[DotGNU]The Sacrifice of Idealism: Pioneering FS (was Re: free "software" & geeky nitpicking)

[S11001001]

I assume that when you say "commercial", you really mean "proprietary", 
as there is commercial software that is free, and non-commercial 
software that is not free.

Please read inline comments.

David Bradley wrote:
> I think the biggest barrier is that your average users doesn't have the 
> time or knowledge to find and deal with free software. Most computers 
> come with an OS and basic applications installed. They're quite happy 
> with what they have. Also you can find books and other people to help 
> you with the commercial software.

When I say "average users to advocate Free Software," I am really not 
referring to average users, in the sense that they are "quite happy with 
what they have." I am talking about people who are willing to put up 
with this frustration that you feel and ask for help because they 
appreciate the freedom that comes with free software. I am talking about 
people willing to take the time and ask for help, or to read 
documentation (gasp!), just so that they can say they run a Free machine.

Why is just using help? First, let me emphasize your note on "an OS and 
basic applications installed." Once enough people decide to switch to 
freedom, perhaps some will find it useful to implement more ease-of-use 
and preconfiguration, such as having a completely set-up GNU/Linux or 
GNU/Hurd machine that you can buy at WalMart(TM) or wherever. But let me 
repeat, some users are going to have to make the sacrifice for freedom 
_first_, _before_ this will happen. I quote Dave Barry, because this is 
quite seriously the attitude of the consumer:

<<So there are many different operating systems available, each with 
different capabilities, advantages, and drawbacks. Which one is right 
for your specific needs? The answer is: _Whichever one is already on 
your computer_. Believe me, you do _not_ want to try to install a new 
operating system yourself.>>

So proprietary software is not a monopoly for any other reason than that 
it is self-sustaining. Let me note that I would prefer a world where 
enough people cared more about freedom than pre-configuration. Because 
it _is_ more important.

On the comment about "other people to help you with the [proprietary] 
software," certainly there are many out there who would be glad to help 
you with free software. Even if you don't RTFM ;)

As for docs, I don't know about everyone else, but the amount of docs 
sitting in various places on my HD scares me sometimes.

> My first experience with Linux a few years ago really dowsed my 
> enthusiasm. I had hoped to quickly setup a simple web server. I spent 
> many evenings trying to get the system configured. None of the books and 
> online documentation I had at my disposal was accurate. I had to piece 
> information together from all sources before I finally was able to get 
> things up and running. Only then to run into the exact same problem with 
> the SQL engine. I gave up. While if I was in a tinkering mode, I might 
> have enjoyed this, my goal was not to tinker and play with an OS. I've 
> setup similar commercial systems in a day.

My question is, what do you really gain by this day-long setup? A 
working, yet proprietary system.

When the pioneers of free software first went on the "Free Software 
diet", certainly they did not have all the functionality. They did not 
have all the resources to create it immediately. We need people to join 
up now, who will put in the extra work and time to ensure that people of 
the future can have a Free operating system.

Nobody ever said that GNU/Linux would be easier to set up and use. Or at 
least I didn't. Unfortunately, the `open-source' people have done so 
quite often, I believe. But to answer your problem, "it's not easy 
enough to use", it will be resolved in time, but not with out the users' 
help. This is why I nag my brother to send in bug reports and such.

> The same will hold true for dotGNU. If the startup costs and learning 
> curve are significantly higher than .Net don't expect Windows developers 
> to flock in droves to use this. dotGNU will be an alternative for the 
> Microsoft Haters Union, but not the main stream Windows developer. If 
> you want to be more than a fringe element you have to be attractive to 
> these types of developers. And at least from what I've seen so far, it's 
> just not there.

I suggest you have a look at the DotGNU Development Environment (DGDE, 
not an IDE) proposals in my old DotGNU tasklist 
<http://www.geocities.com/pitabasic/dotgnu/dotgnutasklist.html>.

And personally, I don't care about the `Microsoft Haters Union'. All 
companies' proprietary software activities deserve the same amount of 
derision. Criticizing an entire company is the wrong focus; specific 
actions and attitudes are more important.

> I think Microsoft realized this many years ago and why they do invest as 
> much in their dev tools as they do. They got bit early on by Borland. 
> Microsoft used to be lagging behind Borland and others. And I think they 
> realized the importance of having a large group of developers willing to 
> write software for your OS. It was a long term investment that has paid 
> off. While the cost of acquiring free software is free, development 
> using free software has a higher cost than developing with commercial 
> tools.

Again, we need developers to say "I don't care how much easier MS tools 
are to use, because they are not Free."

It is a sacrifice for the good of all. The problem is, _somebody_ has to 
make that sacrifice. I am extremely proud to say that I have, even 
though it's easier for me than some others.

Anyway, it is also a "diet". Sure, it you may feel a little queasy 
around dinnertime, but you know it's good for you.

Closing with Yet Another RMS Quote:

I think that freedom is more important than mere technical advance. I
would always choose a less advanced free program rather than a more
advanced nonfree program, because I won't give up my freedom for
something like that. My rule is, if I can't share it with you, I won't
take it.
        -- RMS

--
Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://www.dotgnu.org

My views about copyright take an hour to expound, but one general
principle applies: it cannot justify denying the public important
freedoms. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict
between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
Property rights are meant to advance human well-being, not as an
excuse to disregard it.
        -- RMS, "The GNU GPL and the American Way"