Hi Bernhard,
I decided to join the list, to bother you a bit with my comments ;-)
I read the posting in the archive, therefor I copied it into the mail.
--------------- Bernhard wrote:
Saw a nive RMS interview, clarifying a lot of the FSF's positions:
http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=3DNews&file=3Darticle&sid=3D125
And a journalist finally asks good questions:
OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.
[...]
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
If I tell many of the ordinary users about this they are most likely rolling their eyes or burst into laughter. It is a very programmercentric view with an elitest touch. I know this is not the intention, but it is easiely misunterstood. I'm picking on that, because we are talking about a greater idea and such an argument isn't really approachable for the majority of users.
Another point is the separation from some of the less free licenses. Even the beloved yast licence gives you the complete control. The problem is the distribution issue.
Cheers
Rainer
* Rainer Trusch writes:
OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.
[...]
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
The vast majority of users can learn to program, it is just like learning a new language. If the program is proprietary, then the user will never get the chance to ever see (so that s/he can learn) or modify (also to learn) the source code, which are two of the four freedoms. If I can't read or write in a particular language, then I can ask a friend (or a company) to do it, if I can read/write, then I can do it my self.
Cheers,
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
- Rainer Trusch writes:
OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.
[...]
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
The vast majority of users can learn to program, it is just like learning a new language. If the program is proprietary, then the user will never get the chance to ever see (so that s/he can learn) or modify (also to learn) the source code, which are two of the four freedoms. If I can't read or write in a particular language, then I can ask a friend (or a company) to do it, if I can read/write, then I can do it my self.
I also think that the difficulty of basic (not BASIC ;-) programming is geneally overestimated. Some might remember the times when Dos (without Windows) was popular. Most people had a few self-written batch files on their disks. Of course, the batch language was terribly limited, but they could have done the same things in bash (without needing the more complicated bash features, though some might have progressed to them, just like some invented quite involved tricks with batch files, most of which would have been much easier to do with all the useful tools of the GNU system).
Now I'm wondering whether it's part of the propaganda of non-free software companies to make programming appear very difficult and only for the "elite". I don't know if it's intentional, but the effect seems to be so. It's kind of as if car makers would claim that riding bicycles is a professional sport and therefore everyone who's not an athlete should not try it and always drive a car instead. Telling people that that's not so is already a step to give some amount of control/choice back to them.
Another point is about choice. How many users of a non-free OS do actually still know that there is more than one word processor, web browser, or whatever (leave alone, operating system)? The use of open standards and interoperability (which is possible with non-free software, too, but is implicit with free software since every interface in it is automatically open) generally fosters the development of alternative programs, so every user, whether or not they can or want to program, can choose the one they prefer.
More importantly, they really own their data (see http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200104/200104.htm), and are not at the mercy of a company to let them access their own data in a few years. That's certainly an important form of power for anyone who uses their computer for more than writing greeting cards and other very short-lived kinds of data.
Frank
* Frank Heckenbach writes:
Now I'm wondering whether it's part of the propaganda of non-free software companies to make programming appear very difficult and only for the "elite". I don't know if it's intentional, but the effect seems to be so. It's kind of as if car makers would claim that riding bicycles is a professional sport and therefore everyone who's not an athlete should not try it and always drive a car instead. Telling people that that's not so is already a step to give some amount of control/choice back to them.
I think that companies make programming appear "very difficult" with the prices on their software, prices ranging from $1000 to $2000, or more. I doubt that any "user" would want to waste that kind of money on something that they will use occasionally, or less.
But hey, thats what I think. :)
Cheers,
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
I decided to join the list, to bother you a bit with my comments ;-)
Welcome Rainer! :)
OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
You recognised the argument for business settings which it aimed at. Even for private users that cannot programm Free Software raises the chances to have more control significantly.
I'm picking on that, because we are talking about a greater idea and such an argument isn't really approachable for the majority of users.
Sometimes I compare this to the rights you have as a citizen of a democratic country. Usually you do not take these right to the limits but having them keeps everybody and especially the government more honest. Without everybody executing these rights they still are an important foundation of our society.
Another point is the separation from some of the less free licenses. Even the beloved yast licence gives you the complete control. The problem is the distribution issue.
The yast license renders yast to be non-free software.
The freedom to redistribute the software and use it for any purpose is crucial. Without it, peer review and further development is effectively prohibited. Every user profits from the freedom because they and other developers depend on the proprietor of the software.
