RMS Says "Software As a Service" Is Non-free 715
BillyG noted an RMS interview where he says "'Software as a service' means that you think of a particular server as doing your computing for you. If that's what the server does, you must not use it! If you do your computing on someone else's server, you hand over control of your computing to whoever controls the server. It is like running binary-only software, only worse: it's even harder for you to patch the program that's running on someone else's server than it is to patch a binary copy of a program running on your own computer. Just like non-free software, 'software as a service' is incompatible with your freedom."
Dupe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no RMS fan (GPL2 all the way) but isn't this shit obvious?
The only point in software as a service's defense, is that at least you know you don't own the software.
Congratulations to RMS... (Score:5, Insightful)
...for spotting the major con of software as a service. I'm sure companies and individuals considering the use of such services will now weigh this con against the pros and develop an informed decision about whether or not a given service is right for them.
For services where personal data is kept, I'm sure that concepts like security, trustworthiness, and portability of data are key concerns.
Ok, seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone give a shit anymore?
In any case, I use a few software as a service type websites that offer their software as a gpl download so I could install it on my server and run it myself.
In fact, I'm doing just that with dimdim (netmeeting software) for my work.
But seriously, this is getting old.
The World doesn't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, it is also important to realize that general public does not care, if its free. If you just ask them, "Do not use it." It does not help the cause. Shouldn't you instead try to educate them and warn them of the pitfalls ?
The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
No need for him to lift a finger (Score:5, Insightful)
The first hiccup in your company internet connection will have you scrambling to replace many of the services you signed up for...
Ever get the feeling that.... (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS is a bit insane?
On one hand, he's right, when someone else runs your program, they have your data. This has always been a concern with "cloud computing" and software as a service. What happens if the company holding my information goes down? What if they're attacked?
On the other hand, many businesses don't have the time, or the equipment to run this software on their own. It's great to say that they should run open source software, but that's an easy generalization. Sometimes there isn't an open source alternative (keep in mind, I am writing this on Firefox, running on Linux. I love open source as much as the next geek, I'm just realistic). Or even if there is, sometimes just renting 10% of some other server to run a service for you is cheaper than getting your own servers, and IT people to maintain it.
Overall, RMS has become the ideological leader of the free software movement. Like any good Libertarian (analogy, I'm not saying he's Libertarian. I'm not aware of his political affiliations), he doesn't allow for practicality to interfere with ideology. I mean, the idea of free software is great, just some compromises need to be made. One cannot jump straight to free software without any in-between.
Oh, and his complaints about people calling GNU/Linux just Linux are really starting to get old.
He's showing his myopia. (Score:3, Insightful)
Software-as-service is only free if you own or have consistent access to a given computer. For the millions of people throughout the world who have been given the ability to use online applications for free (at cybercafes, etc) even though they could never afford a computer, RMS' line is almost insulting.
And what does this mean for mobile computing?
C'mon . . . Just a taste? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got some really neat cloud for you. I'll set you up real cheap, free even . . .. You're gonna like this stuff. C'mon, give it a try. You won't get hooked . . ..
You can always quit later . . .
More purity trollism from RMS (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, I respect a lot of what Stallman does, but what he doesn't seem to understand is the economics of software. All that matters when it comes to productivity applications, for me and for most people, is convenience. I'm much more willing to have my work on a cloud if it's easier to access that work from anywhere and I also don't have to shell out $300 for my own copy of MS Office or waste my own computing power running a bloated copy of OO.org/AbiWord/insert your favorite open source word processor here rather than simply opening a browser and gaining access to the limited set of WP features I actually use and all of my files. The benefits of being able to access my data, very easily, anywhere and being able to spend my cycles on processes I care more about while saving money clearly outweigh the risk of having Google (a company which, wrongly or rightly, I trust more than I fear) in possession of my data. For me, at least, and I suspect also for most people. It strikes me that Stallman may just be a bit paranoid.
It also strikes me that someone who, I thought, believes information should be free should be so guarded about private - proprietary - information. Does he mean free for everyone or free for everyone but businesses?
Re:Umm. Yeah. We know this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sigh. Every time I see Stallman quoted..... (Score:2, Insightful)
the more I see him as an extremist.
If the world does not conform to his ideals, then the world itself must be in error.
And he's still using the incorrect name "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux". It must really gnaw at him that Hurd has never progressed past the stage of vaporware. Yes, there's a LOT of extremely useful software in FSF and yes the GNU compilers, tools, etc are absolutely wonderful.
Re:Ever get the feeling that.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. I don't dry clean my own clothes. Theoretically, I could. The methods and chemicals aren't a secret. Instead I turn over control of my cleaning to a third party. Precisely how they do things I do not know... and if they use too much starch I have no way to debug the process.
But guess what, it's a lot better than wasting my time and money learning the process, buying the equipment and filling my basement with vats of noxious chemicals.
Re:The World doesn't care (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. RMS's advice seems to be to run your own server, but how many people can or will do that? If he presented a viable alternative for the masses I'd be more sympathetic.
