* the movement going forward
@ 2019-09-17 23:36 Thomas Lord
2019-09-18 0:01 ` Thomas Lord
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Lord @ 2019-09-17 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Libreplanet Discussion list
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6419 bytes --]
This is a big crisis for the free software movement.
To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
----------------------------------------------
We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
predator and eugenicist. "The prestigious, high power Media
Lab? That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
money via faked demos. That Media Lab. (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
@SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
<https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240>)
An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent. Among
the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
accusations against RMS.
The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
Conservancy's name. (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)
The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
about RMS' resignation.
A broader crisis:
-----------------
My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
mid-1990s. I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
the movement, but I think I did help.
I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
software freedom going *in practice*. What do I mean? I mean
a huge cultural and pragmatic shift. I want everyone who uses
computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
they see fit, and share it and their modifications. I want
everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
options for how to solve problems.
I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site. The web site
is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
to empower users in concrete, impactful ways. The web site
content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion. The
organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
and nothing more. It appears to me to be falling fast into
the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
making its executive and employee payrolls.
More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
into practice on a mass scale.
We need a reboot.
The historical moment:
----------------------
The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
(global) scale. It therefore probably also demands
significant change in our systems of governance.
Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
our current needs. We need software freedom to implement
massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
social communication, globally. We need that freedom because
we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
software production and customization can keep up with the
scale and scope of changes we must now make.
Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
"[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.
We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth. We
are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
promotion and experimentation about how to make software
freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
- rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".
We can do it. But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
it stands, aren't helping.
One idea for "what next":
-------------------------
I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing". The
intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
what they ought to be doing. The occasion of RMS leaving
provides several examples, as noted in part above.
I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.
The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
out programs. We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
the C library, and so forth. The goal was to accumulate a body
of source code that added up to a "complete system".
Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
essential goal, includes:
0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
software freedom in real and present society!
1. Documentation.
2. Tutorials and training.
3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
"out of the box".
4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
and helping them get started using it and using it by
excersizing their software freedom.
Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:
1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.
2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian. Making
a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.
3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
a useful totality in service of human need.
So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.
-t
(aka Thomas Lord)
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 6741 bytes --]
This is a big crisis for the free software movement.
To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
----------------------------------------------
We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
predator and eugenicist. "The prestigious, high power Media
Lab? That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
money via faked demos. That Media Lab. (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
@SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
<https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240>)
An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent. Among
the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
accusations against RMS.
The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
Conservancy's name. (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)
The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
about RMS' resignation.
A broader crisis:
-----------------
My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
mid-1990s. I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
the movement, but I think I did help.
I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
software freedom going *in practice*. What do I mean? I mean
a huge cultural and pragmatic shift. I want everyone who uses
computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
they see fit, and share it and their modifications. I want
everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
options for how to solve problems.
I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site. The web site
is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
to empower users in concrete, impactful ways. The web site
content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion. The
organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
and nothing more. It appears to me to be falling fast into
the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
making its executive and employee payrolls.
More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
into practice on a mass scale.
We need a reboot.
The historical moment:
----------------------
The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
(global) scale. It therefore probably also demands
significant change in our systems of governance.
Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
our current needs. We need software freedom to implement
massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
social communication, globally. We need that freedom because
we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
software production and customization can keep up with the
scale and scope of changes we must now make.
Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
"[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.
We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth. We
are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
promotion and experimentation about how to make software
freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
- rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".
We can do it. But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
it stands, aren't helping.
One idea for "what next":
-------------------------
I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing". The
intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
what they ought to be doing. The occasion of RMS leaving
provides several examples, as noted in part above.
I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.
The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
out programs. We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
the C library, and so forth. The goal was to accumulate a body
of source code that added up to a "complete system".
Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
essential goal, includes:
0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
software freedom in real and present society!
1. Documentation.
2. Tutorials and training.
3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
"out of the box".
4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
and helping them get started using it and using it by
excersizing their software freedom.
Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:
1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.
2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian. Making
a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.
3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
a useful totality in service of human need.
So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.
-t
(aka Thomas Lord)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: the movement going forward
2019-09-17 23:36 the movement going forward Thomas Lord
@ 2019-09-18 0:01 ` Thomas Lord
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Lord @ 2019-09-18 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Libreplanet Discussion list
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6910 bytes --]
I don't quite know which piece of software so mangled the formatting of
a plain-text email - perhaps it was the mail client I'm using or perhaps
it was something on the libreplanet.org end.
For convenience, I've included the non-mangled plain text file as an
attachment to this message.
-t
On 2019-09-17 16:36, Thomas Lord wrote:
> This is a big crisis for the free software movement.
> To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
> ----------------------------------------------
> We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
> and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
> predator and eugenicist. "The prestigious, high power Media
> Lab? That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
> news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
> another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
> money via faked demos. That Media Lab. (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
> @SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
> <https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240>)
> An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
> promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent. Among
> the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
> has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
> accusations against RMS.