Hi Bernhard,
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
I decided to join the list, to bother you a bit with my comments ;-)
Welcome Rainer! :)
OfB: What are some of the advantages of Free Software for businesses?
RMS: Free software means you control what your computer does. Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users. All these reasons apply just as well to business users as to individuals.
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
You recognised the argument for business settings which it aimed at. Even for private users that cannot programm Free Software raises the chances to have more control significantly.
I tacled this one in the other mail.
I'm picking on that, because we are talking about a greater idea and such an argument isn't really approachable for the majority of users.
Sometimes I compare this to the rights you have as a citizen of a democratic country. Usually you do not take these right to the limits but having them keeps everybody and especially the government more honest. Without everybody executing these rights they still are an important foundation of our society.
My opinion about drawing these quite abstract conclusions from the original argument is in the other mail as well.
Democracy on a legal level is just a framework that has to be filled with life. You should know well that Germanys greatest catastrophy was elected in a more or less democratic way. It wasn't the lack of having the right laws, but the lack of understanding and appriciation of democracy. I hope you get the dimension of this drastic example.
Another point is the separation from some of the less free licenses. Even the beloved yast licence gives you the complete control. The problem is the distribution issue.
The yast license renders yast to be non-free software.
Try to be a bit more serious about definitions and not just using them as they fit into the scheme. Apart from the general woolliness of the words free or freedom the yast license gives you a lot more freedom than the 'usual' proprietary licenses from Redmond&Co and it is lot nearer to a real free license than to the others ones. In this case it was even necessary to make my point clear. If you don't accept this usage, you are on the best way to create some sort off proprierary term, which is only 'allowed' to use in the sense of the FSF. Think about if this is useful.
The evaluation/estimation of such a license is a different pair of shoes.
Simplistic black&white schemes aren't helpful and I'm pretty allergic against them, espically in a time where they are even misused on a global political scale.
The freedom to redistribute the software and use it for any purpose is crucial. Without it, peer review and further development is effectively prohibited. Every user profits from the freedom because they and other developers depend on the proprietor of the software.
Oh, the well known tape is running, but at least you agreed with my main argument, because you didn't give an comment against it. To remind you, I was talking about control and not about freedom. ;-)
Sorry Bernhard about being sarcastic, but control and freedom are two different things and in some circumstances they are contrasting. Simply mixing them up or overunning the argument with a general statment, which I'm quite familiar with, isn't helpful for a discussion. More comments on that in the answer to Richards mail.
Best wishes
Rainer
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
was even necessary to make my point clear. If you don't accept this usage, you are on the best way to create some sort off proprierary term, which is only 'allowed' to use in the sense of the FSF. Think about if this is useful.
IIRC, the term "free software" was created and defined by FSF. Why do you want to change it?
Simplistic black&white schemes aren't helpful and I'm pretty allergic against them, espically in a time where they are even misused on a global political scale.
Analgously, is it necessary to grade dictators in order to say that they are dictators? If you dislike dictatorship, they will all be undesirable.
Oh, the well known tape is running, but at least you agreed with my main argument, because you didn't give an comment against it. To remind you, I was talking about control and not about freedom. ;-)
Oh, the well known sarcasm track has kicked in on this other tape.
MJR
Hi,
On Wed, 03 Jul 2002, MJ Ray wrote:
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
was even necessary to make my point clear. If you don't accept this usage, you are on the best way to create some sort off proprierary term, which is only 'allowed' to use in the sense of the FSF. Think about if this is useful.
IIRC, the term "free software" was created and defined by FSF. Why do you want to change it?
That shouldn't imply using the terms free or freedom is accepted in a sofware context only, if it matches "free software". I just used the term "less free licenses". You get easily an we-are-the-truth image, which isn't helpful to convince people.
Simplistic black&white schemes aren't helpful and I'm pretty allergic against them, espically in a time where they are even misused on a global political scale.
Analgously, is it necessary to grade dictators in order to say that they are dictators? If you dislike dictatorship, they will all be undesirable.
I'm not sure if I got your argument right, but it sounds like everyone producing software with a non-free license is the same as the Redmond company? Thats tough.
Oh, the well known tape is running, but at least you agreed with my main argument, because you didn't give an comment against it. To remind you, I was talking about control and not about freedom. ;-)
Oh, the well known sarcasm track has kicked in on this other tape.