Isn't Savannah SaaS? (Score:4, Insightful)
The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
Even RMS's organization offers software as a service: Savannah [nongnu.org], a hosted free software development tool suite based on a fork of SourceForge.net's software.
Re:Ok, seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, I use public transport as well. And pay for the service. And no, I cannot repair their buses either if there are problems with them (don't have or want to learn mechanics).
Do much online banking (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey RMS, ever do any online banking? How about use an ATM?
Guess what? they aren't going to give you the source!
So go get your beard deloused and chill.
A benefit of SaaS is that you aren't the one who needs to patch it. If it needs patching, and they won't do it; ditch them. And if you fail to negotiate that into your contract, that's your mistake.
Re:Dupe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congratulations to RMS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really a con?
I always thought the whole idea of SAS was simply shifting and consolodating the effort of creating and servicing software to (hopefully) lower costs. Not eliminate them. Kinda like call centers for help desk support (they usually manage multiple companies' help desks at one center), only it's serving your software. Honestly, who said paying someone else to serve software for you to use would be free? There's a contradiction in that statement if they did.
I'm surprised anybody needed to point this out. It blows my mind. And calling it a con? I'll bet they never thought anybody would be dumb enough to think it's free! Even at the most basic level.
Wow.
Re:Dupe? (Score:4, Insightful)
A short history of RMS (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS: Hey! I've got this great idea
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Wow, that's really good. Let's do that!
RMS: Great, if you think that one was good, how about this one
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Hmmm, that one wasn't quite a good
RMS: Oh, well how about this one
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Erm... that's even worse than the last one
RMS: OK, hang on, what about this
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Yeah, you know what? You only had one good idea
RMS: That's not true! Listen to this
RMS: [Proceeds to describe idea]
World: Riiight... We've gotta go, could you switch off the light on your way out?
Re:He's showing his myopia. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think he was insinuating that no one should use any computer they don't personally own. You could make the argument that software isn't free at all since you need a computer which can never fail or become obsolete. You're always going to be dependent on *some* type of infrastructure, including electricity (which would mean that software that runs on a computer which doesn't have its own generator/crankshaft attached to it isn't free either).
He's pointing out (something that is somewhat obvious, IMO), that it's even easier for the software provider to disconnect you from functionality whenever he or she chooses, if this software isn't on your machine.
It may be a bit "well duh", but it's not wrong.
Re:Ok, seriously (Score:2, Insightful)
"Does anyone give a shit anymore?"
Yes and i suspect many more will in a few years time once burned by SAAS and all of its implications. Other than software freedom there are countless liability and accountability issues thats totally unresolved right now.
As for software freedom RMS has done more for most of us than we see before we really think about it. Even if you dont run for example Linux its effect on Microsofts and their pricing, quality and security has been more than visible.
Sure he has an on the edge view of things but not at all any different or worse than on the other side where people are viewed upon as wallets to lure their savings from.
I dont have the same views as Richard Stallman but i strongly respect his views and the reasoning behind them is sometimes pretty solid. Its just that the world right now is ran by a bunch of greedy bastards that has nothing but themselves in view.
Re:Not to mention (Score:2, Insightful)
No, control of softare isn't only useful for programmers. All that means is that if gmail changes something, and you don't like it anymore, you're stuck. The control part comes in that if you like Outlook 2003, but hate the new UI for 2007, you aren't forced to upgrade to 2007.
Re:Just because something is not free does not mea (Score:3, Insightful)
One key underpinning of his arguments is that digital "property" is a much different animal the physical property.
An obsessive take on "freedom" (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's exactly news that RMS has an extreme view of what "freedom" means in the context of software. If at any moment you don't control exactly what every computer does on your behalf, your freedom has been taken away? Well, ok, let's put this in perspective.
What's more important -- freedom in computing, or freedom in what you eat? What would it take to have RMS-style "freedom" with respect to your food? Do you know that when you buy agriculture-as-a-service, you don't control the growing practices, the chemicals used along the way (sure, they may label it as pesticide-free, but how do you know?), the method of harvesting, shipping, the treatment of the workers, the sanitation of the food along the way, etc. ad nausium?
You could go self-sufficient, if you have the skills and the up-front money to make that happen. Thoreau would advocate that. But the thing is, that's not the life most people would choose (and isn't that what freedom is about -- choice?). And interestingly enough, if everyone today decided to live that way, the population would be unsustainable.
So, yes, you're handing some control over to someone else. Yes, it's something you have to weigh as you exercise your freedom to choose when and how to use these services. And yes, that issue has been enough to keep me from using some services. But there's a world of difference between knowing that a service isn't the same product as traditional software, and saying that you "must never use" the former.
The problem with RMS is, he divides the world into products that give you complete freedom, and products that have zero value.
Re:No need for him to lift a finger (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we shouldn't rely on phone service or power service either then. Last time I checked phones were more critical to most companies than being able to access the internet.
