Free software and communism

[yannbane]

This thread is for discussing RevLeft's/communist positions on free software (if they exist).

First off, I'm sorry if I'm posting in the wrong forum.

Second, I'm not even sure whether you have a position on it - but if you do I'd like to hear it - whether it's a personal one or a generally accepted one (I'm new here, so I really wouldn't know).

Thirdly, lets just define free software:


“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them.

For more information about free software, please visit: www DOT gnu DOT org/philosophy/philosophy DOT html

Specifically, this part is interesting, as it reminds me of the usual Marxist rhetoric.:


When users don't control the program, the program controls the users. The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users. This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an instrument of unjust power.

Also, this reference to the difference between software and other commodities is an interesting debate subject as well:


Software differs from material objects - such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline - in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These facilities are why software is useful; we believe a program's users should be free to take advantage of them, not solely its developer.

I made this thread because, mostly, all the hackers/free software activists that I have known in real life, along with all the communists or sympathizers, have mostly been the same people, or very intermingled.

However, I am not sure whether that is a rule, as it might be very specific to my region - and I'd like to hear about the whole story from the other perspective (the people I've referred to have, from my point of view, primarily been hackers, and not communists).

This thread can be extended to the role of programmers and hackers and pirates in general, in a communist society - as they seem to be quite a new epidemic. (Heck, most electronic technology is.)

[robbo203]

This thread is for discussing RevLeft's/communist positions on free software (if they exist).

First off, I'm sorry if I'm posting in the wrong forum.

Second, I'm not even sure whether you have a position on it - but if you do I'd like to hear it - whether it's a personal one or a generally accepted one (I'm new here, so I really wouldn't know).

Thirdly, lets just define free software:



Specifically, this part is interesting, as it reminds me of the usual Marxist rhetoric.:

Also, this reference to the difference between software and other commodities is an interesting debate subject as well:



I made this thread because, mostly, all the hackers/free software activists that I have known in real life, along with all the communists or sympathizers, have mostly been the same people, or very intermingled.

However, I am not sure whether that is a rule, as it might be very specific to my region - and I'd like to hear about the whole story from the other perspective (the people I've referred to have, from my point of view, primarily been hackers, and not communists).

This thread can be extended to the role of programmers and hackers and pirates in general, in a communist society - as they seem to be quite a new epidemic. (Heck, most electronic technology is.)


There is an article on the subject on the "For Genuine Free Access Communism" group page here

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5455

[argeiphontes]

I'm an IT guy and all I work with is Open Source software (not by accident, either, though right now I wish I was an MCSE based on the job openings where I live) so I've thought about this a little. I'll probably respond in more detail tomorrow (it's 2AM in my time zone and I have a headache; I also need to take some time and read the article robbo203 linked to) but I wanted to say a couple of things so I don't forget them...

In addition to the nature of the product itself, you'll note that Open Source is produced by self-managed teams of free enthusiasts, and yet manages to kick the ass of billion dollar companies. I think this says something about the limits of capitalist production methods, even if particular projects aren't particularly egalitarian. (They're certainly more egalitarian than a corporation.)

Maybe I'm biased (it's nice to think you're at the forefront of something), but I think IT in general is a space where some limits of capitalism are showing themselves acutely. I also think there's some potential there to spread the idea of worker collectives, since the capital to produce software or maintain hardware systems is cheap. Not when you make an in-depth calculation of the total cost to put the information into your brain, of course. But in a dishing-out-cash for property, plant, and equipment sense it is.

I'll think about it some more... I don't usually get to rant about this stuff so it could get interesting. ;-) Thanks for the post.

:wq

[tuwix]

This thread is for discussing RevLeft's/communist positions on free software (if they exist).


IMHO freeware is expression of human aspiration to communism. Many of freeware programmers didn't realize that, but it is only expression of global trend. There are others too. For example, Polsih town of Żory has made public communicatin within free. And in future everything will be free.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The fascinating aspect of free software is that it competes head to head with proprietary, corporately owned software -- and wins. I just installed Linux on my old tower and I am quite happy.

Just think if socialism could compete like that with capitalism.