I agree that sarcasm isn't very helpful. Sorry for that. I have my mistakes as well. I was bit overun bei these general freedom comments, which had nothing to do with my main argument, giving me the impression they arn't listening to me. Apart from me, others are quite likely not to take you for serious. It's all about communication and if we like it or not, it has to be looked for. As you noticed I'm not perfect in terms of that es well. :-)
Rainer
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
I'm not sure if I got your argument right, but it sounds like everyone producing software with a non-free license is the same as the Redmond company? Thats tough.
Not necessarily, but they are all undesirable.
[...] I was bit overun bei these general freedom comments, which had nothing to do with my main argument, giving me the impression they arn't listening to me.
Maybe you need to take a deep breath and talk slowly and clearly in words that we can all understand? Leave out all the points unrelated to your main argument for now. We can cover them later, perhaps.
I know I'm a minimalist sometimes, but part of communicating is leaving words out. People don't like reading long essays on mailing lists and will normally skim through, looking for what the real meaning is. (Often, I get that wrong too.)
MJR
Hi MJ, Date: 10 Jul 2002 02:16:57 +0200 Lines: 28 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 04 Jul 2002, MJ Ray wrote:
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
I'm not sure if I got your argument right, but it sounds like everyone producing software with a non-free license is the same as the Redmond company? Thats tough.
Not necessarily, but they are all undesirable.
[...] I was bit overun bei these general freedom comments, which had nothing to do with my main argument, giving me the impression they arn't listening to me.
Maybe you need to take a deep breath and talk slowly and clearly in words that we can all understand? Leave out all the points unrelated to your main argument for now. We can cover them later, perhaps.
I know I'm a minimalist sometimes, but part of communicating is leaving words out. People don't like reading long essays on mailing lists and will normally skim through, looking for what the real meaning is. (Often, I get that wrong too.)
I didn't mean you. Anyway, let's stop these unpleasant subjects. I promise improvement. :-)
Rainer
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
I didn't mean you. Anyway, let's stop these unpleasant subjects. I promise improvement. :-)
If you were writing a personal reply, why did you send it to a mailing list? That's very bad style.
MJR
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:03:29PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
Non-free software keeps users divided and individually helpless; free software empowers the users.
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else.
Maybe we should elaborate on the above statement which was short to make it a better argument for more individual users. What about:
Free Software gives you more choises on whom to trust or buy updates from. Some local people from your village or school have the freedom to join up and provide help for themself or you.
Another point is the separation from some of the less free licenses. Even the beloved yast licence gives you the complete control. The problem is the distribution issue.
The yast license renders yast to be non-free software.
Apart from the general woolliness of the words free or freedom the yast license gives you a lot more freedom than the 'usual' proprietary licenses from Redmond&Co and it is lot nearer to a real free license than to the others ones.
We could in theory make further differences among the proprietory licenses. I'm just convinced that the criteria we have for Free Software which are well explained by the four freedoms are a good to draw the line. The criteria have been discussed quite some time now and are consensus by a broad number of experts and organisations. There have been attempts to further explain or rephrase these criteria like the DFGL or the OSI license definitions.
Simplistic black&white schemes aren't helpful and I'm pretty allergic against them, espically in a time where they are even misused on a global political scale.
We could have an in depth talk about the difference about proprietory software like yast and photoshop. We could also have a debate about the various Free Software licenses. Most of the time this confuses people which do not know the main arguments. Giving them a way to decide between Free and proprietory first is the didactically right approach.
The freedom to redistribute the software and use it for any purpose is crucial. Without it, peer review and further development is effectively prohibited. Every user profits from the freedom because they and other developers depend on the proprietor of the software.
Oh, the well known tape is running, but at least you agreed with my main argument, because you didn't give an comment against it. To remind you, I was talking about control and not about freedom. ;-)
I did talk about control. Without the actual permission to study the inner working of things and publish the results, you cannot effectively contol it. Thus democratic control means to have the right processes in place. Like neighbours studing all new versions and the source code of software. The "four freedoms" ensure that the process can be established.
Hi Bernhard,
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:03:29PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
Another point is the separation from some of the less free licenses. Even the beloved yast licence gives you the complete control. The problem is the distribution issue.
The yast license renders yast to be non-free software.