You simply need to recognize the risk if you internet goes down and have back up plans to work around it.
Re:Not only is it not free, it's not safe! (Score:2, Insightful)
And not only are you trusting your business data to a third party, I see numerous companies trusting their entire web presence based on some flaky business models of third parties.
Perhaps Gmail won't vanish in the next month, but do you really want to trust some brand X hosting site that says they can make enough money to maintain and run your website based on a couple google ads running on your site? How long before they ad more and more ads... how long before they just give up can close their doors with no notice.
Not only are you opening yourself up to the cost of making changes to your site ("oh, sure we can rescale images on upload, but that will cost an extra $2000 to write the handful of lines of code to invoke ImageMagick, and we'll have to bill you more each month to handle the immense CPU overhead! That will of course mean some CSS changes to move stuff around on the page to fit the smaller images, so that will be another $2000..."
Outsourcing some "services" may be fine: companies trust ADP with their payroll... but they are also aware of the risks. "Do we want to give ADP our payroll? What happens if they go out of business? (again, not likely with ADP, but with a smaller payroll company? It could be a real risk.)
This is all very obvious, though, and RMS is spot on. In cases where you have an alternative: Do It Yourself or hire someone local to provide as much as possible and insist on Open Source and ownership of data so if he sucks he can be replaced with someone else that knows the platform. In cases like Payroll, bite the bullet, grumble a lot, and hope that some day you won't be trapped into a contract because "well, we have no choice... if they raise their rates 20%, well, we will just have to eat that loss."
I once saw a website that was not only stupidly expensive for what it did, the code was encrypted, the data formats undocumented, and even better: the contract allowed the software company sole authority to place ads in the web page and collect all the revenue.
They went under a year later, leaving the site owner with... nothing.
This goes for other services too (Score:3, Insightful)
Telephony as a service is not free. If you use a telephone carrier which manages your advance custom calling features like voicemail or call waiting you are at their mercy if they change software.
To be truly free you must manage your own PBX and voicemail system and it must be open source.
--
Payroll outsourcing is not free. If you use a payroll outsourcing company to manage your payroll you are not free. You must use an in-house payroll system and it must be open source.
--
Outsourcing your banking needs is not free. If you want to be free, you must own your own in-house bank and use only open-source software to manage it.
--
Outsourcing electricity is not free. If you want to be free, you need your own generators with fuel created or captured under your control. Of course, if you use computers to manage your in-house electrical grid, the software must be open source.
--
The list goes on. The point is: Duh. The whole point of contracting things out as a service is so we don't have to worry about is as much. With that comes the risk of vendor failure. Using closed-source software or for that matter open-source software that you yourself don't maintain is somewhere between the extremes of "doing everything in house, under our control" and "complete outsourcing, where we have no worries other than 'it better just work.'"
I bet most die-hard open-source advocates outsource their power and banking and most outsource at least some of their non-plain-old-telephone-service telephony needs. Even an open-source PBX or cell phone isn't truly open if it depends on a carrier whose failure would deny you phone service. In summary: To some extent, we are all p0wned by someone, and most of us like it that way.
95% of people don't want to make software (Score:5, Insightful)
and are not suited to doing it well.
If that sounds elitist, so be it. Reality is that people have all kinds of different skills, and a small percentage are good programmers. I can't run a marathon or play a cello, and I don't mind anyone saying so.
While I agree with RMS that software should be free, I don't believe that means that people should not simply use information services that are provided for them on managed information infrastructure.
In the 70s if you wanted information, you hired a programmer to write a program for you.
In the 80s and 90s if you wanted information, you used a program that was already written.
In this decade, if you want information, you use an service on the web.
Unless you are that most rare breed; an open source software geek, in which case you may still be in the business of gluing together or even modifying programs and web services.
I would believe more that free software was intended for the masses if it had in general any kind of document quality or code simplicity. But expecting Joe Six-pack to deal with maven builds, hierarchical make files, and package dependency graphs. Hah!
Re:Congratulations to RMS... (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be under the pros category.
There are a lot of advantages to having someone else host your data. But there are also risks. Which RMS did put his finger on, but he's far from the first to do so. If anything, he's blowing the whole thing WAY out of proportion. (Thus the mildly sarcastic tone of my post.)
My basic issue with RMS's logic is that he doesn't want to trust anyone. Because if you don't trust anyone, you can't be double-crossed. Right?
The only problem is, society cannot operate without trust. At some point I have to trust someone else to handle a repetitive task, least I needlessly waste my time. Not to mention the myriad of skills I'd need for basic survival!
Think of it this way: Without trust, we would all be too busy farming, hunting, building our own homes, fabbing our own materials, and providing our own healthcare. Technology would go absolutely nowhere, because just one of those items is a full time job. Anyone not skilled enough in any of those trades would probably suffer a horrible death from starvation, disease, exposure, or predators. Even if people share discoveries ala the GPL, who would have time to examine and build upon the discoveries?
