2014-04-22 21:46 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Running as well. All the _javascript_, Java (with x86 binaries inside .jars, even), Flash. And also using indirectly, yes; Google Search is more valuable to many people than quite a few locally-running programs.
Claiming that pure FOSS is important because it will give users these benefits is equally disingenuous. For end-user desktops, AFAICS the binding constraints for most of the claimed benefits of FOSS are no longer significantly affected by locally running FOSS software exclusively
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Your definition of "new" is... strange.
> 2014-04-21 22:35 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> I think the problem I have with this well-intentioned thread is that
>> it's a broad reaction to a specific issue we're trying to sort out
>> right now. Webapps aren't new, the fact that a large portion of them
>> aren't FOSS isn't new, and their usage in and interoperability with
>> Fedora is not new.
>
>
> Oh no, all of this is actually new.
Yes. Also, 1995 compared to 2000 had drastic changes even within that
> The change was so smooth and gradual that now, looking back, we see it as
> inevitable and natural; but compared to the 1995/2000-time era, it has been
> a drastic change.
timeframe. Even with your statements below, I have no idea how you
consider this new (nor why 1995/2000 are relevant).
OK, let me rephrase "my definition of 'new'" :) If there were a specific break between the "old" and "new", there would have been an appropriate time to discuss the changes, our goals, assumptions and methods. But there never was a specific break, so there never was an appropriate time, and that discussion has, mostly, not happened.
You're right, this is not new now, "now" is just a random time and random circumstances. But looking back, new things have clearly happened and we need to take the time to discuss the changes, our goals, assumptions and methods, and this random time is just as good as any.
> If we take "FOSS" as a means to achieve some benefits (freedom from lock-in,
> privacy, control) and not a goal in itself, the situation has changed toWell, according to what you said above you can't even expect FOSS to
> such an extent that FOSS is not even close to giving the average desktop
> user the expected benefits.
give advantages where it isn't even being used.
Yes; but the historical assumption was that building a local full-stack FOSS OS is sufficient / the right goal, and that assumption is false.
> Over the past 10 years, even those of us only installing FOSS have ended up> running an enormous amount of proprietary software. That's, in retrospect,Perhaps s/running/using indirectly.
Running as well. All the _javascript_, Java (with x86 binaries inside .jars, even), Flash. And also using indirectly, yes; Google Search is more valuable to many people than quite a few locally-running programs.
> a completely unintuitive, unexpected and undesired result[3], and keeping> exactly the same means to achieve the desired benefits (again, freedom fromI disagree with your conclusion here. Or maybe I misunderstand what
> lock-in, privacy, control) seems like sheer folly to me.
you're trying to say. How is it unexpected or unintuitive that using
a web service like gmail or twitter or facebook means you are now
beholden to that service for that data?
Sure, these are expected results when you ask this question.
But from the wider FOSS community, or the Fedora community, is not asking this question. We take it for granted that attracting more contributors to make more or better FOSS software to be run locally is what we should be doing.
But from the wider FOSS community, or the Fedora community, is not asking this question. We take it for granted that attracting more contributors to make more or better FOSS software to be run locally is what we should be doing.
And so we have painful discussions about how important it is to have, only have, allow, encourage, etc., FOSS software run locally, but that doesn't make as much difference to the benefits we are promising.
If you critically examine most of the rhetoric and supposed benefits of Open Source or Free Software, they are significantly limited in the world of network effects and web services.
- Better quality, higher reliability? Both are increasingly up to the cloud host, or the connection, not up to software running locally.
- More flexibility? No, you can use exactly the same websites as everyone else.
- Lower cost? Well, yes, if you don't count being subject to advertising.
- Full control over your data? No, much of the data is on the internet somewhere.
- Freedom from lock-in? No; the ability to change a web browser or a .doc editor is trivial compared to the inability to escape Facebook.
- Freedom to redistribute? Only the invisible parts up to the web browser; not the services one is actually interacting with.
- Freedom to modify? Same.
Is any of this "unexpected or unintuitive"? I suppose not, but we arguing about a FOSS desktop as if these limitations didn't exist or matter.
Claiming "because I use a FOSS desktop I should have all the freedoms
and benefits of FOSS EVERYWHERE" is entirely disingenuous.
The Foundations aren't the problem.
Well, we could resolve the disconnect between expected benefits and the methods / project identity in several ways.
- We could focus on the expected benefits, and start looking for new ways to make a difference for these benefits for everyone. In that case the Foundations would have to be modified or at least significantly extended.
- We can somehow scale back the expected benefits, e.g. say that they only apply to servers, client-server pairs, or ~programmers.
- We can just say that the Foundations are fine and we are doing this because we enjoy it (or because there are other benefits that we actually value, perhaps the ability to poke into things, learn from them, and hack them for custom uses), and only stop advertising some of the benefits.
I think what you're driving at is somewhat of a content issue, and
we've never had a great story around content or services. It's a very
difficult nut to crack and we as a community are very behind.
It's not only "content", it's equally "software available over the network". Compare with http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/?comments=1&post=26199423 .
Mirek
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
