What is the libre software message to the average computer user?
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
The average computer user can neither read nor write code and therefore cannot directly benefit from at least half the essential software freedoms.
The average computer user relies on proprietary software developers to not abuse user freedom and privacy. If these users switch to libre software, they'll be relying on the libre software community instead because these users still won't be able to read/write/vet/change code.
So, if you want average computer users to switch to libre software, what is your message to them, given that they'd largely still be powerless and wholly dependent on strangers for their software? What would you say to them? How would they be freer?
I thought we get the benefits of free software community even though I don't know to code in X language.
Freedom 0 and 2 do not require to code, but are essential for a community of users.
I think you are saying why are Freedom 1 and 3 essential for us ordinary users?
I think the vision is that ordinary users need not feel that they incapable of writing and reading code. They may want to learn; a freedom does not decide who gets to learn.
I understand that software is not just defined as code, but includes the documentation too. I could be wrong, but I think I learned about this in school too.
> I thought we get the benefits of free software community even though I don't know to code in X language.
Do you mean freedom 0 and 2, or some other community benefits?
> Freedom 0 and 2 do not require to code, but are essential for a community of users.
That's true, but how useful are freedom 0 and 2 to an ordinary user? Most libre software doesn't run on MacOS or Windows, the most popular operating systems. Most people who want to use libre software will therefore have to install a whole new operating system, which is unfamiliar and potentially risky for average users. Then they will have to get accustomed to using the new operating system and learn to troubleshoot it without Apple or Microsoft support. In other words, taking advantage of freedom 0 takes a lot of work for most people.
As for freedom 2, there aren't many people to distribute libre software to because most people run MacOS or Windows.
So a non-coder can't take advantage of two of the freedoms, one of the freedoms requires a lot of (probably ongoing) work, and the last freedom isn't useful in most cases. I don't think this is attractive to ordinary computer users, and I'm curious what the libre software community has thought about this unattractiveness.
> I think you are saying why are Freedom 1 and 3 essential for us ordinary users?
I'm asking: How does one present these as freedoms to people who cannot code? Are non-coders effectively being told "trust libre developers just like you trust proprietary software developers"? Is there a difference between trusting these two given that non-coders cannot verify that libre software doesn't include malicious code?
> I understand that software is not just defined as code, but includes the documentation too.
That's a good point: documentation of libre software is also free. However, I have found free software documentation to be incomplete and poorly written. Plus, documentation for using Windows OS and many proprietary programs is also freely available online.
Freedom 0 and 2 do not require to code, but are essential for a community of users.
Indeed.
I think you are saying why are Freedom 1 and 3 essential for us ordinary users?
Non-programmers indirectly benefit from Freedoms 1 and 3. Since any user who can read source code can know what it really does, free software almost never includes malware. Why would those who want to harm their users (with trackers, backdoors, etc.) take the risk to let them read the source code? Its availability is an opportunity to learn how to program too.
As for modifying the program, even if nobody in the user community can program, that community can pay a programmer and give her the source code for modifications (bug correction or new features). That is particularly useful if the initial developers have stop maintaining the software.
In the end, the user community, even if it does not include programmers, can control the software only if that software is free as in freedom.
> Its availability is an opportunity to learn how to program too.
Learning to code via pre-existing software is extremely inefficient if not impossible unless one already has some programming skills.
It's like trying to learn a foreign language by reading books written for adult native speakers of that language.
I am a translator!
I sometimes feel that there aren't enough people writing code. When I was writing code, I found it fun. I still find it fun, but my job is also fun then I stopped writing code. I probably should do it again.
I also feel a bit powerless when it comes to all the software I am using, this is too much to even try reading, and I don't see much guidance on where to start.
Could there be enough people writing code so that anyone has a friend who can do it and then can more easily realize the benefit of freedom 1 an 3? I don't know.
I think it is a good question to consider.
Nowadays, at least in Europe and Denmark, where I live, there is a rapidly growing consciousness that not only do we need to get out of big tech's sticky web but also that at least public computers and it-infrastructure should rely on (free and) open source software. This is not because more people have developed an interest in code or coding, but because external factors has made it clear for many, that the current system is abusive and that that is possible partly because we - as individuals and as a society - have no knowledge of what the software and services we are using do to and against us.
So far, the number of people and organisations who have switched to (F)OSS are few, but they are there, and there is a growing tendency which we should appreciate.
I think that a very large group of people - perhaps the majority - would like to switch but alas, the wall is still to steep and the costs are still too high for them. A lot of (small) organisations and (small) companies report of a huge interest.
Anyway, for many, many people, what they need is not a message but manageable alternatives.
(Personally, I do not understand why it is so hard for them to reject "services", products and providers that are obviously harmful to both themselves, their family and friends, and society at large).
> I think that a very large group of people - perhaps the majority - would like to switch
Why do you think this? I think most people are oblivious to issues of computing freedom.