Hacker News Reader

As someone near the beginning of their career, the corporate attitude surrounding open source terrifies me. I spent a year with a company that made random weatherproof devices and developed a desktop interface for copying data off. It communicated over a simple bluetooth or serial interface using a pre-defined set of commands. We started to get requests to open source the desktop app because people wanted to add some features to it (data export, etc) but when we approached management about doing so, they were horrified and said that it was all proprietary. How on earth is a few thousand lines of Qt code with no algorithmic complexity at all considered proprietary? It couldn't do anything to the device or dump firmware or anything, just receive data. Nobody seemed to understand that if we let the community do some of the work, that was, in essence, free engineering time and the employees could stop wasting their time and work on the device firmware instead.

Edit: The best part was that we were using some of the libraries in a way that there was ambiguity over whether we needed to open source the application so instead, they paid the Qt foundation $5k for the enterprise licence instead of the GPL version...

what is the name of the company?

I'd rather not say. They weren't a bad place to work, they just had bad upper management.

I don't miss the fact that nothing actually worked back in the days when Linux and open source was mostly irrelevant to the wider it Industry.

I really don't get where your coming from, having been a Linux user since the late 90ies i have seen nothing but progress for the desktop since the arrival of the commercial interest.

Yes the community lost some of it's cohesion but thats the consequence of going mainstream and achieving pretty much everything we were hoping for back then.

Listening to the FSF people today you often get the same paradise lost sense you get from old hippies who have forgotten exactly how bad the world outside of their bubbles were back then and how much have changed for the better in the meantime.

What happened is that the marketing departments from a bunch of proprietary companies realized what was going on and amped up the bullshit. This is a good thing, it means they feel threatened by the concept of free software, which they should. They have been threatening us, the users, with ridiculous licenses for long enough anyway.

The fact that these companies fear the AGPL so much is probably reason to start using it more. They won't respond to anything less at this point, they need to be dragged into it kicking and screaming. They have made it clear by now, there is no other way that they will even consider the concept of respecting users' freedoms. This will continue to be the case even with organizations like the Linux Foundation, which, if you look at who their biggest sponsors are, it becomes pretty clear which agenda they are going to be expected to push.

Let me just take one point:

Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary.

Clearly Microsoft missed this as they are open sourcing most (all?) of .Net?

Yeah, the real thing is "The only code that must remain secret is one that concerns the business logic".

Ie. Facebook has open sourced React, Cassandra, HHVM... but they will never open source the code that powers the newsfeed or the friend list.

Whether you call it "business logic" or "the real code", the fact remains that the real, sneaky, controlling code; the one that manipulates users emotions[1], must remain secret and restricted.

I don't think companies that do this have a true commitment to respecting their users, and their rhetoric about the evils of copyleft always make me think, "what are you trying to hide or control?"

---

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/facebook-manipulates-em...

Oh really?

I don't care for the way the my Microsoft Windows computer changes focus between windows. I'm sure a quick change to DWM.exe (Desktop Window Manager) would make me much happier as a user. I'll even do the work myself.

Can you tell me where I can go grab the latest source code for DWM, so I can make those changes?

I don't think it's possible for a home user. And I think it's important. (If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected.)

DWM.exe is not a part of .NET, it's part of Windows. The .NET team has been making strives towards open source, but the Windows team has not.

Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

I don't find the argument that users will go around making changes and testing them on OS level code to be a credible reason for open-sourcing anything. If you want to say, that having the code helps in other ways for development, or debugging then sure..

I will not provide an exhaustive list, but I will give a single example.

I also wish I had the source code to the controller software to a large motorized rock climbing wall that was produced back in 2002. The "Assent fun rock".

Alas, I don't. So... I've reverse engineered the protocol between the device and the native computer controller and implemented my own controller stack from the ground up on linux.

Why? because I wanted to add an algorithm that lets the speed of the device respond to the reading on my heart rate monitor.

Here's a photo of me on the thing, courtesy of my friend. https://www.instagram.com/p/48WVcbkT6x/

>> Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

Good question. Just ask it respectfully because..

> Alas, I don't. So... I've reverse engineered the protocol between the device and the native computer controller and implemented my own controller stack from the ground up on linux.

... it gets better everytime it actually is a hacker on the other end.

Have my upvote!

Why have you assumed it was not respectful?

Mostly poor wording from my side I hope; I mean generally when asking that question it should be done respectfully.

That said:

Can you point to all the things you have modified in programs where you do have source access?

Can easily be interpreted as slightly disrespectful.

I think that example blurs the lines between open source, and adding functionality to a piece of hardware, and having an open data protocol. People are not purchasing the hardware and software without integration. This is less about open source, and more in the hardware hacking category. Otherwise, since every piece of modern electronics has some kind of firmware/microcontroller in them, that would make anything at all to do with them, about 'open source'.