Thankfully, we trust each other. At least enough to where I let someone else farm the food, someone else build my house, someone else provide medical attention to myself and family, etc. I pay for those services with the expectation that my food will not be poison, my house is safe to occupy, and my doctor is a skilled medical practitioner. Society has a number of checks and balances to help verify those levels of trust, and thus we arrive at "good enough".
If there's anything I've learned over the years, save for a small percentage of exceptions, "good enough" is many orders of magnitude better than "superior". :-)
Re:Umm. Yeah. We know this. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right - take all your money out of your bank account(s) right now.
Re:I must not use it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe he uses the word "must" as in "you must not try to check if your gas tank with a lighter [darwinawards.com]". You are free to do so, but he wants to tell you that it is a bad idea. And in his opinion, it is a ridiculously bad idea. It is certainly worse than proprietary software, and we all know what he thinks of that.
I would have to agree with him. Preferring software as a service vs. software running on your machine is a bad idea. It might be convinient in many cases, but you shouldn't trust a third party with your data and your work, especially when you can avoid it. It might not look that bad, but as you already have the tools on your computer, it's not worth it even if the issues don't look like a big deal to you.
This does not apply in each case you use 'software as a service'. Examples of acceptable use of software running on someone else's server would include using Slashdot for news discussion, using web hosting services and using GNU Savannah for your software project. His point is not to use Google Docs to edit your private documents, and not to use Gmail to send your private mails, or to be more specific - not to let them become a replacement for your office suite and mail client/server.
Of course, avoiding any software services is nuts, it is not needed, and it is not even possible. And running a program on your friend's server doesn't hurt, either. You should, however, be well aware of the risks. Unfortunately, in many cases you have to trust your data to a third party. Read stories about leaked private information here lately? Then I say you shouldn't let your word processing and spreadsheet needs become a part of those cases. Simply don't do it.
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well it is a bit unprofessional. As a backup company they should keep the backup on hand for a period of time (probably 6 months) before deleting it. I mean at least then you can charge for several months of service at once and possibly a graveyard fee, that is dusting off the backups of your backups to get the data accessible. You might come off as a bit of an asshole but at least you'll have saved the day.
Re:No need for him to lift a finger (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, even if you can perform your work, not being able to communicate with anyone may render it useless in many cases as well.
Re:Dupe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps he could just run GNU/Linux [gnu.org] on, say, an OpenSPARC [opensparc.net] based system.
It's not like nobody has ever thought of this before.
Re:Isn't Savannah SaaS? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can export your data from the Savannah service, download the Savannah source, and run it yourself, then I think that's good enough for RMS. The software is free (as in freedom), and you can free yourself, that's the important thing.
hand over control of your computing (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get the service you want, this is bad why?
As long as you get the choice of discontinuing service and move to another provider at will, who really cares? Until you are *forced* to use provider A, there really isn't an issue that they 'control your computing'. ( they really don't )
Re:Most people do not value freedom as highly as R (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people have a much broader view of "freedom" than RMS does. That doesn't mean that they value it any less than he does.
Re:Dupe? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ok, seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's funny that, for all his talk about freedom, if you listen to what he says he doesn't just try to open your mind to what's out there. No, he tries to tell you what you should do! Freedom is doing exactly what I say? An odd way of expressing freedom, in my opinion.
I know he has been influential in pushing FOSS, and getting it where it is today. That's great, don't stop! But FOSS is just another option that may or may not fit the situation. It cannot meet every need, because there are different criteria for what is important, and honestly "free" doesn't offset the costs of using some FOSS tools, whereas a multi-thousand dollar price tag may be offset by another piece of software's toolset.
Same with SAAS, there are situations that make SAAS a better solution than purchasing and then supporting commercial software, or developing the software in-house, or hiring people who can support a FOSS solution. There are a lot more factors to consider than simply the upfront cost. That you are handing over control of your data to someone else. But that may not be a big deal, the important factor may be low support costs and the software service itself. Whether or not it gets over-used because it's the "hot new thing", well, that happens in all aspects of life and people who live that way tend to be fools anyway. Live and learn. Some people can't think through things, they have to screw them up first before it's clear that they probably didn't want to go that direction in the first place.
The true freedom is that we have options. RMS wants everybody to live by his definition of "freedom", but his is pretty narrow and restrictive, which kinda defeats the purpose of the concept of freedom.
Neither is 'Dinner As A Service' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dupe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Easy, release the code that powers your SAAS. In most cases, the appeal of SAAS isn't the fact I can't run the same code myself, it's the fact I can pay you to do it for me and when it breaks, it's not my problem, it's yours.
Re:Obviously! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it is a bit unprofessional. As a backup company they should keep the backup on hand for a period of time (probably 6 months) before deleting it. I mean at least then you can charge for several months of service at once and possibly a graveyard fee, that is dusting off the backups of your backups to get the data accessible. You might come off as a bit of an asshole but at least you'll have saved the day.