Apart from the general woolliness of the words free or freedom the yast license gives you a lot more freedom than the 'usual' proprietary licenses from Redmond&Co and it is lot nearer to a real free license than to the others ones.
We could in theory make further differences among the proprietory licenses. I'm just convinced that the criteria we have for Free Software which are well explained by the four freedoms are a good to draw the line. The criteria have been discussed quite some time now and are consensus by a broad number of experts and organisations. There have been attempts to further explain or rephrase these criteria like the DFGL or the OSI license definitions.
I don't disagree with the four freedoms and a license like yast disqualifies a programm for me (apart from a game perhaps ;-) ). At certain discussion there should space for a bit more differentiation, which was important for my original point. There are still enough arguments for free software. Sometimes it is more convincing to discuss this way with the right selfconscious, than building a lingual defence wall around it.
The freedom to redistribute the software and use it for any purpose is crucial. Without it, peer review and further development is effectively prohibited. Every user profits from the freedom because they and other developers depend on the proprietor of the software.
Oh, the well known tape is running, but at least you agreed with my main argument, because you didn't give an comment against it. To remind you, I was talking about control and not about freedom. ;-)
I did talk about control. Without the actual permission to study the inner working of things and publish the results, you cannot effectively contol it. Thus democratic control means to have the right processes in place. Like neighbours studing all new versions and the source code of software. The "four freedoms" ensure that the process can be established.
Sorry Bernhard, I don't get the point, even trying hard. The RMS statement was basically about control over your computer and your conclusion sounds very abstract. I assume we are discussing about arguments for others and not to assure people in the list. As I stated in another mail about the other control arguments, they are good arguments for free software, but I doubt less technical persons, who aren't into the free software issue, would identify these arguments as control or would even think of them without a longer discussion like we had.
I wan't to stop the control thing, because there are other arguments as well. Nevertheless the language is quite often very abstract and intellectual and many people are likely to ask "What do you wan't to tell me?" or don't listen at all. Free software is going beyond the freak stadium and language has to to be adepted.
The new booklet of the FSF Europe is a positive example, whiches uses a clear language. You see, I'm not just complaining :-)
Cheers
Rainer
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 02:16:30AM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:03:29PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Rainer Trusch wrote:
I don't disagree with the four freedoms and a license like yast disqualifies a programm for me (apart from a game perhaps ;-) ). At certain discussion there should space for a bit more differentiation, which was important for my original point.
I agree in that differentiation is needed sometimes.
I did talk about control. Without the actual permission to study the inner working of things and publish the results, you cannot effectively contol it. Thus democratic control means to have the right processes in place. Like neighbours studing all new versions and the source code of software. The "four freedoms" ensure that the process can be established.
Sorry Bernhard, I don't get the point, even trying hard. The RMS statement was basically about control over your computer and your conclusion sounds very abstract.
Yes it is abstract, which does not make it less relevant.
I assume we are discussing about arguments for others and not to assure people in the list. As I stated in another mail about the other control arguments, they are good arguments for free software, but I doubt less technical persons, who aren't into the free software issue, would identify these arguments as control or would even think of them without a longer discussion like we had.
Feel free to come up with a line of argumentation that will be more accessible to the people you want to approach. In general I've made good experiences with giving the abstract but short reasons and then elaborating examples based on what the persons are interested in.
Free software is going beyond the freak stadium and language has to to be adepted.
We are grateful for any help to make Free Software and its values more accessable to a wider audience.
The new booklet of the FSF Europe is a positive example, whiches uses a clear language. You see, I'm not just complaining :-)
Good. :) We are trying to improve so all feedback is of course welcome.
Hi Rainer,
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 20:38, Rainer Trusch wrote:
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
I'm afraid I don't agree with you :-) Programmability is one of the most important features of any software, especially business software. What is programming? It's everything from using a macro-recorder to capture a series of operations with the mouse or keystrokes, to someone writing a application from the ground-up and beyond. Every time the user gives the computer a set of instructions to be followed at a later date, that's programming.
The level of programming ability amongst business users is actually very high. For people using software seriously - such as accountants and their spreadsheets - they setup some of the most complex procedures you can think of.
I personally don't believe in this user vs. developer distinction. All users are programmers, or have the potential to be programmers. People have different skills, and people have developed their skills to different levels, but essentially all serious users do some form of programming. And they share this programming too - I know people who regularly share spreadsheet macros with friends who work for other companies. They're dealing in Free Software, except that they are not aware of this fact, and haven't formalised it. It's utterly natural to do that, too. They do it with webpages. They share clever JavaScript. Users more advanced still write utilities with RAD tools, database systems, all sorts.
