.

Advocating mixed free/proprietary software as a stepping stone towards totally free computing would increase their appeal.

That can actually backfire by discouraging people from ever writing free counterparts. If I don't see the need to write a replacement because this proprietary software I still use still works, then I won't write a replacement, because why do I need to?

If the completely free from top to bottom option doesn't meet their needs, it's a non-starter. A FOSS office suite that doesn't interact flawlessly with Microsoft Office means you'll have problem at schools, at jobs, applying for work, filing government forms, and so forth. I hate Microsoft as much as the next dues-paying FSF member, but "Use this FOSS office suite! It's great, as long as you never exchange files with anyone else!" does not work. I also believe in what the Replicant (FOSS smartphone) project is trying to do, but Replicant lacks so many essential drivers that any Replicant device is worthless, strictly inferior to feature phones from 2002 and with a lower battery life. I believe in what LibreJS does, but for example I can't find a bank or credit union that will let me do online banking without non-free JS. So LibreJS should exist, but not get much promotion.

I don't see the problem with this. I often like older design better than newer ones, because the older ones have matured enough to be stable, and they often use less resources.

https://fsf.org should not be written to appeal to people like you and me, it's got to appeal to the people who don't already believe in FOSS and don't have a hard-earned appreciation for minimalist web page aesthetics.

Is the FSF trying to make a FOSS cult, or a FOSS world? Because everything they're doing seems geared towards the former. The people that don't already understand what they stand for and agree with them face too many obstacles to join them.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

Please forgive me for being pedantic, but "apologetics" means the defense of something through reasoned arguments. So at Raddle most of us engage in trans rights apologetics, and anarchist philosophy apologetics.

Facebook and Instagram is horrific garbage, but so is Twitter and billions on Facebook and Instagram don't use Twitter. FSF should be active on all of them, and Youtube, and everywhere else.

Ten years ago they were pushing GNU Social, Friendica, and so forth and they were actually pretty good. But then and now I don't think the promotions were reaching the right audiences or written in a way that appealed to people that were not already FOSS fans.

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I don't blame the FSF for losing the battle for education. First Microsoft and then later Apple and Google spent billions to get into that market, because they know most consumers that get accustomed to their products in schools will stick with them for the rest of their lives. I haven't seen the contracts, but I suspect the education discount for schools were huge because the companies viewed the project as a long term investment. A free software education system would be more costly because they couldn't subsidize the expenses from their other profits.

There has been an open war between IP and FOSS since the 1990s, and IP used permissive license software as their weapon - MIT, Apache, BSD, etc...

I don't think there's any parallel dimension with a capitalist world economy and a wildly successful FSF. There's too much money to be made by using DRM, invading privacy, and keeping trade secrets. I just suspect the FSF could be a lot more successful than they are now if they were run better - maybe have 2% of the global consumer market on FSF-approved hardware and devices instead of 0.00002%.

2