[argeiphontes]

I think it can. I'm still working on my diatribe/manifesto thing so haven't responded. What distro do you have? I'm using OpenSUSE right now because I like the KDE desktop and don't like the Apple-like feel Ubuntu is going for, but every once in a while I do something interesting. Or real lunatic-fringe like Gentoo. ;)

It's great that you can install Linux with a lightweight desktop like XFCE and suddenly that old dog of a computer is running smoothly again. No more planned obsolescence, and I don't think the learning curve is as bad as it used to be. Besides, you'll never get malware or viruses. If there are Linux viruses, I've never seen one at home or at work. (There are parasitic browser plugins, but that's because browsers are becoming their own little operating systems, which is why you can play Angry Birds in Chrome even if you're offline...)

edit: and the learning curve is really a trade off. the more you know, the less time you spend getting support or fixing problems, and you end up being able to ditch for-profit software. I don't even know how much a full version of MS Office costs these days but it's probably pushing a thousand.

[liberlict]

Free software is great, but so far it hasn't been able to come close to proprietary software in terms of quality. People talk about Linux, but it was more or less stolen from Unix, which was commercial. This forum uses commercial software. It even has advertisements lofl.

[argeiphontes]

stolen from Unix

Actually, Linux, or properly GNU/Linux (don't want to disappoint RMS) is API compliant with some Unix in that it implements the POSIX standard, the Single Unix Standard, and various ISO/ANSI operating system standards. You don't have to steal anything to have interoperable libraries that provide the systems API while under the hood having been programmed from scratch. The differences between the various *NIX are handled by automake and autoconf at configure time when you're compiling and installing a package.

Could you point out some specific code that you think was stolen from Unix? We can run a diff against the same GNU code and see how many lines are identical. Also, which Unix are you talking about? System V? BSD? I think the lawsuits have already addressed this but I'm willing to help you prove it was all stolen. The easiest thing would be to run a diff of the Linux kernel against a Unix you'd like to check. Maybe Truix or HPUX? :-P

Computing history can be nerdy fun. Check out the Open Group's Unix history page: http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html

Thanks for playing.

sleep( sizeof( bullshit ) );

[liberlict]

Actually, Linux, or properly GNU/Linux (don't want to disappoint RMS) is API compliant with some Unix in that it implements the POSIX standard, the Single Unix Standard, and various ISO/ANSI operating system standards. You don't have to steal anything to have interoperable libraries that provide the systems API while under the hood having been programmed from scratch. The differences between the various *NIX are handled by automake and autoconf at configure time when you're compiling and installing a package.

Could you point out some specific code that you think was stolen from Unix? We can run a diff against the same GNU code and see how many lines are identical. Also, which Unix are you talking about? System V? BSD? I think the lawsuits have already addressed this but I'm willing to help you prove it was all stolen. The easiest thing would be to run a diff of the Linux kernel against a Unix you'd like to check. Maybe Truix or HPUX? :-P

Computing history can be nerdy fun. Check out the Open Group's Unix history page: http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html

Thanks for playing.

sleep( sizeof( bullshit ) );



I think the last UNIX was system 10 or something wasn't it? I forget. I'm not sure diffing the current linux kernel with unix would prove anything . I doubt you'd find anything meaningful because the codebase has evolved so much. I guess the best way to do it would be to diff linux 1.0 against whatever Linus used in the first place (Minix?). Or diff Minix against Unix. By all means, do that, it would be interesting lol. It's all academic to me. Linux is mostly be developed by people getting paid these days anyway. Point is, no Unix, no Linux.

If open source wants to prove it can battle the big boys it needs, IMO, to come up with an equivalent to Photoshop and Dreamweaver. GIMP/Inkscape etc are shit. Where are these equivalents? I can excuse the shitty GUI's on linux distros because of the graphics vendors are stingy with releasing the drivers. But there is no excuse for the lack of high quality, free open source software.

[ckaihatsu]

If open source wants to prove it can battle the big boys it needs, IMO, to come up with an equivalent to Photoshop and Dreamweaver. GIMP/Inkscape etc are shit. Where are these equivalents?