I truly believe one of the things that has made a certain popular office suite so popular has been the database component. Drawing graphical apps linked to data-aware components is an incredibly powerful technology, because it's an enabling technology. Office suites are no longer things you process documents in; they are development platforms - that, for a business, is the big sell. And Free Software has many applications which fulfil this role. Look at GnuE (http://www.gnuenterprise.org/), GUI forms and data-aware components are already in there and working. Debian volunteers have worked very hard on the packaging, and deploying a GnuE application is fairly ropey but very possible. The more flexible the platform - the more Free :) - the more it will appeal to business. Forget TCO, forget ROI, at the end of the day everything costs pretty much the same - that's competition. Free Software won't win because of cost; it will win because it's more appealing.
Cheers,
Alex.
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still
I agree with the other replies, but I'd add the following point.
Most people can't program, and they don't care about because it's not their job. Similarly, most people aren't lawyers nor doctors.
But what if lawyers and doctors would solve (or not solve, sometimes) their client's problems without telling them all the information? What if all legal decisions and laws would be held secret; what if no doctor would state what the medicines are, and all medical publications would be classified material subject to NDA and industrial secret?
I don't care if most users are not programmers. They are free to pay their programmer of choice to fix troubles.
But freedom is twofold: freedom of the user doesn't mean less freedom for the producer. Delivering Free Software to my clients, I'm free to *not* offer long-term support; I couldn't do that if I used a proprietary model. Sometimes I'm even free to *not* document my solution to problems, when it is small enough it is self-documenting.
Free Software lowers the barrier to entry, both by allowing anyone to easily get skilled, *and* by allowing SME's to offer long-term credibility to their customers.
On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone.
You can't do that with proprietary software. Or you can do that only to a limited extent, with no control of *what* extent.
On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
You can choose your lawyer and your doctor. You'll be able to choose your programmer as well, and pay her too.
If I tell many of the ordinary users about this they are most likely rolling their eyes or burst into laughter.
First you must make them see that programming is done by people (and not by companies as most of them think). Missing that, they'll laugh at you.
/alessandro
Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnu.org wrote:
Most people can't program, and they don't care about because it's not their job. Similarly, most people aren't lawyers nor doctors.
No, but I still try to know enough to keep myself alive (not as easy as you may think) and not end up in court too easily. While that doesn't invalidate your points (good email), it also reinforces some of the points of others. The thing that normally stops the ordinary man just trying as a doctor is the certifications required because of the risk to harm life. They can usually try as a lawyer on their own behalf easily, I think.
MJR
Hi,
I was afraid geting basically these answers. Here are some comments on it.
My concerns are more about the individual user, who are mentioned as well and not so much about companies. I read the argument quite often as a general user advandtage.
The argument about everybody can learn to programm ist nice in theory, but the reality is different. Writing macros or helpful scripts is a skill a lot more people can aquire, but this can be done with proprietary software as well and we are looking for arguments, why free software is better. Even aquiring this skill isn't that easy and apealing for many people. People in this list have a very deep relationship to computer technology and most likely a way of thinking that is suitable for it, which makes it a lot easier for you. Don't project this on other people.
Working the whole day in front of a computer doesn't increase the interest for many people to use their spare time aquiring programming skills. There is still a world beyond computers and free software isn't the meaning of life.
Talking about control implies to me changing the source code of a programm or fixing bugs, but this needs even greater skills. The number people with such skills will increase, but for a long time it will be a small minority.
The examples you gave aren't that good. Riding a bike for example is like using a programm. Repairing or even improving a bike is more adequate, but not as complex as programming is. Many nonprofessional skills we use are more like ordinary using of a programm than doing real programming. The comparison of a 'real' language with a programming language is poor as well. Comunication between each other is one of our most essential skills and has a long evolution. Learning a language is a basically a subconscious process, espcially children are good in that, but even adults are more likely to learn a language by speaking with someone else or reading books in the desired language without any conscious reflection. Learning a programming language is an intelectual process, which makes a big difference.
I agree with the arguments about a better chance to find someone else being capable to do the job for me. I can hire someone, which is more suitable to companies. On an individual level I can find a friend doing that and there is a community, which is more likely to listen to my wishes, but it isn't a guaranty. This is absolutly okay, because you can't have everything you want.
