Having a conversation today with Bradley Kuhn on Identi.ca. (In as much as one can in 140 characters…) Bradley takes issue with several FOSS folks talking about the release of Hulu Desktop for Linux. He says, “some denouncing’s needed when otherwise pro-FLOSS ppl jump excitedly to new proprietary stuff.” I disagree — denouncing is never needed in this context. You can’t shame people into embracing your ethics, Bradley — what you can do is lead, teach, and encourage people to embrace your ethics, but people (at least the vast majority) are going to turn a deaf ear to people denouncing them.
Me? I think Hulu Desktop for Linux is a Good Thing(TM). It means that people who like Hulu can use Linux and have a more rich experience on a free OS — even if Hulu Desktop isn’t free software.
Most people aren’t willing to embrace a “monastic” lifestyle on their computer. The RMS style philosophy of “if it’s not Free, I won’t do it,” isn’t going to get it done folks — try to have the conversation with the average user of how they should reject anything that’s non-free and hold out for a free equivalent. They might do you the kindness of not laughing in your face, but you’re not going to score many points.
We’re not going to convert the world to free software in one fell swoop. It will be done in dribs and drabs over a period of time. We may never get rid of proprietary software completely, though I do believe we will get to a state where people can do everything they need and want to do on a computer using FOSS. But we’re not there. We’re close to the point where people can do all of the basics, but we haven’t met all the demands of “regular” users yet.
Hulu is one piece of software that at least lets “average” users experience a desktop that is mostly free. This is better than a desktop that’s mostly non-free. It may not meet the FSF purity test, but it is better than stranding users on a non-free desktop because we’re too pure to accept the fact that users (even high-profile FOSS folks) want to see their favorite TV shows on the computer.
If you’re a Free Software advocate that feels threatened or offended by proprietary software like Hulu, then promote a viable alternative. If there isn’t one, it’s on you to create one. But don’t come empty handed and ask users to wait for a better day when a free alternative might be available, or suggest some half-assed alternative that requires twice the time or hassle to use. That does nothing to encourage users to use Free Software, it just encourages them to ignore you.
Hi Joe, I’m with you, I love OpenSource software. At the moment I use Linux Mint for daily use and OpenSuse on my server, however I still need to use MS for some things. So I think I’m a typical user, its serves no purpose whatsoever to berate the MS or other proprietary companies. However much I dislike MS I realise that there would not be so may options if they didn’t exist. Options are what we need, and if they cost then so be it.
Good article, Zonker. I completely agree: if you need to try to browbeat or shame folks into using your software, there’s something deficient with both your software and your approach.
If more of the strident “freedom” shouters would learn that “half a loaf really is better than none”, life would be simpler and more sensible. Taking an all-or-nothing position is one of the best ways I know to ensure yourself of getting nothing.
A lot of people try the new “bling” environments, free or proprietary, to get ideas to bring back to their regular work setup, like the people who go to all the Realtors’ open houses when they’re redecorating, not house hunting.
I don’t feel threatened by proprietary software personally, but as a community, we are threatened when we give up on software freedom, particularly when alternatives exist (MythTV, vlc, etc.). I wrote a full blog post about the “denouncing” issue.
MythTV and VLC are not in any significant way “alternatives” to Hulu. At all. Try again, please.
Yeah, right. Hulu is totally useless unless you live in the Disassociated States of Hamerica.
Refreshing to hear a bit of logical thought when it comes to the FOSS movement. My experience shows that the close minded zealot types that focus on the “its not free, I won’t use it” actually do more harm then good to Linux being widely adopted. There needs to be a give and take.. Sometimes proprietary software is ok, until as you state, “someone comes along and chooses to provide the alternative”
Hulu is proprietary ???? Since when.
Evidently, the “Mad Hatter” feels that whatever isn’t immediately useful to him must be avoided by all.
“Freedom-lover”. Hm.
Bradley writes, “we are threatened when we give up on software freedom, particularly when alternatives exist”. Suggesting that MythTV and VLC are “alternatives” to Hulu misses entirely what Hulu is about: the content.
Where’s the “free alternative” to the movies and shows that are available through Hulu? And if Linux users want to watch them, why are you “denouncing” them for doing so?
What do you think folks’ reaction to being “denounced” is likely to be? Greater sympathy for the FSF and its goals?
You’re in for a surprise, I think.
“If you’re a Free Software advocate that feels threatened or offended by proprietary software like Hulu, then promote a viable alternative.”