I think its fair to say you obviously understood the spirit of my question since the context was open source operating systems. So, let me ask again, what have you changed about the OS at a system level?

You and I have very different working definitions of the phrase "open source", and the philosophy behind it. I'd be curious, If I asked you to pinpoint the start of the open source movement - the exact moment - what you'd choose. If asked the same question, I'd offer up Stallman's "printer parable".

http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html

I chose my "climbing wall" example because IMO it's the closest a story of my own comes to Richard's experience (granted there are differences). To me, that makes it very much an "open source" example.

Between both Richard's printer, and my climbing wall both of us are basically happy with a hardware/software combo. We just want to make a tiny change. But - we can't.

(Unlike Richard, I feel absolutely no righteous anger, but like Richard, I did roll up my sleeves and get to work and now - Yay! the thing I wanted exists in this world!) ---

If you still would rather I give a different example that might be better in line with your expectations and personal definitions... fine. When I was a teen, I got a copy of Gary Nutt's book: "Kernel Projects for Linux", using the book, I modified the ext2 file system to allow for "tagging" of file entries (As much as it pains me to say it: think hashtags). I would tag source code with the project name it belonged to.

I used that file system for years and years. I enjoyed this minor feature and found a lot of joy in having done it myself.

I don't want to advocate for a more "pure" definition of open source. You can widen or shrink the scope of anything at any time. I am perfectly OK with a vague definition of open source that encompasses hardware too. But that is not an opensource definition that I personally (and I would argue most) care about all that much. Few people, if any, are interested in modifying the firmware inside their microwave or refrigerator. Sure, at some point such firmware could become burdensome (e.g. coffee maker with DRM'ed k-cups) to the point where opensourcing the firmware would be something I could get behind. For you that tipping point is different.

Now coming back to the example, that is a great example. I think we can learn a lot from that. One thing is that 'open' is a large cafeteria. You would agree that simply opening the source is not sufficient in most cases. If the spec for EXT2 changed after every minor update to the kernel that would make your addition pointless. Same thing with the API at the I/O level. If that changed all the time, it would make your addition brittle and prone to breakage. So what is it that's really beneficial here? I'd argue that the source is the least important here. Open protocols, open data formats, defined interface boundaries, and the like are _much_ more valuable, really, several orders of magnitude than simply dumping several million lines of code onto someone.

Also.. its funny that you mention RMS since he is so vehemently opposed to using the term open source :P

Oh, don't worry. It's quite credible.

"Users" empowered by the source code do not just simply make changes, they write complete replacements for parts of the system.

For example:

On an open system you have plenty of choice in WMs (all written by the "users").

On Windows you are stuck with DWM.exe.

You're conflating modular design, open communication protocols, and open source operating systems.

So are you saying that Microsoft releases the necessary API specifications for writing a replacement for DWM.exe?

My point was that when the source code is available, the users will even write complete replacements, instead of just adding small patches.

The point you missed is that OS-component-level replacements have more to do with interfaces inside the OS than the inner workings of the entire product.

On Windows, for example, as an user you are free to replace and rewrite drivers for any piece of hardware even if you don't have the source for the OS. Another feature of Windows, a defined ABI, allows Wine to continue running Windows code, even when the internals of Windows change. Another feature of Windows, the modular I/O system, lets you to modify behavior the file system through filters (without worrying about how I/O works internally). You can basically write your own file system, or even extend NTFS, using this, all without knowing how Windows works internally.

The Linux kernel, historically since it was based on UNIX was not modular. Now it has some of the things NT has, and also some cool stuff that NT doesn't.

I think there are dwm.exe replacements for Windows. See bblean[0].

[0]: http://bb4win.sourceforge.net/bblean/

I have no idea what bblean is, but my goal is now to have it up and running on my home windows box by the end of the weekend. Thanks duck2!

You might also like https://github.com/NathanCastle/BootShellCredentialProvider

"""BootShellCredentialProvider - Bringing Linux DEs to Windows

BSCP lets you boot Windows directly into a Linux desktop experience, using Windows' native Logon UI and a combination of Xming & WSL upon login."""

> The GPL is a much-needed defence. [...] We need to bring back the rebellious attitude of the late 90s and early 00s.

Open Source has been commodified into free-as-in-beer stuff to build the next product - that will spy on us.

The shift happened when people became less ideological and more practical/expedient/impatient. As someone whose been using Linux since the 0.9x days, Linux was always about ideology, not technology. It helped that the kernel at some point became 'good enough' , but that was never the point of installing Linux on everything. Its hard to maintain that kind of intensity as a single individual, much less as a collective. At some point, people burn out or lose their drive. But I'm optimistic that it will be back.

> At some point, people burn out or lose their drive.

Or grow older.