While that may be a good idea in general it can also cause problems as well; unless what they do is specifically called out in the contract.
For example:
If the owner assumed the information was deleted when the account was canceled; if they discover you kept the data they may get upset and decide to sue.
If they cancel and you still have the data and they get involved in litigation you may then get dragged in and have to provide the data. Who pays for the recovery? Or, if you delete at some later date you might be in trouble for "obstructing Justice" if criminal acts are involved.
You don't delete it for some period of time after the contract expires; but for some reason you lose the data. Who's responsible for recovering it?
Far fetched? Maybe. But why risk it. Delete it when the contract expires and move on. Why take the risk?
In the name of freedom... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I must not use it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I was in disagree-with-RMS mode right up until I read your comment.
What motive? Money. They've shut services down before for exactly that reason. If a software service isn't profitable to its operator, it could go away. Or, the service's provider might decide it would be more profitable to change the subscription terms.
With SaaS, what you are getting is bounded by contract, ToS, and not much else. If you assume it's like a program on your computer, and don't understand the limitations -- if you say "what reason would they have to take away what they're giving me right now" -- then you are an audience that creates a need for a warning like RMS's.
(However, I still think his argument is driven too much by one-sided idealism and too little by pragmatism; and that the assertion toward never using a non-free service only hurts his credibility.)
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no RMS fan (GPL2 all the way)
Huh? Who else gets credit for GPLv2?
Re:The World doesn't care (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is right of course. Software as a service is not free and one should always be at guard while using them. Having said that, it is also important to realize that general public does not care, if its free. If you just ask them, "Do not use it." It does not help the cause. Shouldn't you instead try to educate them and warn them of the pitfalls ? The world is not black and white. And software as a service is here to stay. When would RMS realize that ?
The problem is that RMS is a zealot on a mission; and zealots never let things like reality intrude on that. While they can accomplish many things; they often begin to harm the very things they worked hard to bring about. To them, compromise is simply not an option; and will rail against those who do. Meanwhile, people who actually want to do things and understand that building lasting things requires compromise and viewing the current situation as it is, not as they want it to be as an important part of reaching their longer term goals. In addition, many supporters of a movement don't always have the same end point in mind; even if they agree with many of the concepts. That of course, is anathema to the zealots who insist their is only "One True Way."
In the end, the zealots are forgotten and the world and their cause moves ahead without them.
Re:Congratulations to RMS... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dude, compared to your idealistic hippie post (not that it's bad in itself), RMS sounds like the oracle of common sense.
The only problem is, society cannot operate without trust.
Certain aspects of it do operate without trust. Any time you see 1000000.00 written on a check, you can (and should) forget about trusting anyone.
Think of it this way: Without trust, we would all be too busy farming, hunting, building our own homes, fabbing our own materials, and providing our own healthcare.[sic]
You are thinking of what we would do if we did not have a money-based economy. This has nothing to do with trust.
RMS is correct in distrusting commercial software manufacturers and providers. Time and time again these people (with MS and Apple in the lead) have tried to fuck us over by supplying us with software that is bloated, insecure by design, intentionally buggy (DRM), cannot be configured, spies on us, comes with file format lock, etc., etc. A few exceptions aside, none of their code ever gets open, not even the oldest stuff. In order to get a functional product, the community has to rewrite everything from scratch, and they won't even open their code after we have a superior FLOSS product. Why??? Because commercial software manufacturers hate us and distrust us. They want us to bend over, take it from behind and scream like we are enjoying it while writing them a large non-refundable check.
Fuck that. RMS may be nuts, but he is looking after your interest, unlike MS, Apple, Google.
P.S. I really don't mean to sound dickish, I am just sick tired of stupid commercial commodity software. It's hurting pretty much everyone, and it's awful.
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes I just want to browse a damn photo gallery or write an online document.
You can't! It's wrong! Stop now, before it's too late!
Yeah, I'm being sarcastic. I've always thought that RMS's notion of "free software" was totally out of touch with practical realities. But this latest proclamation makes me realize that he subscribes to the Everybody's Like Me fallacy. That is, he believes every computer user is enough of a hacker to compile and run all the software they will ever need. For some of us, that's simply too much trouble just to make a silly ideological point based on bad economics. But for most people, it's simply not possible. About 90% of humanity is not a hacker and never will be. Either they lack the intellectual fundamentals or (more commonly) simply have too much of a life that has nothing to do with computers.
Another thing: if RMS thinks that using an application that somebody else hosts is Evil, why does he stop at Software as a Service? When you surf the web, you're relying on HTTP servers you don't control. When you send email, you rely on SMTP servers you don't control. And consider that there's simply no way you can make a phone call without using somebody else's software.
I give RMS credit for helping to create Open Source. (Credit he won't take, since he thinks the concept is as evil as any other "non-free" software.) But when it comes to almost anything else he's done, including most of the software he's written (baroque bloatware most of it), he's a mediocrity at best.
