The Forgotten "F": A Tale of Fedora's Foundations

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr at volny.cz> wrote:
> 2014-04-21 22:35 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org>:
>
>> I think the problem I have with this well-intentioned thread is that
>> it's a broad reaction to a specific issue we're trying to sort out
>> right now.  Webapps aren't new, the fact that a large portion of them
>> aren't FOSS isn't new, and their usage in and interoperability with
>> Fedora is not new.
>
>
> Oh no, all of this is actually new.

Your definition of "new" is... strange.

> The change was so smooth and gradual that now, looking back, we see it as
> inevitable and natural; but compared to the 1995/2000-time era, it has been
> a drastic change.

Yes.  Also, 1995 compared to 2000 had drastic changes even within that
timeframe.  Even with your statements below, I have no idea how you
consider this new (nor why 1995/2000 are relevant).

> In the old days, everything was a local application, and networks existed
> but weren't all that convenient or useful[1]; so, having all local
> applications FOSS meant "full freedom" and "full control".
>
> Nowadays, for non-specialist "desktop" users, almost everything is a web
> app; besides the browser, only specialists use local applications
> (Photoshop, Eclipse, Maya, whatever)[2].  Having all local applications FOSS
> no longer makes that much of a difference, most of the software being
> executed is proprietary, or even if not proprietary, hosted elsewhere and
> therefore not under full control.

I'll agree there is certainly a continued uptick in web-based
computing.  Cloud increases it even more.  It started, in earnest,
well over 10 years ago, which isn't really "new".

> If we take "FOSS" as a means to achieve some benefits (freedom from lock-in,
> privacy, control) and not a goal in itself, the situation has changed to
> such an extent that FOSS is not even close to giving the average desktop
> user the expected benefits.

Well, according to what you said above you can't even expect FOSS to
give advantages where it isn't even being used.

(There's an argument that open standards for data format buys you both
freedom from lock-in and interoperability, but I think we can stick to
your main points and not head down that tangent for now.)

> Over the past 10 years, even those of us only installing FOSS have ended up
> running an enormous amount of proprietary software.  That's, in retrospect,

Perhaps s/running/using indirectly.  E.g. I believe there is a
difference between "I have installed Lotus Notes on my Fedora machine"
and "I use Evolution to access the Notes servers over IMAP to get my
email".

> a completely unintuitive, unexpected and undesired result[3], and keeping
> exactly the same means to achieve the desired benefits (again, freedom from
> lock-in, privacy, control) seems like sheer folly to me.

I disagree with your conclusion here.  Or maybe I misunderstand what
you're trying to say.  How is it unexpected or unintuitive that using
a web service like gmail or twitter or facebook means you are now
beholden to that service for that data?  You don't get accounts to
those services without explicitly going out and asking for them in
some form.

Claiming "because I use a FOSS desktop I should have all the freedoms
and benefits of FOSS EVERYWHERE" is entirely disingenuous.  One would
need to be extremely naive to believe that an open source web browser
or client somehow implied you aren't bound to the terms of service you
theoretically read and agreed to when creating an account for an
online service.  I don't believe our users are stupid or naive.

> (Unfortunately, I don't know what should be the replacement.  We can of
> course just keep the same foundations/means and just stop expecting the
> benefits, but that's kind of pointless.)

The Foundations aren't the problem.

> [3] Or, well, perhaps this was all foreseeable and foreseen, and everyone
> just choose to ignore it... in which case I'm not sure that the Foundations
> or anything else matters all that much.

I think this, to a degree, hits closer to reality.  Not so much
ignored, but more that competing FOSS web services either don't exist,
or don't have traction.  I find it difficult to believe that someone
is going to pick an AGPL social networking site when 30 of their
friends are instead using Facebook.  So they created an account and
agreed to the terms of the service.  Repeat.

I think what you're driving at is somewhat of a content issue, and
we've never had a great story around content or services.  It's a very
difficult nut to crack and we as a community are very behind.

josh