[OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 01:46 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: Fact: many of them know it's bad. Fact: it doesn't make them stop using it. Fact: if Gnome is good enough without Facebook, it can help them stop using it. Fact: it supplies integration and GOA accounts, thus the users remain addicted. Fact: many people are addicted to the internet. If GNOME did not provide a browser or even internet connectivity, GNOME could help them stop using the internet. So I've seen the This Free and Open Source Project should educate its users about non-free services! opinion across several FOSS projects I am/was involved in. Make it harder for users to use non-free but convenient services is a great way to decrease your userbase, but providing *better* services than the non-free ones and competing on the market might be more sustainable. I won't stop you from doing that. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
What does competing on the market mean? Do you get a salary for working on Gnome projects, which depends on how many people use your software? Like I said, I don't offer to block them. I offer to have them as a low priority. What is the GOAL of the Gnome project? Dominating the desktop market? Becoming a monopoly? Since when is increasing the user base a primary goal? If that's we're after, let's start writing closed-source software. Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many others succeed more than Gnome, maybe we should just follow them and abandon the Free Software idea. Now seriously, which goal is more important: spreading software freedom and free-as-in-freedom computing, or just getting more people to use Gnome (which doesn't increase anyone's salary anyway)? I guess we do agree on the goals. The question is, what's the order of priorities. The internet is already free enough for free software to use. But clearly Facebook and Google aren't, so you can't compare. Eventually we can add Diaspora plugins and so on, and let the users choose freedom if they wish, but that's not the point. In my opinion, the point is that the developers themselves should care about software freedom, and make that a high-priority goal, rather than feeding their ego by having users migrate to Gnome. You can't spread freedom if you're not consistent with your own ideas. People will say, all that open source/free software thing is bullshit, look at them. They supply a direct connection to Facebook and GMail and Twitter from the desktop, before them even bother to give us a free alternative. It's all bullshit, let's go back to Windows. First choose goals, priorities and values, then make a plan according to them. Writing free software doesn't make us angels and doesn't give us any excuse to give free software a bad name by showing more support to Facebook, Youtube and Google than we show to Diaspora, MediaGoblin and MyKolab (or whatever can replace GMail and google calendar using free software). So do as you wish, just keep a clear list of priorities. The winners are the ones who remain last in the field. The ones who persist. The ones who swim against the current when they need to. The sheep which don't blindly follow the herd. The ones who aren't afraid of cold water. Assuming you consider software freedom as victory... I do. - Anatoly Krasner On ו', 2013-04-12 at 18:04 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 01:46 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: Fact: many of them know it's bad. Fact: it doesn't make them stop using it. Fact: if Gnome is good enough without Facebook, it can help them stop using it. Fact: it supplies integration and GOA accounts, thus the users remain addicted. Fact: many people are addicted to the internet. If GNOME did not provide a browser or even internet connectivity, GNOME could help them stop using the internet. So I've seen the This Free and Open Source Project should educate its users about non-free services! opinion across several FOSS projects I am/was involved in. Make it harder for users to use non-free but convenient services is a great way to decrease your userbase, but providing *better* services than the non-free ones and competing on the market might be more sustainable. I won't stop you from doing that. andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 19:40 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: What does competing on the market mean? Do you get a salary for working on Gnome projects, which depends on how many people use your software? Primarily, markets are based on interest attention, not money. Since when is increasing the user base a primary goal? If that's we're after, let's start writing closed-source software. Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many others succeed more than Gnome, maybe we should just follow them and abandon the Free Software idea. You imply that because of being closed-source, other projects are more successful, but it's more likely that they are successful for a number of other reasons while being closed-source. So that's a false cause. But we might differ on defining success here, I'm thinking in terms of userbase and marketshare, you might not. Now seriously, which goal is more important: spreading software freedom and free-as-in-freedom computing, or just getting more people to use Gnome (which doesn't increase anyone's salary anyway)? To me both is important. Plus not sure why you mention salaries. In my opinion, the point is that the developers themselves should care about software freedom, and make that a high-priority goal, rather than feeding their ego by having users migrate to Gnome. So caring about software freedom does not feed your ego by making you feel more morale compared to closed-source? Good, then. You can't spread freedom if you're not consistent with your own ideas. People will say, all that open source/free software thing is bullshit, look at them. They supply a direct connection to Facebook and GMail and Twitter from the desktop, before them even bother to give us a free alternative. It's all bullshit, let's go back to Windows. People will say misses a citation, but I can come up with that too: People will say that the open source/free software thing is bullshit, they don't even offer basic integration with the most common services on the interwebs. Freedom is nice, but I need to get my work done. Anyway, I prefer to make GNOME good, easy, beautiful for everybody, not just for people who already know and care about software freedom. andre -- Andre Klapper | ak...@gmx.net http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