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
Ubuntu Server is going this way but is not there yet completely.
you are right, sometimes I just want my friends to be able browse the 200+ pictures of the party we had last weekend without sending 400 MB by email. Well, when I need that I put it on my webserver. But when my mom wants to do that, well, she uses a photo gallery of some random Mountainview company...
this guy has issues (Score:1, Insightful)
definitely. been following his rants and moaning for 15-20 years now and heÂs been at it all along. IÂm not saying heÂs a commie, I have nothing against commies, IÂm saying heÂs sick, definitely, certifiably sick.
please stop posting stories about RMS. there are whole hospital wards designed to care for people like that.
Re:I must not use it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe he uses the word "must" as in "you must not try to check if your gas tank with a lighter [darwinawards.com]". You are free to do so, but he wants to tell you that it is a bad idea. And in his opinion, it is a ridiculously bad idea. It is certainly worse than proprietary software, and we all know what he thinks of that.
I would have to agree with him. Preferring software as a service vs. software running on your machine is a bad idea. It might be convinient in many cases, but you shouldn't trust a third party with your data and your work, especially when you can avoid it. It might not look that bad, but as you already have the tools on your computer, it's not worth it even if the issues don't look like a big deal to you.
This does not apply in each case you use 'software as a service'. Examples of acceptable use of software running on someone else's server would include using Slashdot for news discussion, using web hosting services and using GNU Savannah for your software project. His point is not to use Google Docs to edit your private documents, and not to use Gmail to send your private mails, or to be more specific - not to let them become a replacement for your office suite and mail client/server.
Of course, avoiding any software services is nuts, it is not needed, and it is not even possible. And running a program on your friend's server doesn't hurt, either. You should, however, be well aware of the risks. Unfortunately, in many cases you have to trust your data to a third party. Read stories about leaked private information here lately? Then I say you shouldn't let your word processing and spreadsheet needs become a part of those cases. Simply don't do it.
I totally disagree. I realize there may be some inconveniences with using online services sometimes, but we should try and face the challenges to solve those issues, instead of simply tagging them as evil.
If there are privacy issues, we should look for ways to avoid them, by using cryptography or legistlation where necessary.
It's all about progress. We wouldn't be doing ourselves a favor by just rejecting it. We should embrace it and fix whatever issues show up in the way.
Re:I must not use it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The World doesn't care (Score:3, Insightful)
Well obviously the viable alternative is to run software and services that he's approved.
That's the problem I've always had with him, that it's "my way or the highway."
Re:A short history of RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
World: Yeah, you know what? You only had one good idea
It's true. RMS has only had one good idea. That the end user should have the freedom to completely control their computing experience.
That's it.
Everytime someone like you gets all pissy about RMS's "latest idea" it just means you failed to understand the full ramifications of his one and only idea the first time around.
Re:Dupe? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would argue that simply releasing the source code is insufficient.
Many companies who use SaaS webapps and such simply don't have the expertise among their own employees to run the source code themselves if the provider were to disappear overnight. It's somewhat ridiculous to expect every small business owner to hire someone to set it up for them, and even if they did, they wouldn't gain anything - they would still lack understanding of how things work, and if it breaks (or if someone breaks it) they're still up a creek without a paddle.
Owning the machine running the open source code, and even having the machine onsite, does not mean it's any more "free" than the original SaaS if you lack the expertise to fix things when they break. Does RMS really think everyone currently using SaaS should develop that expertise?
Re:I must not use it? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a small example: just recently I had Yahoo! inform me that their "briefcase" service was going away, and that I should download my stuff before it gets deleted. It was nice of them to inform me, at least. It was handier than (ab)using gmail to store stuff, though. I used to use Yahoo! notes, too -- and again, gmail just isn't quite right for that, nor are (that I can see) any of Google's other services. So it's sad, but I'll live. I don't have a good competitor to run to, but it's not the end of the world.
More so than just your processing living on someone else's servers, though, you should be worried about your data living there. How many of the services you give data to will let you re-export all of it? Can you easily take all that wisdom you posted to that forum site and save it offline, in case the forum goes belly-up from one day to the next? That was an issue when BrickShelf was teetering on the edge of disappearing -- did we have a good way to get all our stuff back out? What about all those product ratings you posted online? Sure, you were part of the mob, and the value comes from the mob -- but those were your product ratings. Did you keep a copy for your records? If Amazon goes away, do you have a backup of your "likes" and "dislikes" so you can easily shop elsewhere? All that time you spent updating that Wikipedia article -- did you keep a copy of your work in case some court decides you can no longer access the site in your country?
We don't, but we ought to, demand that services we use and trust also give us a way to leave -- or at least to keep a backup of our data. Wasn't it ma.gnolia.com, recently, that went down and didn't have a useful backup? Do you demand to know what the backup policies are from each service you use? Do you have a way of verifying this? Do you ask about security? Is their server in a rack, protected by a crack team of techies, biometric locks, with security cameras -- or is it sitting under a dingy old couch?