> The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
> campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
> Conservancy's name. (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
> from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)
> The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
> the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
> about RMS' resignation.
> A broader crisis:
> -----------------
> My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
> formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
> I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
> mid-1990s. I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
> the movement, but I think I did help.
> I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
> software freedom going *in practice*. What do I mean? I mean
> a huge cultural and pragmatic shift. I want everyone who uses
> computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
> and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
> they see fit, and share it and their modifications. I want
> everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
> options for how to solve problems.
> I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
> for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
> harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site. The web site
> is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
> is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
> The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
> to empower users in concrete, impactful ways. The web site
> content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion. The
> organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
> and nothing more. It appears to me to be falling fast into
> the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
> making its executive and employee payrolls.
> More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
> lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
> into practice on a mass scale.
> We need a reboot.
> The historical moment:
> ----------------------
> The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
> systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
> (global) scale. It therefore probably also demands
> significant change in our systems of governance.
> Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
> our current needs. We need software freedom to implement
> massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
> We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
> social communication, globally. We need that freedom because
> we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
> software production and customization can keep up with the
> scale and scope of changes we must now make.
> Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
> "[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
> would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
> adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
> conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.
> We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
> components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth. We
> are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
> promotion and experimentation about how to make software
> freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
> - rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".
> We can do it. But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
> it stands, aren't helping.
> One idea for "what next":
> -------------------------
> I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
> the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing". The
> intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
> might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
> what they ought to be doing. The occasion of RMS leaving
> provides several examples, as noted in part above.
> I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
> but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.
> The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
> out programs. We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
> the C library, and so forth. The goal was to accumulate a body
> of source code that added up to a "complete system".
> Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
> essential goal, includes:
> 0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
> software freedom in real and present society!
> 1. Documentation.
> 2. Tutorials and training.
> 3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
> "out of the box".
> 4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
> and helping them get started using it and using it by
> excersizing their software freedom.
> Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:
> 1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
> by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.
> 2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian. Making
> a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.
> 3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
> that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
> a useful totality in service of human need.
> So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.
> -t
> (aka Thomas Lord)
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 7866 bytes --]
I don't quite know which piece of software so mangled the formatting of
a plain-text email - perhaps it was the mail client I'm using or
perhaps it was something on the libreplanet.org end.
For convenience, I've included the non-mangled plain text file as an
attachment to this message.
-t
On 2019-09-17 16:36, Thomas Lord wrote:
This is a big crisis for the free software movement.
To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
----------------------------------------------
We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
predator and eugenicist. "The prestigious, high power Media
Lab? That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
money via faked demos. That Media Lab. (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
@SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
<[1]https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240
>)
An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent. Among
the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
accusations against RMS.
The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
Conservancy's name. (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)
The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
about RMS' resignation.
A broader crisis:
-----------------
My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
mid-1990s. I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
the movement, but I think I did help.
I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
software freedom going *in practice*. What do I mean? I mean
a huge cultural and pragmatic shift. I want everyone who uses
computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
they see fit, and share it and their modifications. I want
everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
options for how to solve problems.
I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site. The web site
is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
to empower users in concrete, impactful ways. The web site
content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion. The
organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
and nothing more. It appears to me to be falling fast into
the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
making its executive and employee payrolls.
More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
into practice on a mass scale.
We need a reboot.
The historical moment:
----------------------
The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
(global) scale. It therefore probably also demands
significant change in our systems of governance.
Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
our current needs. We need software freedom to implement
massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
social communication, globally. We need that freedom because
we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
software production and customization can keep up with the
scale and scope of changes we must now make.
Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
"[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.
We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth. We
are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
promotion and experimentation about how to make software
freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
- rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".
We can do it. But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
it stands, aren't helping.
One idea for "what next":
-------------------------
I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing". The
intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
what they ought to be doing. The occasion of RMS leaving
provides several examples, as noted in part above.
I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.
The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
out programs. We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
the C library, and so forth. The goal was to accumulate a body
of source code that added up to a "complete system".
Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
essential goal, includes:
0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
software freedom in real and present society!
1. Documentation.
2. Tutorials and training.
3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
"out of the box".
4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
and helping them get started using it and using it by
excersizing their software freedom.
Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:
1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.
2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian. Making
a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.
3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
a useful totality in service of human need.
So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.
-t
(aka Thomas Lord)
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
[2]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
[3]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
References
1. https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240
2. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
3. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
[-- Attachment #2: rms --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6431 bytes --]
This is a big crisis for the free software movement.
