Hacker News Reader

>Lets say my time is billed at about $50/month, which is low for a software engineer. Now lets say a Linux desktop/laptop requires 5 hours of system admin time per month to troubleshoot drivers, upgrades, etc. That means a Linux desktop/laptop costs $250/month. For that price I could buy a new Mac every 10-12 months. I have a Mac right now and spend less than 30 minutes per month futzing around with it, so it's far cheaper.

Or you can just buy from a GNU and/or Linux vendor that supports their own hardware and distro and get the same benefits. (System76, Purism, etc)

>Telling busier, poorer, or older people with families they should set up their own servers or run their own Linux systems is sort of a "why do they not eat cake?" attitude.

Why? When it comes to servers the actual alternative there is either telling them to buy a Windows server, or start paying cloud providers, neither of which really have a lower money/time investment in all cases when you get into it. This is assuming that the reason someone wants to have their own server is to have a home business. (And if you're on the cloud there's a good chance you'll end up running Linux there anyway)

Thank you for your contribution to this discussion.

I believe these different ideologies can coexist. You can call me "nerds or people who don't have the work," I'll keep writing the free software and making the money.

I'm also free to continue to promote my ideology. No need for name calling.

> The general public gets lock-in and surveillanceware. This is structurally elitist and classist and is AFAIK the opposite of what is intended.

You (and the other replies) are missing the main point of reciprocal/protective licenses like GPL:

To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization".

You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS.

Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs.

> To pass down freedom (including freedom FROM surveillance) to end users. Avoid lock-in and "tivoization".

But has the GPL accomplished any of this in practice? The Linux kernel rejected GPLv3 with it's tivoization clause, and for some embedded device it seems quite easy to avoid GPLv3 if you wanted. GPLv3, as it's adopted today, is just not a threat to evil companies that want to tivoize their products.

> You are probably thinking about weak/non-protective licenses. They are commonly used on locked-down systems like Android or cloud/SaaS.

> Various developers and companies complained that that form of FLOSS has been coopted into unpaid labor for FAANGs.

Again, what has been accomplished here? AGPL has been soundly rejected, and plain GPL doesn't really protect against the FAANGs.

It's not like if left-pad had been AGPLv3, all the FAANGs would have bought some expensive proprietary license to use that awesome library. In reality, nothing would have been gained by pushing away freeloading FAANGs.

I'm not saying you're wrong to worry about FAANGs. I think massive economic inequality, and the extent to which economic wealth can be turned into political power is poisonous to democracy. I'm just increasingly skeptical that copyleft licensing is a meaningful tool to combat this. And no, I don't have answers either..

You mentioned upthread that Free software is helping create a dystopia, and you mention above that Free software is more usable for people that have more resources.

Do you have a proposal to address these issues? I ask because I see that you're not happy with things as they are, but I'm not sure what GNU can do to address your concerns.