[orbital-decay]

Laughing at RMS had proven shortsighted in the past, and I don't think anything changed, it's still unwise.

It's not just about free software either (that's a higher-level target), it's also about the hardware and freedom of running your software on your machine, and owning your computer in general. For example, anticheats in multiplayer games is the major driving factor behind locking PCs down with DRM and chains of trust. It's already so bad that you practically need a separate machine for many games if you want to run anything remotely resembling a VM on your main one, and it's going to get much worse. (ex. TPM requirement in some games on Win11)

And sure, an "average teenage gamer" is happy to give it away, because the only thing they care about is cheaters. The problem is, this is imposed on everyone, directly or indirectly.

[mixologic]

I feel like free software, and RMS's biggest blind spot is the network, between people, and between computers. Everything is framed and discussed in this old timey way of using computers, where you had a general purpose machine that was personal that you programmed to do things you needed, or installed software on, to also do something valueable.

Now it seems like the vast majority of the needs and requirements to run software locally have been replaced with networked services and a browser/thin client interface.

Which means, that in order to do anything useful, you need to communicate with some other service that is running software that has access to your data. The 'freedom' to inspect the code that runs on your computer is useless without both the freedom to see what happens upstream, and also some level of trust or confidence that the service you're using really isnt doing something nefarious.

Take something as old and as open as IRC. I have absolutely no way of knowing if the server Im connecting to is actually running the software I think it is, unmodified. The only people who have that level of access, have root on the server.

Even RMS's free game example is bad. One of the players can modify their copy to cheat, and the other players dont have any real option in that situation.

[feanaro]

> The 'freedom' to inspect the code that runs on your computer is useless without both the freedom to see what happens upstream, and also some level of trust or confidence that the service you're using really isnt doing something nefarious.

How is such freedom useless? I keep hearing this argument, yet I still run a significant portion of software locally and have no plans of replacing that with services, given they are a far worse option, precisely due to the loss of freedom and autonomy for not much additional gain.

Sure, if you accept that all your software are belong to them, then clearly the freedom to run libre stuff is useless, tautologically. But maybe you shouldn't be ready to give away that freedom just yet?

That you cannot be sure what someone else is running "over there", on a machine you don't control, is a fact of nature. Trading away your freedom for a foolish attempt to control that is misguided and shortsighted.

[Jarwain]

It's not freedom in general that's useless, but specifically freedom when that software relies on an upstream service to do things.

Your argument sounds like it is against the use of software that requires such an upstream service in the first place, which is a fair stance to take. The Problem is when that upstream service is Necessary for whatever you are trying to do. Like in circumstances where interaction and collaboration with other users is the goal.

[car_analogy]

> It's not freedom in general that's useless, but specifically freedom when that software relies on an upstream service to do things.

Until that service (such as a bank) decides that your rooted, user-controlled phone is no good, and forces you to use one controlled by the manufacturer, if you want access to your bank account.

[simonh]

If you want access from an app on your phone yes, not just to have access.

The fact is it’s not just us that are stakeholders in the devices we carry. Our mobile network provider is a stakeholder, the manufacturer is a stakeholder, our bank is a stakeholder. This is why e.g. we don’t have unlimited rights over the bank cards or those access code generator devices some banks used to issue.

If you want to use your phone for some of the functions of a bank card, then some of your banks interests in the functioning and management of that card roll over into your phone. If you want to play a social online game on your device, then now the games company and the wider community of gamers playing that game with you has an interest in the management of your device. If you don't like that, that's fine you should be able to have as much control over your device as you want ideally, but you wont be playing those games or using those services.

Cory Doctorow is one of the few people in the techie public space that seems to have a really good grip on these issues and some practical ideas on how to solve these problems, through chains of trust based on users owning the keys to the chain of trust on their devices. It’s a really hard complex problem though.

[car_analogy]

> If you want access from an app on your phone yes, not just to have access.

Ah, you mean in the case where you have a different computer available to you, that has not (yet) been locked against its user like your phone has. But we are so certain that this locking of compute won't spread, that we treat all other computers (that are locked), as an exotic exception, and the only remaining class of devices not yet locked (PCs) as the norm.

> Our mobile network provider is a stakeholder, the manufacturer is a stakeholder, our bank is a stakeholder. [..] some of your banks interests in the functioning and management of that card roll over into your phone.