I wasn't implying closed-source software succeeds, it was sarcasm. Anyway, arguing on different believes and priorities is pointless, I'll stop here. I got the point, you want a bigger market share. But I don't understand why. I mean, why is that the primary goal? It sounds like a goal for a commercial company. Anyway, you do what you believe in and I'll do what I believe in. I understand now, why Gnome supplies all those bad plugins before it tries to offer replacements. There are enough modules for me to work not, which aren't related to Facebook or Google. See you around On ו', 2013-04-12 at 19:29 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 19:40 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: What does competing on the market mean? Do you get a salary for working on Gnome projects, which depends on how many people use your software? Primarily, markets are based on interest attention, not money. Since when is increasing the user base a primary goal? If that's we're after, let's start writing closed-source software. Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many others succeed more than Gnome, maybe we should just follow them and abandon the Free Software idea. You imply that because of being closed-source, other projects are more successful, but it's more likely that they are successful for a number of other reasons while being closed-source. So that's a false cause. But we might differ on defining success here, I'm thinking in terms of userbase and marketshare, you might not. Now seriously, which goal is more important: spreading software freedom and free-as-in-freedom computing, or just getting more people to use Gnome (which doesn't increase anyone's salary anyway)? To me both is important. Plus not sure why you mention salaries. In my opinion, the point is that the developers themselves should care about software freedom, and make that a high-priority goal, rather than feeding their ego by having users migrate to Gnome. So caring about software freedom does not feed your ego by making you feel more morale compared to closed-source? Good, then. You can't spread freedom if you're not consistent with your own ideas. People will say, all that open source/free software thing is bullshit, look at them. They supply a direct connection to Facebook and GMail and Twitter from the desktop, before them even bother to give us a free alternative. It's all bullshit, let's go back to Windows. People will say misses a citation, but I can come up with that too: People will say that the open source/free software thing is bullshit, they don't even offer basic integration with the most common services on the interwebs. Freedom is nice, but I need to get my work done. Anyway, I prefer to make GNOME good, easy, beautiful for everybody, not just for people who already know and care about software freedom. andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
I wasn't implying closed-source software succeeds, it was sarcasm. Anyway, arguing on different believes and priorities is pointless, I'll stop here. I got the point, you want a bigger market share. But I don't understand why. I mean, why is that the primary goal? It sounds like a goal for a commercial company. Anyway, you do what you believe in and I'll do what I believe in. I understand now, why Gnome supplies all those bad plugins before it tries to offer replacements. There are enough modules for me to work on, which aren't related to Facebook or Google. See you around On ו', 2013-04-12 at 19:29 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 19:40 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: What does competing on the market mean? Do you get a salary for working on Gnome projects, which depends on how many people use your software? Primarily, markets are based on interest attention, not money. Since when is increasing the user base a primary goal? If that's we're after, let's start writing closed-source software. Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many others succeed more than Gnome, maybe we should just follow them and abandon the Free Software idea. You imply that because of being closed-source, other projects are more successful, but it's more likely that they are successful for a number of other reasons while being closed-source. So that's a false cause. But we might differ on defining success here, I'm thinking in terms of userbase and marketshare, you might not. Now seriously, which goal is more important: spreading software freedom and free-as-in-freedom computing, or just getting more people to use Gnome (which doesn't increase anyone's salary anyway)? To me both is important. Plus not sure why you mention salaries. In my opinion, the point is that the developers themselves should care about software freedom, and make that a high-priority goal, rather than feeding their ego by having users migrate to Gnome. So caring about software freedom does not feed your ego by making you feel more morale compared to closed-source? Good, then. You can't spread freedom if you're not consistent with your own ideas. People will say, all that open source/free software thing is bullshit, look at them. They supply a direct connection to Facebook and GMail and Twitter from the desktop, before them even bother to give us a free alternative. It's all bullshit, let's go back to Windows. People will say misses a citation, but I can come up with that too: People will say that the open source/free software thing is bullshit, they don't even offer basic integration with the most common services on the interwebs. Freedom is nice, but I need to get my work done. Anyway, I prefer to make GNOME good, easy, beautiful for everybody, not just for people who already know and care about software freedom. andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
On Fri, April 12, 2013 1:51 pm, ×× ×××× ×§×¨×¡× ×¨ wrote: I wasn't implying closed-source software succeeds, it was sarcasm. Anyway, arguing on different believes and priorities is pointless, I'll stop here. I got the point, you want a bigger market share. But I don't understand why. I mean, why is that the primary goal? It sounds like a goal for a commercial company. I've got to chime in here too - I want to bring free software to more people as part of our nonprofit charitable mission. I believe that it is really important to our society that we build free alternatives to the proprietary systems that are increasingly being relied on for critical functionality. Free software is the right answer for all software, but we do have a basic challenge in providing the alternatives that people will want to use. I want to encourage a move to good online services, but I also know that providing a way for users to continue to use the services that they already count on is a pre-requisite for many. It's a complicated issue, and I think we need to work as hard as possible to build alternatives and to encourage users towards fully free and ethically built software and services. But we also must be an immediately viable alternative. karen Anyway, you do what you believe in and I'll do what I believe in. I understand now, why Gnome supplies all those bad plugins before it tries to offer replacements. There are enough modules for me to work on, which aren't related to Facebook or Google. See you around On ×', 2013-04-12 at 19:29 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 19:40 +0300, ×× ×××× ×§×¨×¡× ×¨ wrote: What does competing on the market mean? Do you get a salary for working on Gnome projects, which depends on how many people use your software? Primarily, markets are based on interest attention, not money. Since when is increasing the user base a primary goal? If that's we're after, let's start writing closed-source software. Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many others succeed more than Gnome, maybe we should just follow them and abandon the Free Software idea. You imply that because of being closed-source, other projects are more successful, but it's more likely that they are successful for a number of other reasons while being closed-source. So that's a false cause. But we might differ on defining success here, I'm thinking in terms of userbase and marketshare, you might not. Now seriously, which goal is more important: spreading software freedom and free-as-in-freedom computing, or just getting more people to use Gnome (which doesn't increase anyone's salary anyway)? To me both is important. Plus not sure why you mention salaries. In my opinion, the point is that the developers themselves should care about software freedom, and make that a high-priority goal, rather than feeding their ego by having users migrate to Gnome. So caring about software freedom does not feed your ego by making you feel more morale compared to closed-source? Good, then. You can't spread freedom if you're not consistent with your own ideas. People will say, all that open source/free software thing is bullshit, look at them. They supply a direct connection to Facebook and GMail and Twitter from the desktop, before them even bother to give us a free alternative. It's all bullshit, let's go back to Windows. People will say misses a citation, but I can come up with that too: People will say that the open source/free software thing is bullshit, they don't even offer basic integration with the most common services on the interwebs. Freedom is nice, but I need to get my work done. Anyway, I prefer to make GNOME good, easy, beautiful for everybody, not just for people who already know and care about software freedom. andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: [OT] Re: [Fwd: Re: Two 3.10 feature ideas]
Hello Karen, I must say I really like your writing skill and excellent verbal expression ability :) Thanks for making things clear. I agree with you, providing access to popular services is a pre-requisite for many people, while providing free-software alternatives is still a primary goal, and always should be. On ו', 2013-04-12 at 15:27 -0400, Karen Sandler wrote: On Fri, April 12, 2013 1:51 pm, ×× ×˜×•×œ×™ ×§×¨×¡× ×¨ wrote: I wasn't implying closed-source software succeeds, it was sarcasm. Anyway, arguing on different believes and priorities is pointless, I'll stop here. I got the point, you want a bigger market share. But I don't understand why. I mean, why is that the primary goal? It sounds like a goal for a commercial company. I've got to chime in here too - I want to bring free software to more people as part of our nonprofit charitable mission. I believe that it is really important to our society that we build free alternatives to the proprietary systems that are increasingly being relied on for critical functionality. Free software is the right answer for all software, but we do have a basic challenge in providing the alternatives that people will want to use. I want to encourage a move to good online services, but I also know that providing a way for users to continue to use the services that they already count on is a pre-requisite for many. It's a complicated issue, and I think we need to work as hard as possible to build alternatives and to encourage users towards fully free and ethically built software and services. But we also must be an immediately viable alternative. karen Anyway, you do what you believe in and I'll do what I believe in. I understand now, why Gnome supplies all those bad plugins before it tries to offer replacements. There are enough modules for me to work on, which aren't related to Facebook or Google. See you around On ו', 2013-04-12 at 19:29 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 19:40 +0300, ×× ×˜×•×œ×™ ×§×¨×¡× ×¨ wrote: What does competing on the market mean? Do you get a salary for working on Gnome projects, which depends on how many people use your software? Primarily, markets are based on interest attention, not money. Since when is increasing the user base a primary goal? If that's we're after, let's start writing closed-source software. Microsoft, Google, Facebook and many others succeed more than Gnome, maybe we should just follow them and abandon the Free Software idea. You imply that because of being closed-source, other projects are more successful, but it's more likely that they are successful for a number of other reasons while being closed-source. So that's a false cause. But we might differ on defining success here, I'm thinking in terms of userbase and marketshare, you might not. Now seriously, which goal is more important: spreading software freedom and free-as-in-freedom computing, or just getting more people to use Gnome (which doesn't increase anyone's salary anyway)? To me both is important. Plus not sure why you mention salaries. In my opinion, the point is that the developers themselves should care about software freedom, and make that a high-priority goal, rather than feeding their ego by having users migrate to Gnome. So caring about software freedom does not feed your ego by making you feel more morale compared to closed-source? Good, then. You can't spread freedom if you're not consistent with your own ideas. People will say, all that open source/free software thing is bullshit, look at them. They supply a direct connection to Facebook and GMail and Twitter from the desktop, before them even bother to give us a free alternative. It's all bullshit, let's go back to Windows. People will say misses a citation, but I can come up with that too: People will say that the open source/free software thing is bullshit, they don't even offer basic integration with the most common services on the interwebs. Freedom is nice, but I need to get my work done. Anyway, I prefer to make GNOME good, easy, beautiful for everybody, not just for people who already know and care about software freedom. andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