I come from a Macintosh background, and I have no issues with GIMP whatsoever, versus Photoshop. My advice to anyone making the switch is to grab the edge of the (left-side) tool palette and resize it to two or three tools wide so that it's more like what you're used to using with Photoshop. Also turn off 'layer boundaries' and give yourself time to adjust and learn the slightly different approach to image editing. There's an excellent suite of free plug-ins available here:

http://gmic.sourceforge.net/

I'll agree that Inkscape isn't quite like what one would be used to using with Adobe Illustrator, and also that Scribus is more like PageMaker than InDesign, but that doesn't disqualify these alternatives, either -- they're both quite capable at what they do.





I've switched my entire graphics pipeline over from the Mac to Linux *because* of the amount, ease, and quality of free software resources available for it.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft


Here's a list of website creation alternatives:

http://www.osalt.com/dreamweaver





I can excuse the shitty GUI's on linux distros because of the graphics vendors are stingy with releasing the drivers. But there is no excuse for the lack of high quality, free open source software.


The Linux desktop is *infintely* customizable according to your tastes -- maybe you just haven't found the right one yet. Try:

http://gnome-look.org/

[argeiphontes]

shitty GUI's on linux distros

Sorry about the aggressive nature of my previous post, I thought you were trolling.

Personally I think Windows is a shitty GUI compared to KDE Plasma, with its desktop effects, multiple workspaces, configurability, activities, etc. I've never seen anything as slick and well thought out, and I'd include Mac but I haven't used it recently. Linux is big in business, and I've spent a lot of time installing NVidia drivers and making 8-monitor desktops for aggro securities traders.

When I sit down at Windows I feel trapped because I can't use multiple workspaces and small dialogs can steal and keep focus. I've only used thru Windows 7. On TV at least, Windows 8 looks completely unusable to me, but maybe that's cause I'm older and set in my ways, I dunno.

I was big into photography a few years ago and never had a need for Photoshop, especially not at its price range ;)

I'm not going to say it's all good, there are trade-offs. I can barely stand the Network Management applet, but don't want to go back to manually configuring wpa_supplicant...

edit: And you can write your own KDE widgets in Python, which is something I've been meaning to try.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

In a way yes, in a way no.

Some programmer spent their hard effort into making that software/program. It's good for the consumer to get something free, but then the programmer get's no reward for his work.

Let's say I crafted a sword, it is a very useful sword. I put allot of sweat and tears into that sword. If I just gave it to someone for free, it would be generous on my part, and also benefiting to the person I gave it too.

If someone just stole it (i.e. illegally downloading), I would receive nothing in return, and I would be giving it away unwillingly.

[ckaihatsu]

---





[T]he free and open-source software movement could be termed a nascent, limited new mode of production since the production and distribution of free software takes on unique characteristics specific to the digital domain -- qualities that aren't found in conventional materials. The ease in making *unlimited* *perfect* copies of any software or media product dramatically cuts against any potential commodification of the product since potential consumers can validly ask what it is exactly that they're paying for -- is it more for a *copy* of a tangible material good, or is it more for the *service* of the programmer -- ? (If it's for the material *copy*, then the consumer is automatically overcharged since the actual *cost* of making any additional copy/ies is negligible -- almost nothing. And if it's for the *labor* of the programmers then how should that be calculated exactly, among those within a large pool of identical recipient consumers -- ?)

Releasing software into the public domain is a decent way of "resolving" this contradiction, then, though at the expense of the programmers -- not really a resolution, then, since it still exploits labor, though in this case to *directly* benefit the consumer, with no middleman (profit).

[Nakidana]

Let's say I crafted a sword, it is a very useful sword. I put allot of sweat and tears into that sword. If I j
If someone just stole it (i.e. illegally downloading), I would receive nothing in return, and I would be giving it away unwillingly.

Downloading isn't stealing, it's copying. You still have your sword, somebody just copied it.

If you want to have this discussion, you have to be able to distance yourself from the ridiculous MPAA propaganda, and realize that very basic difference.

[Sea]

In a way yes, in a way no.

Some programmer spent their hard effort into making that software/program. It's good for the consumer to get something free, but then the programmer get's no reward for his work.

Let's say I crafted a sword, it is a very useful sword. I put allot of sweat and tears into that sword. If I just gave it to someone for free, it would be generous on my part, and also benefiting to the person I gave it too.