Having an interest does not imply exercising that interest is legitimate. Especially when freedom-respecting options are nearly absent from the market, and one cannot in good faith argue that consumers choose locked products among equivalent unlocked ones.

But most importantly, there's one item missing in your list of interests: the interests of a free society, that needs a populace able to use software other than only what is approved by giant corporations. What use is free software if none but a handful of hobbyists can run it?

[feanaro]

The bank and the game are far less important than me retaining full control of a general-purpose computing device and sensor that I keep by my side for a majority of the time and trust in the most intimate parts of my home. This is also a fact.

If the bank and the game cannot function in this reality, then the only solution is for them to provide separate devices for me to interface with them.

[feanaro]

That is partially my argument, but not entirely. I'm rather arguing that even if you're using upstream services, you still want to have full and total control and ownership of the device you're using the upstream service from.

In fact, I find it a total jump in logic and a fallacy to conclude that I don't want or need freedom on my own device just because I'm a heavy user of upstream services. How does that even remotely follow?

[Jarwain]

I think the idea isn't about whether you would Want or Need freedom/control/ownership of your device; it's about the value of that freedom when an application depends on a closed upstream service versus if all the functionality is captured by the app running locally.

I personally think that its important to have that control and freedom for its own sake, but I understand the sentiment that "if my data is getting shipped off Anyways to some unfree system then why bother? I can't make the same guarantees around privacy and security as I can with a fully libre application"

[ddingus]

I do tons of useful stuff on my computers running software locally on those computers.

You are right about network services working hard to own more and more of the interactions and make it increasingly difficult to manage one's relationships and interactions without those services.

Frankly, I've responded by making damn sure I have interactions with the people I care about that are not owned by these services. Should one change, or I somehow am cutoff, I can maintain my relationships and interactions with people I care about.

Regarding IRC, the resolution to your dilemma is open data in tandem with open code. Sure, they could be running an IRC like thing. But, your data, interactions with others over IRC, are all open. Same goes for email and such. You can take it with you. You can change servers. You can read all of it without enabling technology.

Regarding cheating...

That's a social problem being attacked with technology and it's going to bring grave consequences. Personally, I would rather not play than deal with what's being done in an attempt to prevent cheating. The people interested in doing that are playing their very favorite game, and the cost of escalating that cat and mouse impacts all of us. Impacts you.

[maratc]

> That's a social problem being attacked with technology

Any problem in the last couple of centuries is being attacked with technology. That's what the industrial revolution is about.

Steam engine? That's a transportation problem being attacked with technology. Covid vaccines? That's a healthcare problem being attacked with technology. Anti-missile missiles? That's an international relations problem being attacked with technology.

[peoplefromibiza]

> Steam engine? That's a transportation problem being attacked with technology

steam engine has been adapted to transportation, after transportation was invented, they haven't solved any social problem.

there wasn't a transportation problem, there was a problem applying the technology to transportation, for lack of better alternatives.

steam engine in cars were banned until 1920s, so cars used electric engines.

it worked (kinda) on trains

main application of steam engine still remains steam turbines for power (electricity) generation, which is a modern technological challenge by itself.

> Covid vaccines? That's a healthcare problem being attacked with technology

COVID vaccines helped an economic problem, people would have survived by avoiding contacts

they have been in fact deployed firstly and foremost in developed (AKA rich) countries (2.8 billion people around the world are still waiting to get their first shot).

modern drug manufacturing is not about society anymore and hasn't been for at least a century now.

> Anti-missile missiles? That's an international relations problem being attacked with technology.

That's a warfare problem that has always been about technology, since forever.

[maratc]

What needs to be explained is why throwing technology at power generation problems, economic problems, healthcare problems, or warfare problems is seemingly ok, but social problems are a no-go zone.

[vharuck]

Not all social problems, just those where the people involved have opposing goals. And even then, it's not so much a no-go as unlikely to work. We can tackle problems like advertising and recruiting for local hobby groups. But people will actively subvert, exploit, or ignore software meant to enforce social norms. Anti-cheating software restricts what honest users can do, and cheaters will find a way around it if they like the game enough. DRM is a ham-fisted attempt to force digital media, an industry with virtually no distribution costs, into existing financial models. Solving the problem of encouraging artists to produce work with the promise of money is hard, but DRM isn't solving it.

Social problems are just very hard to solve, and they're rarely made simpler by automation or algorithms. They often require trust in another person's intent.

[jdbernard]

Because using technology to solve social problems leads to restraining people's personal freedom, choices, and expression in a much more direct manner than other domains of problem solving.

