SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the free-to-do-what-you-want-with-it dept.
http://steveburge.com/blog/open-source-communities-are-asking-the-wrong-questions/
Just a random blog, but what caught my eye is seeing someone in the "open source" movement (not "free software" since that term isn't used anymore) noticing how big corporations are exploiting "open source" to build their walled gardens. He did not mention the Chromebook, which uses Linux to create something that is the opposite of everything free software stands for, a computer where you can't even save files locally. I've been pointing out for years how Apple, Google, and others are making their billions by exploiting "open source", to create something that is the opposite of everything the hacker ethos is about with closed hardware, walled gardens, and devices that are not general purpose. I'm not sure anyone cares about the hacker ethos these days, but at least someone has a glimmer that something is wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Slartibartfast on Friday September 18 2015, @11:31AM
For one, you *can* store files locally on the Chromebook; you can even run true-blue Linux on it. Granted, running an unsigned kernel is a bit trickier, but if you really want to get dirty with the thing, you *can*: there are entire newsgroups dedicated to hacking, yes, the Chromebook. Because it *does* subscribe to the hacker ethic: you can even get your hands on the source code. As is the case with most companies that leverage FOSS. While I'm sure RMS has heart failure about things like IOS (either of them, really -- Apple's or Cisco's), FOSS has made huge inroads; it runs almost everything without an Apple logo, and the source code is released for almost everything, else you'll be getting a letter from the EFF. I can hack my TV. I can hack my WiFi. I can hack my phone. And let's just not even talk about the incredible success of the most hacker-ethic thing, ever, the Raspberry Pi.
Honestly, I just don't see what you're complaining about. The fact that they make money off FOSS? RMS foresaw that *from day one*, which he addressed in the form of people charging for the distribution of code (he didn't care -- so long as the code was still covered by the GPL; go dig up an ancient FAQ somewhere).
I would be sorely tempted to say that the hacker ethic is alive and well, and succeeding beyond our wildest dreams. WHICH DOES NOT MEAN that it isn't also under attack at all times from many venues; anything as successful as FOSS is bound to be. Thank God for the EFF which tries to keep people playing by the licenses they use.
(Score: 2, Informative) by SunTzuWarmaster on Friday September 18 2015, @01:07PM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Slartibartfast on Friday September 18 2015, @03:07PM
Yeah... reading it, it really struck me as someone who was angry about something, but hadn't really investigated what they were angry *about*. The thing I find most fascinating is that we've passed the inflection point, and nobody seems to have noticed. Just a mere decade ago, places like the Alexis de Toqueville Institution (now gone, thank the gods) were mounting an active assault on "Open Sores Software" (their words), and attempting to paint Linus as a master, Machiavellian schemer and thief of copyrighted material. And there was no guarantee that Linux, or Open Source, would prevail. Those days are *GONE*.
Netflix, Amazon, Google, Comcast, IBM, HP -- a few of the companies that have tied their futures to Open Source.
MySQL, MongoDB, Openstack, Linux itself, Hadoop, Elasticsearch -- a few of the software projects that receive huge amounts of code written by corporations.
FOSS has completely changed the face of modern corporations, and computing itself (e.g., "the cloud"). And while there are certainly things to be wary of, that's true any time, and all the time. If anything, now is a time to rejoice at how awesome FOSS is, and how extensive its reach. It would literally be impossible for it to be removed from today's computing landscape. And as someone who works with FOSS, I find that incredibly gratifying.
(Score: 1) by Pino P on Friday September 18 2015, @04:15PM
FOSS has completely changed the face of modern corporations, and computing itself (e.g., "the cloud").
In a way, "the cloud" has the potential to be even worse for users' freedom. A user of software on someone else's computer has no access to the software that he's using, unless it's under a license such as AGPL that specifically addresses this issue. Nor does he even have access to the data that is associated with his account, unless the software implements some sort of "takeout" feature. And even then, the user has no way to ensure that the data in "takeout" is complete or that the user can completely remove his data from someone else's computer. Richard Stallman wrote an article about this titled Who does that server really serve? [gnu.org]
(Score: 1) by Slartibartfast on Friday September 18 2015, @05:08PM
You start out your comment with the words, "in a way." And, of course, you're right -- and wrong -- and your argument is completely beside the point. Any tool can be used for good or ill. That does not, however, reflect on the tool, but on the user thereof. The cloud is an awesome way to leverage resources, improve the environment (really -- good cloud management leads to much less waste), and all sorts of other benefits. It's also centralized, which could definitely be abused. Which is why there are projects out there to allow tenants to have encryption all over the place -- which, really, is the single best way to defeat Big Brother, regardless of where your data resides.
And none of this reflects on how free software is being used or not.
As for "who does that server really serve," while that's a fine question, it, also, is completely beside the point of the discussion at-hand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 18 2015, @05:43PM
The problem is that many of these 'cloud' [gnu.org] companies rely on the ignorance of users and mine all their data, rather than making it easy for them to encrypt everything locally so their data can actually be more secure. These services *will* abuse users (just like Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, and countless other companies do for their own benefit), and that's just being realistic.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Friday September 18 2015, @09:29PM
The hacker ethic is not about hacking into YOUR OWN stuff, which is akin to a slave who buys his own chains and lock and then the tools to pick it.
It's not even hacking into other people's stuff.
It's the concept that working on existing stuff and making modifications to it is a great learning experience and leads to better stuff than what the single academic architect and his herd of minions might achieve.
As I heard first-hand from the Stallman guy (BTW he did not smell nor ate his foot), "you dont start by making simple programs, you start by making small modifications to complex programs".
The hacker ethic was present in Stallman's AI lab where source code was available to everyone, and he wanted to replicate that environment.
Account abandoned.