To briefly review the past few days and weeks:
----------------------------------------------
We learned that MIT and in particular the Media Lab knowingly
and secretively made itself a servant of a rich sexual
predator and eugenicist. "The prestigious, high power Media
Lab? That Media Lab?", one might ask. Well, by way of answer,
news of the Lab's corruption in relation to Epstein eclipsed
another breaking news story - the Lab's history of raising
money via faked demos. That Media Lab. (h/t Dr. Sara Taber -
@SarahTaber_bww on twitter - see
<https://gizmodo.com/mit-built-a-theranos-for-plants-1837968240>)
An MIT alum then launched a successful media campaign
promoting some falsehoods about emails RMS had sent. Among
the noteworthy consequences of her effort, the media spotlight
has shifted from the corruption at MIT to the false
accusations against RMS.
The Free Software Conservancy joined in the false media
campaign, making an unsigned personal attack on RMS under the
Conservancy's name. (I am also hearing a rumor that someone
from the Conservancy might replace RMS at the FSF.)
The Free Software Foundation has done nothing to correct
the record and, curiously, is the sole source of news
about RMS' resignation.
A broader crisis:
-----------------
My understanding of the aim of the free software movement was
formed when I first became active, in the late 1980s, and when
I worked, for a time, for the FSF on the GNU project in the
mid-1990s. I was never as successful as I hoped in advancing
the movement, but I think I did help.
I believe that the aim of the free software movement is to get
software freedom going *in practice*. What do I mean? I mean
a huge cultural and pragmatic shift. I want everyone who uses
computers to know, and to figure into their plans, that they
and everyone can study the source code, modify it, run it as
they see fit, and share it and their modifications. I want
everyone to think of these freedoms as practical, useful
options for how to solve problems.
I have found that, today, if I want to explain the movement
for software freedom to someone, that it useless -- even
harmful -- to direct them to the FSF web site. The web site
is useless for someone trying to understand what the movement
is about or to get started switching to libre software tools.
The web site offers no real help to developers who are trying
to empower users in concrete, impactful ways. The web site
content is largely obscure platitudes and self promotion. The
organization, these days, seems to be largely "about" itself
and nothing more. It appears to me to be falling fast into
the trap of being a charity that is mainly concerned with
making its executive and employee payrolls.
More generally, the GNU project, the movement in general, have
lost any central focus on actually getting software freedom
into practice on a mass scale.
We need a reboot.
The historical moment:
----------------------
The climate emergency demands revolutionary change in our
systems of production and distribution, rapidly, on a mass
(global) scale. It therefore probably also demands
significant change in our systems of governance.
Software freedom, it seems to me, is tactically critical to
our current needs. We need software freedom to implement
massive changes to our systems of production and distribution.
We need software freedom to facilitate democratized control of
social communication, globally. We need that freedom because
we can reasonably anticipate that no centralized system of
software production and customization can keep up with the
scale and scope of changes we must now make.
Were the Free Software Foundation in the business of
"[promoting] the development and use of free software," I
would think it should be analyzing what currently blocks mass
adaptation of these tools, in light of current social
conditions -- and then working to cure those obstacles.
We (as the movement) have lots of "pieces" - software
components, minimally compromised hardware, and so forth. We
are weak on easily adopted tools, on documentation, on
promotion and experimentation about how to make software
freedom a widespread practice - a way of solving social needs
- rather than "just a theory" or "just a license".
We can do it. But the FSF as it stands, and the movement as
it stands, aren't helping.
One idea for "what next":
-------------------------
I don't think, based on the evidence so far, that we can trust
the FSF or the Conservancy to "do the right thing". The
intentions of the individuals who run those organizations
might be good, but we see that in practice they are not doing
what they ought to be doing. The occasion of RMS leaving
provides several examples, as noted in part above.
I think that what is needed is a second-generation GNU project,
but one that is squarely focused on deploying software freedom.
The original GNU project was, necessarily, focussed on cranking
out programs. We needed a replacement for sed(1) and sh(1) and
the C library, and so forth. The goal was to accumulate a body
of source code that added up to a "complete system".
Where the original project cut corners, to achieve that first
essential goal, includes:
0. Failing to think collectively about the practical role of
software freedom in real and present society!
1. Documentation.
2. Tutorials and training.
3. System integeration of complete systems that do useful things
"out of the box".
4. Getting free software into the hands of a mass of people,
and helping them get started using it and using it by
excersizing their software freedom.
Where the movement has got caught up or stuck in the weeds:
1. Trying to directly compete with "social media" as defined
by clearly evil Silicon Valley firms.
2. Being content with obscure shit like Debian. Making
a big pile of mud rather than a broadly useful tool.
3. Getting caught up in an ego/career game of projects
that compete for attention and never cooperate in assembling
a useful totality in service of human need.
So let's renew the GNU project, but for reals.
-t
(aka Thomas Lord)
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-09-18 0:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-17 23:36 the movement going forward Thomas Lord
2019-09-18 0:01 ` Thomas Lord
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).