Well, Hulu is an interesting case, since it’s may not be possible to build an open-source alternative – showing people ads while they’re streaming is essential to their business model. It might be possible to encourage Hulu to use Gnash as a backend in addition to Adobe’s flash implementation, but I’m not sure there’s a way to open-source Hulu-the-service without screwing over Hulu-the-company.
Ravi, this is true. In which case, if there is no Free alternative, I see no use in chastising people for choosing the proprietary alternative. Asking people to not use their computers in a way that achieves what they want to do or get done seems like a lousy alternative. If we reject Hulu and other software that most users want, we’re just pushing them right back to Windows and Mac OS X.
I just love to see everyone coming out of the woodwork to call anyone they disagree with a zealot. If you bother to listen to Richard Stallman when he talks he often will complement companies when they move toward being more open. He also chooses not to install or use any non-free software because he believes that is what is required to be ethically consistant. I’ve met zealots and he is thoughtful and about the farthest thing from being a zealot.
While I might actually choose to install the Hulu software I do strongly prefer to use free software and appreciate all the freedoms preserved by the various versions of the GPL. While it is not illegal or evil to install and use propritary software. It also helps to preserve more freedom for the user if you use and support free software instead.
My thanks go out to Hulu for taking a first step by supporting free systems like GNU/linux. Perhaps someday they will take a second step and release a version under a free license.
Most of the replies here indicate that many do not feel a need to make the same strong statement that Stallman does, and that you will use Hulu. That Stallman feels a need to be ethically consistant with the philosophy that he has put forward does not make him a zealot, it makes him a good example of forgoing personal compfort to try and preserve and encourage greater freedom over time. While I see him encourage others to follow this example I have never heard him insist that others must do as he does. While it is true that a few comments at Identi.ca refer to the Hulu release as a tragedy. Most just express their own preference on this issue.
By the way , it seems to me that a comment like, “My experience shows that the close minded zealot types that focus on the “its not free, I won’t use it†actually do more harm…”
indicates that you would rather not hear from them. Perhaps we should insist that Stallman and others use non-free software or that they should shut up and not share their viewpoint.
hmmm, that seems to lean a little toward sensorship it is certainly more closed minded and zealous then people that just are following the dicates of their own consience and sharing their thoughts.
Summary: Use it if you want or wait for a free version if that makes you more happy. Thanks again Hulu for talking a step toward our community.
Curtis, for the record – I have no problem with RMS or anyone else choosing not to use Hulu or any other proprietary software. That’s their right, and I respect the hell out of people when they’re consistent in their beliefs. What I disagree with, and what approaches zealotry, is when people expect others to embrace their ethics. If RMS chooses not to use Hulu, that’s great. When RMS or others say “you shouldn’t use Hulu because I believe…” then it’s game over.
This entire conversation was sparked by Bradley chastising other FOSS folks for saying “Hey! More software on Linux! Come on over to Linux we’ve got Hulu now!”
I want to hear from folks like Bradley and RMS about why we should use Free Software, not why we shouldn’t use something. And if they can’t provide something that we should use, the time would be better spent creating something to be used than trying to tell people in and new to the community “oh no, don’t use that! It’s evil proprietary software!!!”
Well….rather than complain why don’t they work on the free alternative to Flash? I mean it has to be able Flash right? They can’t possibly be talking about the actual content can they? If they want it to be distributed via a free mechanism then get on the ball with forcing HTML 5 and the video tag. Sitting in the corner saying “we aren’t going to use you’re software” isn’t doing anything. Its only hurting the Linux users. The companies don’t care.
FWIW… Every mainstream application that also provides a version that runs on Linux, either binary or source, removes an excuse for not running Linux by those unfamiliar with the OS. Less excuses can = more numbers of Linux users ( also = less *bots and spam plugging things up). When that happens, we all win.
Hello Zonker,
I have been following a number of discussions like this recently and I think it would be worthwhile stating what I see. Can you tell me if you think these statements are correct:
Free software advocacy is about an ethical and principled stand against proprietary software. Any use of proprietary software is therefore unethical to free software advocates. Free software advocates want to have an operating system that is fully free, and they want to be able to do any job in society using free software. They also want you to share their values, and advocate as such.
Open Source advocates want to have access to the source code under an appropriate open source license as they believe that they can then build better quality software. They aren’t against proprietary software. They are happy to use proprietary software. They don’t have any community based end goals – like having a fully free operating system. They really just want the project they are working on to be successful and the best. If that helps the free software movement – they are OK with that, but it isn’t a priority.
