I think it’s also worth asking why he didn’t have more impact despite pretty clearly seeing this problem. Part of the answer has to be resource disparities but I don’t think it’s just that - Linux didn’t really capitalize at all on Microsoft’s lost decade, and much of the innovation in security has happened on other platforms. I think there’s also some kind of blind spot in the open source community where a lot of people see this as something other people need, not them personally.
The reason the OSS community has had no impact is that it's never managed to produce software that regular non-tech-geeks want to use. The reason it's never managed to do that is lack of an economic model to finance the incredible amount of work required to make software usable by normal people.
I've been saying this ad nauseum forever and I'm not the only one.
A related problem is that the OSS world is mostly tech enthusiasts. It's like having car people design cars. They'd be full of special switches and options and stuff that car people want. Car people don't understand that most people hate cars. What they like is mobility. Same goes for computers. Most people hate computers. They just like what computers let them do: communication, making content, getting their work done, etc.
> the OSS community [...] never managed to produce software that regular non-tech-geeks want to use
That's true, barely, only if you equate "software" with "things that draw stuff presented on a display to a user". Regular non-tech-geeks are using open source software (in the real sense, meaning instructions given to a computer to make it do something) pervasively, everywhere, every day, on all their devices (yes, even the Apple ones, but especially all the devices they use that aren't in their pockets).
Open source certainly isn't a failure, it literally won the war.
You are totally right that open source is powering countless things people use regularly but I expect most people don't even know what open source software is, much less care about it.
Then why is everything on the consumer side becoming more closed?
The reality is that proprietary just moved to the cloud in the form of SaaS-as-DRM and we-own-your-data. Open source runs everything, but few things are open. The availability of the source for components of the stuff they use is irrelevant to 99% of users.
You're correct, of course. I think the point that was being made was more about people actively choosing to use open source.
If you were to approach a non-tech person and ask them how many open source apps they use on a daily basis, they would probably say "none", even if it's not the case.
I'll point out that you're still doing the thing where you equate "software" with "apps".
But even so, that doesn't seem informative. Ask any user how many "Qualcomm apps" they use, or "Meta apps", or "Intel apps". No one knows where this stuff comes from. They buy a phone with a label on the box and then download stuff from an app store.
That's not a statement about how the software is produced, it's just how the market presents products to consumers. People don't know where the gas that goes into their cars comes from either, but that's not an argument that petroleum distillation technology is a failure.
You literally exercised huge amounts (seriously: millions of lines!) of open source code just now, in the process of posting that very comment and transmitting it to me to read.
yeah, over the last few years I've seen more and more companies launching open source software, and hosting it as a service. it seems to be working well. on the software side they don't sell a product, but a service.
Most "car people" would agree that changing the oil in your car is super easy. To me, it is not easy. It's not something I'm willing to do, even though I know the steps of how to do it. I just don't know what I don't know. When I have my oil changed, the mechanic tells me what I should be concerned about. He tells me what upcoming work I need to have done, how much it will cost, and what could happen if I don't do it. He has experience, expertise, and specialized tools. He had knowledge gathered over years to be highly proficient in his profession.
I could do those things. I could read, and listen, and learn. I could be under my car every day learning new things about how to install this, or replace that. But I don't really have the drive or inclination to do so. I'd rather leave it to the pro. I also have the added novice-worry of screwing something up, and hurting myself or others as a result. I don't want that kind of pressure. I don't want my car breaking down while doing some long journey - I just want it to run when I need it to run, without any scary warning lights coming up on my dashboard.
To bring the analogy back to computers, I still know people - people in their 20's or 30's - who do not know how to copy and paste with keyboard shortcuts. I will sit there and see them highlight, right-click, click copy, move their cursor, left-click, right-click, choose paste. I'll tell them how much time they could save if they "just did ..." and get a basic "Yeah...I just don't really care though, ya know? This works." The thing is, there is no investment on their part to want or need to do that more efficiently. They get by well enough with not bothering.
They could get super into computers, and learn something as "technical" as `git clone https: //github.com/some/repo` and follow the process to configure and run a script. They could learn to do those things. But they don't really have that time to invest in it, or don't have that passion for it, or have a professional investment in needing to do it.
They want it to work. They want to not get hacked. They want to not have to think about computers at all. Computers are the interface to do "the thing" more easily. And if the computer breaks? They want it fixed so it won't happen again. The computer "does the internet thing". And I can respect that because they focus their energy into knowledge into other topics that I don't have a clue about, the same way I don't have a clue about cars, even if I know oil changes are "easy".
> I still know people - people in their 20's or 30's - who do not know how to copy and paste with keyboard shortcuts
The great majority of people don't know or understand the difference between single click and double click. This baffled me the first time I found out. Age or education don't matter.
If you dig a little deeper you discover that most people think double-click is a kind of equivalent of "clicking louder". As if sometimes, for some reason, the computer becomes hard-of-hearing. It's both a little sad and quite funny.
This atrocious attitude is absolutely why software is such a hellscape of shitty UI and lack of features.
Normies should be eating our table scraps, not dictating how the software is written.
Normies learned how to drive a car. They can learn how to properly compute. And if they don't like the tech, they don't have to use the tech.
OSS is the last bastion of computing for people who know/like computing, because the armies of "designers" aren't selfless enough to donate their time like programmers are. And frankly it is better off that way, the prevailing trends in design seem to be all about limiting options.
Hard, powerful software over push-button appliances any day.
And, to use the car analogy, BMW gets away with this approach just fine.