I started playing with Linux around 1995 - first distro I tried was "Monkey Linux" (ugh!). Eventually moved on to Turbo Linux 2.0, then Redhat 4.2 (IIRC), then SuSE...

Anyhow - maybe not since the beginning, but long enough. I was a lot younger then, and perhaps more idealistic than today. But I do agree with the OP that we need to return to our roots on this, and get that drive back.

...and I agree with you that it will be back. Maybe it should start with us first.

With the shift to SaaS, more companies are open sourcing their stuff then ever before.

AGPL is unpopular because the lawyers are afraid of it :(

> Only unimportant scraps of code can be free, but the real code must remain secret, restricted, proprietary.

That just seems like entitlement. "Home Depot released a really awesome free toolbox that has everything you need to build a house, but they didn't release the blueprints for Home Depot brand houses, boo hoo"

Home Depot doesn't release software that controls how my computer which I own works, without my knowledge or consent (for example, radio firmware).

Proprietary software is about control and ownership. Those peddling make it sound like it's an inevitable aspect of business. Since businesses exist that don't rely on proprietary software at all, we know it isn't actually inevitable.

I was talking more about companies like Facebook releasing React (toolbox) without releasing their actual project source (house).

Giving power to the users can be costly and so often software is proprietary if only to mitigate risk. For example, I work for a satellite ISP. If the software running on the modems were completely open down to the radio firmware, normal customers could bring down the entire network by commanding the radio to setup a continuous wave that interferes with other people in the same satellite beam. Or a competitor could look at our source and see which TCP optimizations we have made for the satellite link and copy them (depending on your stance on software patents, this would be hard to protect).

So yes, you can "buy" and "own" one of our modems, but solving the aforementioned issues would take a lot of thought, a lot of money, and probably a lot of (hardware) cryptography to prevent malicious radio usage if the software were completely free as in freedom.

I miss those days too. Computing was a lot more fun.

But the way things were back then depended on peoples' attitudes, and those have all changed, for the worse. You might as well give up; those days are over. People don't care about FOSS, GPL, Linux, etc., except as a means to an end (more profits). The corporations have won, and we might as well get used to constant spying.

Also worth mentioning is that this is part of a bigger problem in society. Everything in western (particularly American) society is going downhill, and has been for the last 16 years. We just need to realize that this is inevitable and unavoidable: all societies collapse and fail at some point. The Roman Empire didn't last forever, nor did the British Empire. Internal stresses, corruption, etc. eventually take their toll and it becomes impossible to reverse course. Every big society has collapsed at some point, or at least turned into a has-been, and it's our turn next.

People don't care about FOSS -> society is going to collapse.

I would argue that if "western" society collapses, it's pretty much the end of humanity. I don't think the Roman Empire was responsible for half the world's GDP and at least half the world's nuclear arsenal... Also, the British are still around. They just gave up trying to control the whole world in an era before speed of light communication.

I never said that people not caring about FOSS was going to lead to societal collapse, I said that it was a symptom of a much larger problem in society that will lead to collapse.

As for the British, they're completely irrelevant these days, and becoming even less so with Brexit.

Realistically, the colonial era and Brexit were symptoms of two totally different issues. The greater British empire disintegrated in much the same way as those belonging to the Dutch, French, and Spanish. Brexit was the result of the EU being very dependent financially on England (and Germany etc) but it wasn't an issue of England disintegrating, it was the EU falling apart (and if you like a little conspiracy for breakfast, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics).

>I would argue that if "western" society collapses, it's pretty much the end of humanity.

I think humanity would be just fine without "western" society.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/1_AD_to_...

I'd really like to know where they came up with those numbers. For instance, the graph shows the USA near zero until a few centuries ago, but still non-zero, particularly around 1000CE where it goes up a little before going back down until it begins its steady climb just after 1700. There was no "USA" in 1000CE.

And seriously, how they they possible come close to quantifying relative GDPs in ancient times, or even as early as the 1700s or 1800s?

https://www.amazon.com/Contours-World-Economy-1-2030-Macro-E...

People don't care about FOSS, GPL, Linux, etc., except as a means to an end (more profits).

I see lots and lots of code, created and shared by volunteers.

I'd argue it is even more than before only now everyone is trying to get javascript, node and react into everything instead of Linux. (Possibly because running Linux in anything doesn't give any braggung rights today?)

> You might as well give up; those days are over...we might as well get used to constant spying.

I find it disheartening to see these statements on a site called "Hacker News"; the only way I'd be disappointed further is if I read such a defeatist missive within the editorial pages of 2600 Magazine.

Remember - they only win if we give up and let them win.

Wrong. People constantly lose despite pouring all their best efforts into something. I'm sure some amateur military historian can give you plenty of examples where some army lost simply because they were defeated by overwhelming opposing force.

Surely you've heard the saying "pick your battles carefully". Sometimes it makes a lot more sense to just give up and look for greener pastures.