Not everyone is dogmatic about free software. Slack is better than the alternatives, and denying it out of dogma is not a virtue. Many people are pragmatic and just enjoy programming and getting things done in the most efficient way. Rather than complaining that people are "unethical" (?) for using closed source software, you'd help your cause more by developing an open source alternative that's actually better than Slack.
If the only thing that matters is technical superiority, then you can expect to continue to watch your freedom be stripped away. Sometimes free software is more convenient than proprietary software, sometimes it isn't. We can't be willing to trade freedom (in this case trading free communication tools for proprietary ones) for short-term convenience if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
Before 2005 the Linux kernel was managed by BitKeeper, then Git happened and took over the world. The free software folks that were criticizing the usage of BitKeeper for the Linux kernel weren't able to offer alternatives, whereas Git was born from the hands of the same pragmatists that were using BitKeeper. Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name.
Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise. Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
> if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
> If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work.
I very much disagree with this sentiment and I think it is very sad to see how pervasive this idea is that earning a living is first.
There will be good software even if people making software are not paid for it, just like there will be good music even if it is unlikely that good musicians are ever be able to "earn a decent living".
Maybe rather than trying to find new ways of making a living we should try finding new ways of living instead, ways that don't perpetuate exploitation under the pretense of a job "market".
> most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
This shows the difference between "open source" and free software. That's why I call it "free software" and avoid the term "open source". This doesn't mean, however, that free software advocates do not have fun writing software ;)
> Before 2005 the Linux kernel was managed by BitKeeper, then Git happened and took over the world. The free software folks that were criticizing the usage of BitKeeper for the Linux kernel weren't able to offer alternatives, whereas Git was born from the hands of the same pragmatists that were using BitKeeper.
Yes, but I don't see how that's a benefit of proprietary software. Before bitkeeper there was some Sun version control system that had a very similar model to git (which might've been released with the OpenSolaris thing, I'm not sure). The point is that "you got some free software because of proprietary software" is not relevant. Free software
> Linux itself, along with the GNU toolchain, happened after Multics, Unix, 80386 and MINIX. Well OK, the GNU project was started before 80386, but nevertheless it was started as a clone of Unix. You can see that from its recursive name.
GNU is a free software replacement for UNIX. You could argue "clone" and "replacement" are the same thing, but I'd argue the intention is different.
> Or in other words, sometimes what you call proprietary software also represents innovation that can be copied and innovated upon should the need arise.
Except you can't copy proprietary software due to software patents and a miriad of other "protections" that are designed to mistreat users. People make free software alternatives to proprietary software because they want people to have access to technology without losing their freedom.
> Free Software activists sometimes make it sound like the whole movement has been a liberation effort, which is far from the truth, as most open-source software has been development for profit or for fun, having nothing to do with ideals.
The free software movement has always been about freedom. The main advocates of the open source movement have always tried to ignore the freedom aspects (in particular, Eric S. Raymond who is a very unpleasant character). However, many people in the open source movement actually do care about freedom if you explain the free software movement to them. The fact that the "open source movement has won" is very sad because it will raise generations of programmers who will gladly give up their freedom for no reason.
> > if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers
> If we want to see that world happening, we must first ensure that the people building software can earn a decent living, because frankly, we deserve it. I mean, first come up with business models that work. And do note that there has been room for a single Red Hat.
SUSE has offerings in the same space (disclaimer: I work for SUSE).
> Ideally people would recognize how much software is worth and pay even for free software. In practice people are pirating the shit out of everything and install ad-blockers while feeling morally justified in doing so. Therefore while I find closed platforms abhorrent, I can't help but think that it's a justified overreaction of the software industry when faced with hordes of self-entitled assholes.
People do pay for free software (myself included). However, the primary funding model in free software cannot be "for the actual software" because that wouldn't work. You need to have a new business model with free software
> But that aside, having users control their computers is not the primary motivation by which open source / free software gets built.
I disagree. Many large free software projects (FFmpeg, VLC, all of GNU, Debian) refer to themselves as "free software". This isn't a typo, it's because they care about software freedom and were started to offer free software alternatives to users like myself. There are many, many more smaller free software projects which do the same. While it is true that some developers don't care about free software and work on free software projects, that's like an author claiming that they don't care about freedom of speech while writing satire about a politician. There's a disconnect in that logic, and we should recognise the innovation that free software is.
Why not spend the same money to support free software? If you have the money and time to throw to Microsoft, which benefits no-one but Microsoft, why not give it to the free software community so everyone benefits?
I know that actually making Windows open source would not be trivial. I am focusing on the freedom to distribute as a first step. And yes I know it is up to MS whether to actually do this too of course.
I can turn your comment on its head and it works quite well: we can't settle for technically inferior free software if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
There are some people like you who have an ideology that pushes them to always choose free software. There are some people who care a bit about free software but will abandon it if the costs are high enough. Then there are some people who don't care about it at all.
You better at least have something to offer the second group if you don't want to die out.
> I can turn your comment on its head and it works quite well: we can't settle for technically inferior free software if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
> There are some people like you who have an ideology that pushes them to always choose free software. There are some people who care a bit about free software but will abandon it if the costs are high enough. Then there are some people who don't care about it at all.
