<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2014-04-22 21:46 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jwboyer@fedoraproject.org" target="_blank">jwboyer@fedoraproject.org</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač <<a href="mailto:mitr@volny.cz">mitr@volny.cz</a>> wrote:<br>
> 2014-04-21 22:35 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer <<a href="mailto:jwboyer@fedoraproject.org">jwboyer@fedoraproject.org</a>>:<br>
><br>
>> I think the problem I have with this well-intentioned thread is that<br>
>> it's a broad reaction to a specific issue we're trying to sort out<br>
>> right now. Webapps aren't new, the fact that a large portion of them<br>
>> aren't FOSS isn't new, and their usage in and interoperability with<br>
>> Fedora is not new.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Oh no, all of this is actually new.<br>
<br>
</div>Your definition of "new" is... strange.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> The change was so smooth and gradual that now, looking back, we see it as<br>
> inevitable and natural; but compared to the 1995/2000-time era, it has been<br>
> a drastic change.<br>
<br>
</div>Yes. Also, 1995 compared to 2000 had drastic changes even within that<br>
timeframe. Even with your statements below, I have no idea how you<br>
consider this new (nor why 1995/2000 are relevant).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>OK, let me rephrase "my definition of 'new'" :) If there were a specific break between the "old" and "new", there would have been an appropriate time to discuss the changes, our goals, assumptions and methods. But there never was a specific break, so there never was an appropriate time, and that discussion has, mostly, not happened.<br>
<br></div><div>You're right, this is not new <i>now</i>, "now" is just a random time and random circumstances. But looking back, new things <i>have clearly happened</i> and we need to take the time to discuss the changes, our goals, assumptions and methods, and this random time is just as good as any.<br>
</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> If we take "FOSS" as a means to achieve some benefits (freedom from lock-in,<br>
<div class="">
> privacy, control) and not a goal in itself, the situation has changed to<br>
> such an extent that FOSS is not even close to giving the average desktop<br>
> user the expected benefits.<br>
<br>
</div>Well, according to what you said above you can't even expect FOSS to<br>
give advantages where it isn't even being used.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes; but the historical assumption was that building a <i>local</i> full-stack FOSS OS is sufficient / the right goal, and that assumption is false.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> Over the past 10 years, even those of us only installing FOSS have ended up<br><div class="">
> running an enormous amount of proprietary software. That's, in retrospect,<br>
<br>
</div>Perhaps s/running/using indirectly.</blockquote><div><br>Running as well. All the JavaScript, Java (with x86 binaries inside .jars, even), Flash. And also using indirectly, yes; Google Search is more valuable to many people than quite a few locally-running programs.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> a completely unintuitive, unexpected and undesired result[3], and keeping<br><div class="">
> exactly the same means to achieve the desired benefits (again, freedom from<br>
> lock-in, privacy, control) seems like sheer folly to me.<br>
<br>
</div>I disagree with your conclusion here. Or maybe I misunderstand what<br>
you're trying to say. How is it unexpected or unintuitive that using<br>
a web service like gmail or twitter or facebook means you are now<br>
beholden to that service for that data?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, these are expected results <i>when you ask this question</i>.<br><br>But from the wider FOSS community, or the Fedora community, is <i>not</i> asking this question. We take it for granted that attracting more contributors to make more or
better FOSS software to be run locally is what we should be doing.<br><br></div><div>And so we have painful discussions about how important it is to have, only have, allow, encourage, etc., FOSS software run locally, but <i>that doesn't make as much difference to the benefits we are promising</i>.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div>If you critically examine most of the rhetoric and supposed benefits of Open Source or Free Software, they are significantly limited in the world of network effects and web services.<br><ul><li>Better quality, higher reliability? Both are increasingly up to the cloud host, or the connection, not up to software running locally.</li>
<li>More flexibility? No, you can use exactly the same websites as everyone else.<br></li><li>Lower cost? Well, yes, if you don't count being subject to advertising.<br></li><li>Full control over your data? No, much of the data is on the internet somewhere.</li>
<li>Freedom from lock-in? No; the ability to change a web browser or a .doc editor is trivial compared to the inability to escape Facebook.</li><li>Freedom to redistribute? Only the invisible parts up to the web browser; not the services one is actually interacting with.</li>
<li>Freedom to modify? Same.<br></li></ul></div><div>Is any of this "unexpected or unintuitive"? I suppose not, but we arguing about a FOSS desktop as if these limitations didn't exist or matter.<br></div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Claiming "because I use a FOSS desktop I should have all the freedoms<br>
and benefits of FOSS EVERYWHERE" is entirely disingenuous.</blockquote><div><br></div>Claiming that pure FOSS is important because it will give users these benefits is equally disingenuous. For end-user desktops, AFAICS the binding constraints for most of the claimed benefits of FOSS are no longer significantly affected by locally running FOSS software exclusively<br>
<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote">The Foundations aren't the problem.</div></blockquote><div class="gmail_quote">
<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Well, we could resolve the disconnect between expected benefits and the methods / project identity in several ways.<br><ul><li>We could focus on the expected benefits, and start looking for new ways to make a difference for these benefits for everyone. In that case the Foundations would have to be modified or at least significantly extended.</li>
<li>We can somehow scale back the expected benefits, e.g. say that they only apply to servers, client-server pairs, or ~programmers.</li><li>We can just say that the Foundations are fine and we are doing this because we enjoy it (or because there are <i>other</i> benefits that we actually value, perhaps the ability to poke into things, learn from them, and hack them for custom uses), and only stop advertising some of the benefits.</li>
</ul></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I think what you're driving at is somewhat of a content issue, and<br>
we've never had a great story around content or services. It's a very<br>
difficult nut to crack and we as a community are very behind.<br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It's not only "content", it's equally "software available over the network". Compare with <a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/?comments=1&post=26199423">http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/neither-microsoft-nokia-nor-anyone-else-should-fork-android-its-unforkable/?comments=1&post=26199423</a> .<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"> Mirek<br></div></div>