You're putting value into these social sites -- are you being treated as a value producer?
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
Running the code yourself doesn't prevent that, you know, even if you have access to the source code.
Furthermore, the risk of server-side bugs is often offset by removing the need to pay for servers, data storage, software development, and other stuff (as your parent post mentions). Sometimes it's better to trust other people.
Would RMS argue that it's stupid to drink milk produced by someone other than your own cow in the backyard? At some point we have to trust the product of someone else's work, and (IMNSHO) it's ridiculous to be as pure about it as RMS seems to be.
This Just In (Score:4, Insightful)
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Mr. Stallman, and the ever shrinking group of people who care what he thinks, need to grow up. Nothing is free. Absolutely nothing. Everything has a cost. And everybody is subject to constraints on their knowledge, wisdom, and actions.
If we are lucky, the costs are well within our ability to pay, and the constraints are not heavier than those that rational civilized men place on themselves for the sake of good order and pleasant society.
Re:Congratulations to RMS... (Score:2, Insightful)
"This smells like those 15 year old girls" probably isn't among the better idioms to go around using.
Oh no, not again... (Score:3, Insightful)
The last time he made this sort of noise, we ended up with GPLv3, and look how well *that* has turned out.
Re:RMS is 100% correct (Score:3, Insightful)
Your example fails because "software as a service" is geared towards solving problems that can be solved with "off the shelf" software. The fact that there was no "off the shelf" solution to your problem does not invalidate the usefulness of "software as a service. It certainly doesn't support RMS's statement that one should not use software as a service, at all, ever.
Your anecdote says "These tools didn't work for us, so we got a different tool." That does not mean that the tools you rejected are not suitable for many/most other people.
In fact, your post really sounds childishly self-centered, assuming that because it didn't do exactly what you wanted, it should not be used by anyone, ever.
Re:No need for him to lift a finger (Score:5, Insightful)
I supported an SAAS app which did point of sale/accounting. Trust me - 30 minutes without internet makes people freak - especially when they can't sell anything.
It came to the point where most of our customers had modems they could use as backups if their net connection went offline and our bigger customers had frame relay connections directly to our customer network.
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the reason a lot of people go with SaaS, Because they don't own the software, and the responsibility to maintain it.
I am sure some SaaS companies will be willing to Sell you the Software and some would even give it to you Open Source, where you can modify it to your whim. But the value of SaaS is the fact that you don't need to keep the code up to date or all the maintenance and backups.
SaaS is like taking the Bus,Cab, Limo vs. driving yourself. Are you giving up your freedom if you let someone else drive for you, and what is stopping you from making your own SaaS anyways, or doing all the work in house.
RMS is just trying to make himself seem relevant finding a new cause to talk about, as his old cause is getting boring to listen to.
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
...he subscribes to the Everybody's Like Me fallacy. That is, he believes every computer user is enough of a hacker to compile and run all the software they will ever need.
My dog lacks the skills to survive in the wild, and so she happily submits to all of the restrictions that I impose on her life. She can't even pee unless I'm willing to get off my ass and take her outside. The tyrrany is about as absolute as tyrrany gets. If she could talk to you, though, she would probably say that this is just fine, and there's no need to change things.
Sometimes the hardest part about freeing the oppressed is convincing them that they are indeed oppressed. If all they know is life as it is and always has been, they'd rather just live that life -- where things are predictable and their habits get them by -- than to face the shock of having to reinvent themselves.
What RMS is saying is this: You don't have to put up with this crap. There are alternatives. But he shouldn't stop saying it just because only a small percentage of people are willing to wander beyond the fences at any given time. It's still important for the others to know the option is always there.
Re:Obviously! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I understand RMS's position - I just think it's fundamentally flawed in certain respects.
Besides, having the source code doesn't mean you can do something about it - you have to find someone with the skills necessary to understand the source code and make the appropriate modifications without breaking anything else, and you have to be able to afford to hire that person.
This is much easier said than done, of course; how is your average small business owner supposed to be able to determine whether programmer X is better than programmer Y, or even whether either programmer actually has the skills necessary?
Most of my disagreement with RMS's position comes from the actual logistics of what he wants people to do - he ignores the real-world with his fanatic purism, and IMHO the entire open source community is suffering because of it.
Vocal OSS purists like RMS are, IMHO, driving the average person away from open source software. A good many people shy away from zealots and their goods.
Stallman's worried about the wrong aspect.... (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree in principle with Stallman's concerns, there is in my mind a bigger economic concern that doesn't seem to bother him:
When that happens, we will have lost even the anemic facade of "ownership" of the software we use. Big Software salivates over the arrival of that day.
The further economic abuses and concentration of wealth that software-as-a-service will bring is, to me, a far bigger loss of freedom than what worries Stallman.
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood why that raises so much ire.
Well, of course it raises ire because it goes against the collective wisdom that billions of marketing dollars are trying to convey to us: That cost equals quality, you get what you pay for, and responsible corporate citizens will treat you in a fair and ethical manner. Not everyone realizes that this is all a load of crap.