Furthermore, this restraint tends to impact people unevenly. As ineffective as the government may or may not be, at least the goal is for all people to be considered equal in the eyes of the law. With technology the power lives with those who own and create the technology, who have even less oversight and accountability than those who make the laws.

[thereddaikon]

>Now it seems like the vast majority of the needs and requirements to run software locally have been replaced with networked services and a browser/thin client interface.

And its almost always done to remove agency from the user and give it back to the corporation. Again, RMS is right. You can only truly have digital freedom if you are running your own software on your own hardware. It only seems old timey because we have been drinking the everything as a service kool aide for so long.

It doesn't have to be this way and it's not necessarily technologically superior. Its due to business forces more than anything else.

>Even RMS's free game example is bad. One of the players can modify their copy to cheat, and the other players dont have any real option in that situation.

Not everything he advocates for is always practical, the game example is one. You have to have some kind of central control in multiplayer games to make sure people aren't cheating. But there is still wisdom in what he says. We have single player only games that are demanding the same kind of access and control that multiplayer ones are. Obviously that isn't to prevent cheating.

And sometimes he is still right about a problem even if he sees every all of them as technological nails to be solved with a FOSS hammer. That's not going to work but he is identifying the problem correctly. Banks and governments are weaponizing the financial system against people they don't like and can't be trusted. How do you prevent them from doing it? I think ultimately its not a technological problem, its a political/societal one. Banks need to be reigned in and politicians need to be more afraid of the people.

[einpoklum]

> this old timey way of using computers, where you had a general purpose machine that was personal that you programmed to do things you needed,

Personal machines are actually new-time'y, not old-time'y. In the old times there weren't that many computers, and you accessed one via a terminal.

The difference is more in how remote services are now things you can't program and modify and tinker with, but rather closed-source "products" or "services" in shiny wrappers.

[ordinary]

It is worth pointing out that einpoklum's point is not merely academic: Stallman is old enough that he really did get introduced to computers and programming and software through corporate and university mainframes, and not through personal machines like (I assume) most of us.

The decline of the early open hacker culture in favour of corporate proprietary software during the 70s deeply informed the idea behind Free Software.

[roenxi]

Speaking mildly - it is the Free Software Foundation, not the Free Network Foundation. They aren't trying to tackle all the world's problems at once.

But also the network is profoundly different than the PC to the point where "free software" doesn't mean as much. Picking HN as an example because it is really easy:

1) We don't control the content we create for HN.

2) At some point all that content will disappear.

3) If viewed as an API, there is nothing complicated to it (disregarding dang's daunting fight with comment threading & similar issues). We get a "post" button and a text page.

So there seems to be a freedom problem here but it is about data control rather than software control - far harder to solve and also not so clear cut an issue. Does it, fundamentally, limit my freedom if all my HN posts disappear? Since they are public anyway, does it mean anything for it to be exploited by someone? Things like the piratebay.whichever and youtube-dl have been in the news today as part of ongoing examples that the network is still a very free place for who we can connect to and what API they can offer.

[stjohnswarts]

Calling it useless is a really big exaggeration. The license is applicable to both software running on the server and on your client (browser) so I have no idea how you can say it is "useless". Maybe less powerful is what you're looking at? I mean security is orthogonal to "free as in speech" software. I would interpret RMS for the person writing/using the software on the server moreso than the person logging with a browser.

[kergonath]

> Laughing at RMS had proven shortsighted in the past, and I don't think anything changed, it's still unwise.

I don’t know, I’ve been laughing at him for 20 years and nothing bad ever happened because of that. How is it unwise?

> For example, anticheats in multiplayer games is the major driving factor behind locking PCs down with DRM and chains of trust.

The driving force was (and still largely is) protecting copyrighted video content. That is bullshit, of course, but cheaters and video games were far down the priority pile when hardware DRM was designed. Now, it’s all about secure computing and sandboxes, and video games are still pretty much an afterthought.

> And sure, an "average teenage gamer" is happy to give it away, because the only thing they care about is cheaters. The problem is, this is imposed on everyone, directly or indirectly.

The average teenage gamer does not care. There are things we can do to improve the situation with DRM, but “how do you do fellow kids” from an old neck beard is way off the mark, and indeed laughable.

[peoplefromibiza]

> I don’t know, I’ve been laughing at him for 20 years and nothing bad ever happened because of that. How is it unwise?