Coming back to the original argument, which was about having control. All the arguments are for the majority based on an "if...then...could" construct and a long tail of indirect effects, which aren't obvious from the phrase. I picked on it, because the argument is used quite often and without all the additions. If your aren't into the issue you aren't likely to draw these conclusions and these are the people I'm talking about. They have a different perception of it and you shouldn't underestimate the fact.
We are comming to the difficult task to convince all these people and moreover to make them appreciate it as a value and not just running free software because someone else is running it. You are really into the computer stuff and it is your passion, giving you a completly different relationship to the issue than people who aren't. They have many indirect effects like stability, security, etc. and a bunch off somtimes very intellectual ideas and that makes the big difference. We are talking about the world in our heads and this is a very complex subject. I can't present a solution, but the issue has to be tacled to make free software a really great thing. In my eyes it is one of the greatest challanges.
By the way, you don't have to convince me about it.
Cheers
Rainer
Rainer Trusch rainer.trusch@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
The argument about everybody can learn to programm ist nice in theory, but the reality is different. Writing macros or helpful scripts is a skill a lot more people can aquire, but this can be done with proprietary software as well and we are looking for arguments, why free software is better. [...]
Imagine that your macro or script can change anything instead of just the limited unchangeable subset that the proprietary software permits. Isn't that better?
The examples you gave aren't that good. [...]
Hey, what did you expect? The emails you give aren't that clear.
Learning a programming language is an intelectual process, which makes a big difference. [...]
I'm not convinced. Using a programming language is about communicating your ideas to a machine, which is just communication, like a human language. What is difficult and an intellectual process is structuring your ideas into a form to get the desired result.
By the way, you don't have to convince me about it.
Is your mind already decided then? It seems rather like it. Your emails seem to be long on opinions and short on questions.
MJR
El Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Rainer Trusch deia:
I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still depending on someone else. On a business level you are more likely to have someone being capable to give you this control or you can hire someone. On a private level that doesn't work and you are one or another way "controlled" by someone else.
Not quite exact. Truely enough most people don't program. But then most people can't install an OS (be it free or restricted). Or can't configure their internet access, or can't do some specific tasks with a program they can do other tasks with. At the office they will hopefully turn to their IT department. At home they usually resort to some friend or other, who happens to have played enough with their computer to feel able to do it. Private users won't pay a programmer to work for them but will anyway get someone to help them anyway. If that someone is able to program a little, then they'll soon see benefits of free software.
For example, my girlfriend understood free software when she tried GNU/Linux and didn't quite like the card game AisleRiot. She was used to another solitaire with slightly different rules. It turned out to have the games as small scheme programs. And her favourite was easy to modify to her taste (something equivalent to tweaking a couple of #defines or little more, I didn't submit the change because the code already seemed prepared for that reconfiguration).
When she saw she got what she wanted in a few minutes by just asking a friend, and I told her you can't do that with non-free software, she understood people is surrendering too much freedom.
If I tell many of the ordinary users about this they are most likely rolling their eyes or burst into laughter. It is a very programmercentric view with an elitest touch. I know this is not the intention, but it is easiely misunterstood. I'm picking on that, because we are talking about a greater idea and such an argument isn't really approachable for the majority of users.
I agree with Alex Hudson than programmer / user is an artificial distinction which might be useful in a concrete situation (when apllied to a particular program, person and time, for instance) but not as a general category for people. After all, all programmers are users of development tools, many users script or record macros, write mail filtering rules or schedule tasks, etc.
And programming is not that different from system integration, debugging and maintenance is not so different to system administration. The fact that a system administration is regarded as a ("power") user and a programmer as a different role is mostly due to artificial restrictions on what one is allowed to do with programs.
After all programmers use code in libraries and users code in /usr/bin but they all end up considering all possible cases, discovering the interfaces for the function they need, etc.
Distinguishing between users and programmers is like distinguishing between writers and readers of the press. It is not absolutely pointless since some people get their income from writing and some don't. But it is not very helpful in advocating readers do not need to be able to write. Literacy is optional but is very useful, and we generally agree one of the advantages of compulsory scholarisation is to get everybody to learn the rudiments of writing. Even those who don't become professional writers. Some day everybody will learn basic programming concepts at school as just another skill people may find handy sometime.