If someone just stole it (i.e. illegally downloading), I would receive nothing in return, and I would be giving it away unwillingly.But workers are paid for their labor time, not for their production of use value. I've downloaded a great many swords in my time and I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that it hurts the programmers who made those swords.

[Hamguy]

If only linux was Good, most free software is crap and doesn't match up with proprietary software. sure if you are running a server a lightweight os is great. but if you are using linux as a Personal computer, i'd rather use the best os which is Windows. Windows doesn't feel like crap to use and has a very aesthetic GUI.

Linux could be better if it had direction, there are 100 different distros each with its own extensions. confusing the average user and fragmenting the software further. if all the linux people agreed to a unified extension they could probably churn out something good, like a thousand monkeys on typewriters. the success of linux has been to emulate the IOS and windows. which its failing at.

[Hamguy]

In a way yes, in a way no.

Some programmer spent their hard effort into making that software/program. It's good for the consumer to get something free, but then the programmer get's no reward for his work.

Let's say I crafted a sword, it is a very useful sword. I put allot of sweat and tears into that sword. If I just gave it to someone for free, it would be generous on my part, and also benefiting to the person I gave it too.

If someone just stole it (i.e. illegally downloading), I would receive nothing in return, and I would be giving it away unwillingly.

wouldn't the thought that thousands of people are using your sword and not someone elses sword give you any feelings? the whole point of the sword was for it to be used, its being served its purpose. and what gives you the notion that anyone knows who you are? lets say the sword was copied and gave to someone from some other country. would they have known to get it from you if it was never copied and given for free? you are a nobody and expect everyone on earth to know you.

[liberlict]

I come from a Macintosh background, and I have no issues with GIMP whatsoever, versus Photoshop. My advice to anyone making the switch is to grab the edge of the (left-side) tool palette and resize it to two or three tools wide so that it's more like what you're used to using with Photoshop. Also turn off 'layer boundaries' and give yourself time to adjust and learn the slightly different approach to image editing. There's an excellent suite of free plug-ins available here:

http://gmic.sourceforge.net/

I'll agree that Inkscape isn't quite like what one would be used to using with Adobe Illustrator, and also that Scribus is more like PageMaker than InDesign, but that doesn't disqualify these alternatives, either -- they're both quite capable at what they do.





Here's a list of website creation alternatives:

http://www.osalt.com/dreamweaver





The Linux desktop is *infintely* customizable according to your tastes -- maybe you just haven't found the right one yet. Try:

http://gnome-look.org/

I don't like GIMP but that's just a personal preference at the end of the day. What is objective fact is that very few companies choose to use this free software, instead of opting to pay exorbitant rates to Adobe for photoshop. There has to be a reason.

I keep renewing my Adobe trial licences every 30 days haha. I haven't tried GIMP or Inkscape for a year or so, though, so maybe I'll check out the latest version.

[ckaihatsu]

If only linux was Good,


Linux is *very* good in its fundamentals, and I'll take the time here to defend it.

My personal reservations, until recently, is that no one mix-and-matched the components just right for a good drop-in replacement desktop distro -- now there's Point Linux, which I find to be the *culmination* of the entire Linux endeavor:


Another significant update to the desktop Linux saga....

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2627751&postcount=72





most free software is crap and doesn't match up with proprietary software.


Free software is like shopping at a thrift store -- you may not see the major brands you're used to, and there's no 'store brand' available to fall back on. But if you know what you're looking for and 'use value' is your primary concern, you'll probably score just the right kind of thing for what you need. Just don't expect it to be exactly like what you've used before -- you may have to adjust your usage habits accordingly.





sure if you are running a server a lightweight os is great.


Make your spare computer work for you as a music jukebox

http://www.revleft.com/vb/make-your-spare-t169222/index.html





but if you are using linux as a Personal computer, i'd rather use the best os which is Windows. Windows doesn't feel like crap to use and has a very aesthetic GUI.


If your biggest hang-up is the GUI, you probably *should* try out several variations to find a distro that comes pre-packaged according to your liking. You can also customize any of them using pre-made look-and-feel downloads, and/or tweak to your heart's content.