[anecdotal]

luck has nothing to do with being wise.

anyway, I think unwise in this context means that RMS has been right more times than he's been wrong.

And very few of those laughing at him have ever asked for forgiveness for laughing at him or recognize that we owe to him some of the benefits of living in the modern computer era.

https://banksyexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LAUGH...

> The average teenage gamer does not care

that's why kids have neck beard parents to care (by law) about their future and safety.

[kergonath]

> luck has nothing to do with being wise.

Ok, let me reframe it. Do you have any example of anything being adversely affected by the fact that anybody ever laughed at RMS? Sure, he sound profound and far seeing, but his rhetoric is anything but subtle. He’s been way off for about 30 years now.

> And very few of those laughing at him have ever asked for forgiveness for laughing at him or recognize that we owe to him some of the benefits of living in the modern computer era.

I know what we owe him, but his contribution is long passed now. It does not turn him into a kind of universal genius. He’s outlived his usefulness as far as software freedoms are concerned. These day he’s more of a boogeyman than someone to take seriously, and he’s got only himself to blame.

> that's why kids have neck beard parents to care (by law) about their future and safety.

Do you remember what you did when you were in this situation? Personally, I mostly told my parents to fuck off and did whatever I wanted on my side, which was mostly what they did not want me to do. A condescending tone when you tell them what they ought to care about is not going to cut it. And I am saying that as a neck beard father.

[Jasper_]

Stallman rightly predicted that corporations want to amass power and control over you, and that counter-culture technologies like the computer and the Internet would slowly revert to mainstream, corporate-friendly and capitalism-friendly ideals as they become wider spread. This is hardly a fringe position.

But whereas a lot of others think the problems are structural to how society operates, and that fixing it would require rebuilding under a new economic framework, Stallman's only insight is that software you can't modify is the devil. DRM is bad not because it upholds a capitalist supply-and-demand system by restricting theoretically infinite supply, but because you can't modify the .c files yourself or send them to a friend.

It's an extremely limited way of thinking that ignores any external structural or economic motivations, and focuses on an unreasonably small niche subset with a black-and-white moral answer. It sometimes makes good points, mostly accidentally, but it still has a lot of misses, e.g. the religious persistence on "software" leads to programs like the FSF's Respect Your Freedoms with incoherent policies around hardware, firmware, and ROMs, mostly from a place of ignorance.

The free software movement was quickly co-opted by corporations as the "open-source movement" by executives looking to offload their labor costs onto unpaid workers, leading to a lot of under-funded core software infrastructure as corporations rank in the cash. Stallman's "Open Source Misses the Point" essay doesn't talk at all about this, it doesn't talk about the ways that open-source is about externalizing costs, nor about the way that it's leading to maintainer burn-out, it just points out that it's kinda bad that they're releasing stuff under the MIT license instead of the GPL, and would really much prefer if people didn't do that, while not realizing that was the goal all along.

The FSF has very little force in accomplishing their goals; it's a wet paper towel tossed vaguely in the direction of actual change.

[MaxBarraclough]

Do you recommend any other thinkers on these topics?

[Jasper_]

Don't limit yourself to technology and computers. These systems are political in nature; that is, they concern the basic fabric of how society is structured. One of the biggest tricks any new field has is thinking we're way different, won't repeat the mistakes of others. Both of these make it hard for me to recommend anything good here without getting myself into an internet argument I don't want at this point in time, but at least start reading some history of labor, of capitalism, and of corporations. A People's History of the United States is widely recommended as an intro to these things, and I might as well give it a namedrop here.

[MaxBarraclough]

I think you've just described all of leftist theory. I was wondering specifically about thinkers on Free and Open Source software taking a broader scope than what we tend to see from the FSF.

[guerrilla]

Just Google "Stallman was right", sounds like you might be in a bit if a bubble.

[kergonath]

Well yeah. I know he has been right on a couple of occasions. Still, how does this make me unwise for laughing at him? What went worse because I did so?

To be fair, his position was interesting in the 1980s. But he’s been hopelessly out of touch with the vast majority of computer users since the 1990s. He can keep harping on about the GPL and keep watching the world pass by.

[guerrilla]

Seems weird to laugh at someone who pretty consistently predicts the future. Does it make sense to laugh at physicists too? Was their predictive theory only relevant in the early 1900s?

[nmz]

Not really shortsighted, when it comes to games, it was laughable then and its laughable now.