"No one in this world, so far as I know ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." - H. L. Mencken
I know plenty of people, myself included, who lost money overestimating peoples intelligence.
All these folks trying to "pay their bills" have laid waste to a verdant field of possibility.
Everything nice that they offer eventually gets changed or taken away.
Yes, I'm bitter. We could have a much better world, one that actually empowers anyone willing to step up to the plate, but instead we grab all the low-hanging fruit so we can make them smile and step on workers' rights to deliver them burritos, instead.
If smart people were smarter they’d open their wallets and support the things they like. Instead the reaction is often, why would I pay so much for something that I could build myself.
So the real market is for the very smart people and that’s an even smaller minority.
I built super advanced tech but was intentionally screwed over by my large corporate customers, just because they could, so I quit the industry and that super advanced tech doesn’t exist anymore. Unfortunately a lot of really cool things will live and die with me. I’ve fought the good fight and failed.
We can lament that people are not smarter but there isn’t anything we can do about it.
I'm not convinced this is about smartness, so much as an ability and willingness for people to learn.
Learning is hard, it makes people uncomfortable, sadly. Which means that the easy road is to stoop to their level, which is what we're seeing.
It sucks that you got screwed by large corporations, and I don't know the story, but that sounds more like standard business fuckery than "software for smart people"?
I used to think exactly that. That those who were incapable of learning were simply just lazy. I eventually saw enough evidence to be convinced that raw intelligence is basically almost entirely genetic.
Certainly the businesses were not as smart as they thought they were, which is a common problem. But they indeed have very hard valuable problems and basically everyone involved was much smarter than the average person. Just not smart enough to know their own limitations and accept outside help.
Driving a car is far, far easier than administrating a Linux system (beyond a stock distro install that is working properly). The latter requires a ton of deep complex knowledge. It's more like rebuilding an engine than driving.
I'd argue that most FOSS devs just have amnesia about certain things, like dual-licensing that lets you sell licenses to companies but keep things open for humans. For example an Office competitor could sell licenses to companies in this way, but allow individuals to use the software on their personal machines.
Say you have a game, you can make the source available and still charge money for the game, and it doesn't get any easier to pirate than before. You even get tons of people modding your game and contributing to its appeal.
There are also techniques like 'selling support' for your software.
Consider that the one whose comment is currently at the top is pro-cancel-Stallman, and he also works on "free" software related to secure boot --- not as in breaking, but instead aiding its adoption.
The FSF was strongly against secure boot, then inexplicably started seeming to be in favour of it.
Why don’t you spell out the conspiracy theory directly? It’s not relevant to this thread even if true but leaving the details vague makes it seem like you don’t think it would stand up.
You only think it's a "conspiracy theory" because that's what they have told you to believe. The organisations of OSS have been infected with those whose ultimate goal is to EEE, and they will do it by whatever means they have available to them.
No, I think it’s a conspiracy theory because it’s poorly argued and full of insinuation, following the classic pattern of expecting the reader to fill in the gaps. This is how it magically becomes a negative when someone works to make free software compatible with modern hardware in a way most users want.
That's character assassination and it has nothing to do with Stallman's prescient warnings, which have proven more or less true. Also, Stallman != Linux.
Also also, his "rape" remarks have been mischaracterized but also came pretty late in the game, and had nothing to with with Linux's alleged lack of impact. Linux existed and was successfully deployed decades before any of these remarks.
I really expect better from comments on HN. This is tabloid level.
The statement was why Stallman specifically has not had much of an impact, not Linux writ large. and, you're right. The rape comments came late. But let me remind you that it's emblematic of a larger... issue with Stallman's ability to communicate effectively. If you don't think the way Stallman behaves is at least partly to blame for people's ability to take him seriously, I don't know what to tell you.
Not a fan at all of Gruber. But more importantly, Stallman's lack of hygiene is not terribly relevant to his points. We're not talking about being friends with Stallman, after all.
I also think when RMS made his more salient and prescient points, most people weren't familiar with him personally, just with his remarks. The world was less connected back then. So his personality flaws really didn't make a huge impact (nor should they have).
I think it's a pretty good explanation of why he didn't gain more traction than he had -- he's always been a zealot with a proclivity of misguided rants that he proclaims loud and far.
I don’t think it’s simple character assassination: the question isn’t just “did he have some good points?” but, critically, “why did those points not reach more people?” and that underscores the degree to which a leader for a movement needs social skills at least as much as technical. Having trouble connecting with people outside of a certain MIT CS bubble, making sexist jokes or - especially - being on the whisper list women use to protect themselves for 3+ decades, choosing not to participate online or in person in ways which are effective for getting favorable media coverage or direct reach, are (with the exception of the creeper allegations) personal choices anyone is free to make but not great for building a movement.
Even if all of the harassment claims are the social awkwardness his defenders claim, turning off that many people is a terrible way to build a movement. Maybe we say many open source developers are willing to overlook that, and there aren’t many developers deterred (citation needed, but let’s ignore that for now), but that’s still a problem if it means that reporters and people who are not developers say “this guy’s a weirdo” and that leads to skepticism or simply not investing energy promoting those ideas.
He is a character with certain arrogance and some of his jokes might not be too funny, but these are basically smears and his detractors don't seem convincing at all to be honest.
I think it’s also worth asking why he didn’t have more impact despite pretty clearly seeing this problem. Part of the answer has to be resource disparities but I don’t think it’s just that - Linux didn’t really capitalize at all on Microsoft’s lost decade, and much of the innovation in security has happened on other platforms. I think there’s also some kind of blind spot in the open source community where a lot of people see this as something other people need, not them personally.