> You better at least have something to offer the second group if you don't want to die out.
Free software isn't going to die out. And this skirts around the fact that free software has plenty of innovation behind it. In any case, people are quickly rediscovering issues of freedom with the whole eBook thing. It's very condescending that people don't care about freedom. It all depends on how you frame the solution. "This open source software is always better" or "This free software protects your freedom".
>> I can turn your comment on its head and it works quite well: we can't settle for technically inferior free software if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
> Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
I don't mean to speak for hyperpape, but I think that was the point: it's evident that some users value convenience/features/usability/etc over the control of their computers, so unless free software is as good or better than nonfree alternatives then these users won't have control.
> >> I can turn your comment on its head and it works quite well: we can't settle for technically inferior free software if we want to see a world in which users can control their computers.
> > Well, users can't control their computers in that example. They can hope to control their computers, or hope that the developers which actually control their computers don't do anything nasty to them.
> I don't mean to speak for hyperpape, but I think that was the point: it's evident that some users value convenience/features/usability/etc over the control of their computers, so unless free software is as good or better than nonfree alternatives then these users won't have control.
If that is their choice, sure. But most users I've talked to (this is completely anecdotal, and I usually talk to strong-willed people) recognise the importance of free software and will do something about it. Maybe they won't replace all of their software with free software, but they usually are willing to lose some non-mission-critical functionality.
And besides, free software usually has better features, but that's not the pitch we should give. It's the wrong lesson to teach. The right lesson would be "it has almost anything you want and if you want more you can modify it, pay someone to improve it or ask a community to improve it without dealing with a company or developer which doesn't give a shit about you." Why not start the conversation about free software with "it respects your freedom, and usually has more features / is more reliable but you have the freedom to improve it or get others to improve it for you" rather than just "it has more features".
So when it's your choice what software to use, you can use your definition of better. The high horse comes when you try to tell other people to use your definition of better. Like the link we're discussing. The person is telling others, who've decided they like Slack better than the free alternatives, that they should stop using it. That's getting on a high horse.
You don't see a lot of pragmatists telling free software proponents that they should be using non-free software. Unfortunately, the reverse situation is very common.
I'd change your qualifier from "when it's your choice" to "when it's your choice and your choice doesn't adversely affect anyone else".
Here, I think, we're talking about free software projects sending wrong or mixed messages to their users & contributors. Which is the adverse effect alluded to -- it obliges your users to use non-free software.
This may discourage some of your potential users & contributors, and that may reduce the quality of your project. And that, in turn, may be something you as someone running a free software project had not considered, and, on reflection, do not want.
Slightly perturbed you're using the word pragmatist as a synonym for someone that uses or advocates non-free software.
Arguably anyone casting an opinion is 'on their high horse', especially if it's orthogonal to your own opinion.
"This may discourage some of your potential users & contributors, and that may reduce the quality of your project."
The exact same argument was made about not discouraging non-technical users who don't want to bother with the arcane-ness that is IRC, and the reply was that they don't matter.
> "This may discourage some of your potential users & contributors, and that may reduce the quality of your project."
> The exact same argument was made about not discouraging non-technical users who don't want to bother with the arcane-ness that is IRC, and the reply was that they don't matter.
Then they can email you if necessary. If there isn't a mail bot which takes email patches (or just emails) and converts them into IRC messages then that's something someone should be working on.
Your point is valid - and we basically agree that there are different types of barriers to entry.
However, as cyphar observes, there are always alternative methods for users & contributors to gain access - git repos (PR's), email - direct or lists, twitter, bug trackers, etc.
Slight aside -- I suspect there's some correlation between sophistication of question / contribution a user may be asking / making, and ability to navigate IRC. Either way, I don't see IRC's alleged complexity as being a barrier to any one who's serious, especially (as noted) in almost any project it won't be the exclusive method of communicating with members of the project.
Even more of an aside, I don't get this whole 'arcane-ness' (and similar) claims levelled against IRC -- is it genuinely that tricky? Most projects I've seen that includes IRC in their 'How to contact us' page provides links to IRC clients, clearly identifying their network & channel names, and even sometimes a link to a free web client that drops them straight into chat (so about the same level of convenience as Slack etc).
I don't think that aspect is a pro of Slack. However, the UI capabilities of Slack are certainly pros.
Devil's advocate: the only way to have a single "account" for all of your projects on IRC is if they all use the same server. Is that not a weird, perverse amalgamation in and of itself? Taken to the extreme, every project that wants to truly control its own destiny ends up using its own IRC server, and you're back to N tabs open somewhere.
Totally fair. Having to make a new account for every project is definitely not ideal, and I wish Slack had better integration for more seamless sign-up using existing identity providers.
Slack does have a few ways which can make it a little easier to sign-in on mobile, though, such as sending you an e-mail link that opens the app and signs in for you. Likewise, once you setup the desktop client, you don't have to relogin unless your password changes.
It's a small initial overhead -- one that IRC doesn't present if you're going to the same server as you mentioned -- but one that I don't think is quite that bad. I've never been in more than five distinct Slack teams, though, so, maybe this would just explode if we literally tried to replace IRC with Slack for the top FOSS projects.