Open source projects tend to operate independently of each other as they don’t have any shared goals. This can infuriate free software advocates who see activity that harms their goals:
The Apache Foundation working with Microsoft because they don’t see Linux as a priority.
Novell does a patent deal with Microsoft because they don’t care about the effect on other distributions.
Miguel de Icaza promotes Mono and Microsoft because he doesn’t care that software patents might effect other distributors.
Thanks
Christian
Christian, thanks for your comment. As a rule, no – I don’t think most of your comments are correct. Free software advocacy isn’t (or in my opinion, shouldn’t be) about being against something – it’s about being for something.
There’s a major difference there. If you’re only “against” proprietary software, well, that’s your right — but I don’t find that to be a terribly appealing world view. I don’t support proprietary software, per se, but my “mission” is to make FOSS succeed so that I and others have access to software that meets my needs under license terms that I think are reasonable and fair across the board.
The Apache Foundation works with Microsoft not because “they don’t see Linux as a priority,” but because they see making Apache available across all platforms as a priority. Again, there’s a difference in focus there.
Novell’s agreement with Microsoft is focused on what Novell believes is good for putting Linux in the enterprise and also what’s good for its customers (and therefore good for Novell’s long term interests). And so on.
Having a world view that is only “against” proprietary software is fairly limited. In my opinion, if you approach the world like that, you’re not going to succeed.
> Asking people to not use their computers in a way that achieves
> what they want to do or get done seems like a lousy alternative.
There is nothing lousy about beseeching others to participate in expressing one’s disinterest in what’s being provided — if there were then certainly your comments about what you do and do not want to hear from Mr Kuhn should likewise be considered “lousy”.
@saulgoode If you think your time is well spent telling other people not to use or promote things they find useful, then go to and good luck. What you’re going to find, however, is people will start tuning you out pretty quickly. How do I know this? Because I spent enough time banging my head against that wall myself.
Thanks for responding Zonker!
Although you confirm that most of my statements are incorrect, it appears that you go on to confirm all the traits of someone who supports open source and not free software:
1) I said free software advocates are against proprietary software (I have checked and this is a pretty clear fact). You state that free software advocacy shouldn’t be against proprietary software. That is the position of an open source advocate.
2) I said that Linux wasn’t a priority for the Apache Foundation, and you disagreed with me by saying “they see making Apache available across all platforms as a priority”. So you disagree with by a agreeing with me that Linux isn’t the *priority*.
3) I said “Novell does a patent deal with Microsoft because they don’t care about the effect on other distributions.” And you disagree with me by replying, “Novell believes is good for putting Linux in the enterprise and also what’s good for its customers”. Again confirming as far as my English reading skills go, that Novell does what is good for Novell.
I am not objecting to your support for open source, I was just trying to point out the reasons why there seems to be so much misundertsanding between open source and free software people.
It is hard to appreciate another community members point of view when you don’t understand the basic principles that are guiding them. In the short time I have been following these discussions, I see this problem again and again.
I still think my original statements were accurate and I see your response as confirming them. Again, I would welcome a further response because my aim is to refine these statements and help bring some understanding to other conversations I participate in.
Thanks
Christian
Hi Christian,
I’m afraid we have to agree to disagree. I still hold that your statements are incorrect, because you are extrapolating the wrong conclusions. Saying, for example, that if a company acts in its own best interest that it “doesn’t care about the effect on other distributions,” is false. It may not be the top priority, but that is not the same thing as saying it “does not care.” You’re trying to impose a black and white picture on something that has shades of grey.
A: That egg is rotten!.
B: Oh really?! “but you should not come bare handed” you should lay a good egg yourself!
If people want to make money selling rotten eggs, you make it. That requires shaping it as a philosophy too?! Interesting!
> We’re not going to convert the world to free software in one fell
> swoop. It will be done in dribs and drabs over a period of time. We
> may never get rid of proprietary software completely, though I do
> believe we will get to a state where people can do everything they
> need and want to do on a computer using FOSS. But we’re not
> there. We’re close to the point where people can do all of the
> basics, but we haven’t met all the demands of “regular†users yet.
Thats the best brain-washer you could write?
I have read similar things in stories..in the dialogs of kidnappers
“Common, here is the candy, take it, come to me, walk to me i’ll give
you the candy!”