There's a good deal of classical cognitive dissonance going on, too. Nobody wants to hear that the fancy $4 bottle of water they're drinking is just somebody else's tap water. They paid four bucks for it, so you'd better believe it's going to be good!
You make a point, but not the one you think (Score:3, Insightful)
The real point I'd say you are making is that freedom for its own sake is stupid.
Let's return to your dog for a moment. You are correct, house hold pets are very oppressed, in that they are subject to the rules of their owners. However in trade for that there are some major benefits:
1) A safe, reliable food source. One major problem for wild animals is obtaining food. Starvation is not an uncommon way to go. Not a problem for a house pet. You ensure that they have a steady supply of food. Not only that, the food is provided with no risk. They don't have to kill it (and risk it fighting back), it is there for the taking.
2) Shelter. Again a big problem for wild animals is protection from the elements. Your dog has a house that is superior to any natural shelter it could find, and that house is kept up for it.
3) Protection from predators. Nothing dies of old age in the wild. If you don't starve, well then you get older and slower until something is now fast and strong enough to eat you. Your dog needn't worry about that, your house is free from any predators that might want to eat it.
4) Love and comfort. Dogs are social creatures that like to feel loved, and you do that for it.
Basically, a house pet has no care in the world other than when its owner will next be around to shower with attention. It is an extremely good life. I imagine if a pet were capable of understanding the choice between being a house pet and a wild animal that they would gladly chose the house pet option. Yes they are giving up freedom, but what good is freedom just for its own sake?
In fact, those of us that choose to live in a stable Republic like the US make the same choice. By necessity, you give up some freedom in a society. People have to get along with one another thus your freedoms must be limited such that you don't infringe on their freedoms. Also, government being what it is, the limits will expand beyond that to some extent.
Well, you don't HAVE to put up with that. You can pack your shit up and move to Somalia, or the Congo, or the like. You can go to a country that doesn't have a functional government, a real anarchy. There you are free to do whatever you can get away with. Whatever you have the power or skill or cunning to do, you can do. Grab a gun and go act as you please..... However the same is true for everyone else there, so don't be surprised if your life is rather short, or if someone who is more powerful than you imposes their will on you.
If that doesn't sound like fun, well I don't blame you. However don't fool yourself in to thinking that you aren't choosing to give up some freedom. What you probably realize is that it is freedom not worth having. The freedom to rape and murder isn't worth the fact that someone could rape and murder you. While you might technically be "more free" it isn't a freedom worth having.
Re:Yeah Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever been unable to connect to Google? Did you stop using google?
No, I use them to host my email and the few times the mail server has been down have not been critical (at least for the time they were down for)
Ever noticed that Amazon suddenly messed up (e.g. thousands of items no longer catalogued)? Did you stop using Amazon?
Actually yes, EC3 outages scared me off hosting on that service.
Ever had a black-out? Did you stop using electricity?
Yes, kind of - bought a backup generator long ago exactly because of unreliability where I was.
Bet you didn't.
Pay up smartass.
Re:No need for him to lift a finger (Score:1, Insightful)
Ah, but you can run dial-up or ADSL over a phone line - so by your argument, the phone system is a superset of the internet!
Re:Obviously! (Score:3, Insightful)
...he subscribes to the Everybody's Like Me fallacy. That is, he believes every computer user is enough of a hacker to compile and run all the software they will ever need.
Why did you quote this, and then not say anything that in any way rebuts or challenges his point?
My dog lacks the skills to survive in the wild, and so she happily submits to all of the restrictions that I impose on her life.
Sometimes the hardest part about freeing the oppressed is convincing them that they are indeed oppressed.
Dogs care about eating and peeing. They don't care that they have to be licensed, or that they can only be treated by licensed veterinarians. They don't care that, if their dog house breaks, the parts have to be shipped from one company in Korea, because they own a world-wide patent. Actually, you know that's a pretty good analogy, because most people don't care either. You can't be oppressed if you don't give a damn.
If all they know is life as it is and always has been, they'd rather just live that life -- where things are predictable and their habits get them by -- than to face the shock of having to reinvent themselves.
That's offensive. They could be reinventing themselves and challenging dogma every day for all you know. Just because these people have priorities in their lives other than Free Software does not automatically make them sheep.
What RMS is saying is this: You don't have to put up with this crap. There are alternatives. But he shouldn't stop saying it just because only a small percentage of people find it at all relevant to their day-to-day existence.
There, fixed that for you.
Re:He must, must he? (Score:3, Insightful)
If RMS is not authoritative on this subject, I truly cannot imagine what a person could possibly do to achieve that status.
On the subject of "What he defines as freedom?" Absolutely, he's an authority, and even has his own cult of...uhh... zealotry[0]. But outside of said group, I can't imagine anyone taking him seriously.
[0]The term "Cult of Personality" just seems so misapplied when RMS is involved.