Linux could be better if it had direction, there are 100 different distros each with its own extensions. confusing the average user and fragmenting the software further.


It's an inherent trade-off -- do you want the ease of a just-use-this-one, *monolithic* product and marketing campaign, with a price tag, or do you want the mass cooperation of d.i.y. efforts that build up to an array of capable choices to select from, for free -- ?





I don't like GIMP but that's just a personal preference at the end of the day. What is objective fact is that very few companies choose to use this free software, instead of opting to pay exorbitant rates to Adobe for photoshop. There has to be a reason.


I would say corporate culture.





I keep renewing my Adobe trial licences every 30 days haha. I haven't tried GIMP or Inkscape for a year or so, though, so maybe I'll check out the latest version.


Maybe try an experiment and do a project first as you're used to doing it, then see what it's like using an alternative method for it. Record time intervals, efforts, quality of results, etc....

[Popular Front of Judea]

Interestingly no one has mentioned yet that the internet -- on which we are having this conversation -- pretty much runs on Linux.

[argeiphontes]

Interestingly no one has mentioned yet that the internet -- on which we are having this conversation -- pretty much runs on Linux.

Otherwise they'd have to reboot the whole thing every few hours. We'd all become like the Okies in that South Park episode. ;)

[liberlict]

Sorry about the aggressive nature of my previous post, I thought you were trolling.

Personally I think Windows is a shitty GUI compared to KDE Plasma, with its desktop effects, multiple workspaces, configurability, activities, etc. I've never seen anything as slick and well thought out, and I'd include Mac but I haven't used it recently. Linux is big in business, and I've spent a lot of time installing NVidia drivers and making 8-monitor desktops for aggro securities traders.

When I sit down at Windows I feel trapped because I can't use multiple workspaces and small dialogs can steal and keep focus. I've only used thru Windows 7. On TV at least, Windows 8 looks completely unusable to me, but maybe that's cause I'm older and set in my ways, I dunno.

I was big into photography a few years ago and never had a need for Photoshop, especially not at its price range ;)

I'm not going to say it's all good, there are trade-offs. I can barely stand the Network Management applet, but don't want to go back to manually configuring wpa_supplicant...

edit: And you can write your own KDE widgets in Python, which is something I've been meaning to try.

No problem, I always come across like I'm trolling, even irl, I have to work on it.

The last KDE I used was the Ubuntu one back in '11. So cant comment on the latest versions but I didnt like it .. I always preferred the gnome versions rather than the KDE.

I also prefer Windows over Linux desktops (the ones I've tried). I personally don't want to write scripts for my desktop GUI, and I don't think many people do. That's one of the things I think holds linux back: they write their programs for other geeks instead of the average users. I know how to program but I don't even really care/have time for writing python scripts to customize my GUI. I have Linux Mint dual booted on my PC and I like it, but I'm always using Win 7 because the software I need is only available on Windows---specifically Dreamweaver and the Adobe suite.

In regards to KDE Plazma, I'm pretty sure it's written in qT C++ isn't it? If so, it's not really 'free' in any sense apart from the price.

The only way you are going to get a communistically 'free' OS these days is by getting on the RMS bandwagon and getting whatever he's promoting. Last time I investigated, he was bringing in some motherboard from brazil to stay open source!! MUCH RESPECT!! Most of the linux distros are developed by capitalists these days for whatever monetary reason.

There are some brilliant compilers out there that are more or less completely 'free', but it's so hard to get past the Wintel monopoly when dealing with PC's.

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
Have you tried this?

[argeiphontes]

Thanks for the reply... Well, Qt 4.5 's been released under LGPL I guess.

Sure, Linux is kinda for Geeks, but that's changing somewhat I think. Besides, I can be Marxist and say, change the userbase to change the superstructure. ;) If they come, you will build it. If you build it, they will come. Maybe a bit of a Catch-22...

I haven't tried Herd and don't intend to anytime soon... RMS might just be an OpenSource saint prone to noble but futile activities ;) Though admittedly GNU worked out well.

[Lowtech]

No, Linux isn't for geeks, its for people that can do basic things like install an operating system, use a command prompt and actually have a working understanding of their PC. That's like an apple user saying an android phone is for geeks.