[wtracy]

> And I don't mean open source projects.

Then what do you mean? You described exactly what some of the largest, most successful FOSS projects (Firefox, KDE, Gnome, Libre Office, FreeBSD) are already doing.

> Let's group together smart people wanting to make a difference and have a hit list of things we (people) actually need.

Well, the FSF maintains a list of "high priority Free Software projects" that need help, but it's strongly colored by the FSF's politics: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/

[Natanael_L]

Sounds like his thought is more about building infrastructure, and even non-technical solutions (as in rethinking policy, scientific research projects, etc).

Like a global collaborative project to improve just about everything.

[keyle]

Thanks that FSF list is great actually.

[coldtea]

>You described exactly what some of the largest, most successful FOSS projects (Firefox, KDE, Gnome, Libre Office, FreeBSD) are already doing.

They "make a difference"? How exactly? At best, I can understand that for Firefox.

[sho_hn]

> They "make a difference"? How exactly?

KDE so far:

* Is used productively by large numbers of users doing cool stuff, from your fellow developers to the scientists controlling the Large Hadron Collider to the VFX artists who made Gravity

* Helped popularize open source as a development and licensing model, which now comprises much of the industry

* Helped Linux get attenttion and grow, ditto

* Wrote technology in use on billions of computers (KHTML -> WebKit, large parts of Qt via tight symbiosis, taglib, ...)

* Had a strong effect on industry tool choices (e.g. raising up CMake into the de-facto cross-platform C++ build system by adopting and helping improve it with requests and code, or hosting the valgrind bug tracker, or helping make SVN scale after adopting it as replacement for CVS)

* Has made many hundreds of people more experienced and competent engineers through providing mentorship, and enabled them to apply those skills and that knowledge elsewhere

Most of these are ongoing.

Considering how easy it is in this industry to spend your days making things no one needs or wants, or worse, actively screws over people, I'm pretty happy with how I spent my last ~12 years as a KDE developer :)

[wtracy]

By providing quality software that lets me and thousands of others get useful work done, and not forcing us to accept onerous licensing terms in the process?

But hey, none of those can cure cancer, so what's the point, right?

[coldtea]

>By providing quality software that lets me and thousands of others get useful work done, and not forcing us to accept onerous licensing terms in the process?

That software (desktop Linux/UNIX) comes for free, and yet, only 1% or less (from browser stats of major traffic points) seem to opt to use it as their desktop.

Is this the kind of difference the parent was describing? Letting a small minority of people avoid "onerous licensing terms" that billions of others are OK and can get "get useful work done" with?

In the server, of course, it's a whole different story.

[sangnoir]

> That software (desktop Linux/UNIX) comes for free, and yet, only 1% or less (from browser stats of major traffic points) seem to opt to use it as their desktop.

>Is this the kind of difference the parent was describing?

Cancer kills 171.2 per 100,000[1]. So by your metrics, the Linux desktop folks make a bigger difference than curing cancer as 1% > 0.1712%

1. Cancer mortility. see https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics

[coldtea]

>Cancer kills 171.2 per 100,000[1]. So by your metrics, the Linux desktop folks make a bigger difference than curing cancer as 1% > 0.1712%

This is the kind of illogical result stemming from only reasoning half-way.

First of all, the cure for cancer wouldn't affect only the ones that die but also the ones that don't but do suffer complications from current treatment, from going broke from paying for therapy/losing their job in the process, to severe chemo side-effects. It also hugely affects the families and loved ones of those who currently die of cancer.

Second, ever considered the kind and magnitude of impact? Saving even 171 persons (those in a single bunch of 100,000) from dying from cancer is, arguably, quite a bigger deal than sparing millions to have to use Windows or OS X or some commercial UNIX.

[sangnoir]

>>Cancer kills 171.2 per 100,000[1]. So by your metrics, the Linux desktop folks make a bigger difference than curing cancer as 1% > 0.1712%

> This is the kind of illogical result stemming from only reasoning half-way.

I'm glad you saw the flaws in your reasoning - the key phrase in that paragraph was "by your metrics".

> Second, ever considered the kind and magnitude of impact?

My point exactly!! It's not just about numbers/proportion game where you get to say "1% or less [desktop Linux usage] is not a big difference" since it means the world to those who depend on it, for example those who cannot afford Windows licenses or an Apple computer or who find non-free software unconscionable.