[Fsf-friends] Solutions [was So what is the problem?]

Ramanraj K ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in
Thu Sep 23 17:31:12 IST 2004


M Sasikumar wrote:

   > I understand the values of free software, open source and the so-called
   > proprietary software. But I am not one to take a religious stand on
   > these. If these are what we claim these are, then they are capable of
   > finding their own defense. They do not need to be pushed down someone's
   > throat, least of all, by general bashing and cribbing.

The fsf-friends mailing list exists to promote Free Software, and I
guess most of us here have volunteered to contribute, without wasting
time on needless prattle. It is rather strange that many are willing to
swallow non-free software down their throats but raise objections to
savouring free software freedom :)

Complaints, even if dubbed as bashing or cringing, help to remedy the
malaise before more harm or damage is done.  A majority assume that
someone somewhere would be attending to these issues, but as it
often turns out, none may be paying attention.  Thank you very much for
paying attention and I hope this interaction can help to bring in
changes that may be of use to one and all.

   > We must understand that the growth in IT industry and the vast 
number of
   > applications we see today are to a large part due to the so called
   > proprietary software and the associated companies. Even the growth of
   > good desktop environments on Linux came out of the need to counter
   > Windows. Today, it is easy for someone to stand up and say "goto hell"
   > to commercial institutions "selling" software.
   > Remember that everything has its own place. Let us also not forget that
   > FOSS movement itself caught on its momentum largely after big
   > "commercial" industries started supporting it. It does not take a 
lot of
   > research to figure out why they are doing this.

Many books like "Free For All" narrate the history of free software
interestingly and give a clear picture about the co-operation between
various institutions and entities.  Negative pressure from certain
commercial entities have helped to strengthen the resolve.

When I opted to use a computer for work, I dumped the manual
typerwriter that I had been using for more than 10 years with a heavy
heart, because it never let me down even once during its life time.  The
manual typewriter probably got recycled into a printer and got a fresh
lease of life.  Migrating to free software is probably more easy than
anything else.  Getting rid of non-free software that frequently crash,
fail, invite virus, almost impossible to fix because  the source
code is a secret, apart from costing a fortune, should be fairly easy to
forget as a terrible nightmare.  Don't worry about the proprietary
companies: they will quickly change their ways and learn to live life in
the new environment.

BTW, the X Server was designed to  be used in a networked environment,
with a client/server model in mind  in 1980's, before MS Windows came.
The concepts behind  X Server  are original and  not found in  other
other operating systems.   It is  the X Server  concept that  makes
possible several  very  different  desktop  environments  -  like  KDE,
gnome, failsafe,  fvwm2,  icewm,  mwm,  olwm, twm,  DyDe,
Enlightenment  and others, with each  environment having their own wide
range of themes. This  is  an  innovative  idea  that  makes a  lot
of  sense,  giving flexibility and usability  to support a wide range
of users and uses.  Therefore, trite comments about Gnu/Linux desktops
are only amusing.

Free software gives users of computers maximum freedom in using,
copying, studying, sharing and improving software.  All other
considerations are extraneous, and not really germane here. Many
proprietary companies have wisely supported these ideas, not only in
their own interest, but also understanding the efficiency and
productivity that could be achieved by using these principles and
philosophy.  Many proprietary companies have found niches
to earn profits without taking away the computing freedoms of users.

RMS founded and led the free software movement, struggling for more than
20 years now, and your, "Today, it is easy for someone to stand up and
say 'goto hell'", is a true complement for the success of the movement.
    We certainly can do without non-free software or those who insist upon
imposing artificial restrictions to undermine computers.

   > I am all for supporting FOSS and encouraging it. We are doing it on our
   > own way. But having some Windows machine in the premises is not  a sin.
   > Teaching Windows to students is also not a sin. The students we teach
   > are meant for the industry out there. So we cannot separate education
   > completely from industry. I agree, we need a balance. We are doing 
that.
   > As the world changes, we will also change. In some cases we change
   > before the world - but we cant be too ahead of the world, particularly
   > when it comes to education and industry interaction.

When free software based on open standards is available, it does become
meaningless to teach non-free software based on secrecy with no clues
about how the software works or functions.  It is unscientific to rely
upon such tools for general use.  Migration from non-free software to
free software is much desirable.  Please frame courses that would
encourage migration from using non-free to free software.  If such
courses are already offered, please give wide publicity to such programs.

When austerity measures are called for every now and then, spending
public funds on non-free software ignoring availability of free software
    could only be seen as sinful by right thinking people. As it has been
point out here, even very rich and affluent nations like the US have
framed strict guidelines asking public authorities to use free software,
and I hope atleast some of the higher institutions spearheading
development and training efforts here have the vision to take the right
steps forward.





More information about the Fsf-friends mailing list