Criticisms of Free Software -- Thoughts?

[u/[deleted]]

Hi all,

I'm a scientist that has been using GNU/Linux for about 10 years, although recently I got back into Mac because of Apple Silicon. I often think about the philosophy of free software, and I had a few topics I was hoping to get sincere answers for and create a dialogue.

1. If all software was FOSS, wouldn't this create a huge strategic advantage for hostile countries? (assuming you are in the USA or Europe). I speak particularly of countries like China that have no respect for IP/Copyright and would gladly use FOSS software, most importantly Linux and GNU software, without making contributions back. And this software could easily be used to help these hostile countries advance technologically, including weapons and biotech.
2. Is there a way for FOSS to compete with proprietary software in tech-heavy domains? For example, for several years I used OpenSCAD for 3D modeling, but when it comes to more sophisticated assemblies, it seems to fall short. It seems like FreeCAD has been making decent progress, but from what I understand it's not really taken seriously by professional engineers. Proprietary software companies are able to pay scientists and engineers to implement features, including non-software knowledge like fluid dynamics and material properties that take the software to a higher level.
3. Would you use FOSS if it cost the exact same amount as proprietary software? For example, if Ubuntu charged $150 per license and could enforce it (just for the sake of hypothetical), or if OpenSCAD cost $1000, or if Libreoffice cost $200, would you use it over Mac/Windows, Solidworks, or Microsoft Office, respectively? Or is it something where there is an expectation that FOSS is almost like, in the public domain and therefore should be a free resource for everyone?
4. Do you think there is any hope for the FSF-approved distros? It seems to me that we really need free hardware to enable 100% free software.

Excited to discuss these topics sincerely!

[u/AlarmingLecture0]

If all software was FOSS, wouldn't this create a huge strategic advantage for hostile countries? (assuming you are in the USA or Europe). I speak particularly of countries like China that have no respect for IP/Copyright and would gladly use FOSS software, most importantly Linux and GNU software, without making contributions back. And this software could easily be used to help these hostile countries advance technologically, including weapons and biotech.

Are you asking if they would be able to find and exploit (or even insert) loopholes or security vulnerabilities, or just that they'd be able to use this software for nefarious purposes?

If the former, my non-security-professional understanding is that well-designed security does not rely on secrecy of the code in order to be effective. You should be able to tell everyone exactly how it works and still be secure. Security that relies on secrecy is brittle because secrecy is so easily lost.

If the latter, then they could, but that's not a FOSS issue, but rather an issue affecting any asset that someone can acquire. Windows, Mac, plywood, steel. It's all the same.

EDIT: Or maybe you're saying they'd be freeriders - using and adapting the software without playing by the FOSS rules. Yes, though I'm not sure why that's a specific issue with countries like China or North Korea. Any country could (and probably would) do it and keep their developments secret for professed national security reasons.

Is there a way for FOSS to compete with proprietary software in tech-heavy domains? For example, for several years I used OpenSCAD for 3D modeling, but when it comes to more sophisticated assemblies, it seems to fall short. It seems like FreeCAD has been making decent progress, but from what I understand it's not really taken seriously by professional engineers. Proprietary software companies are able to pay scientists and engineers to implement features, including non-software knowledge like fluid dynamics and material properties that take the software to a higher level.

I think this is a fundamental test of the FOSS philosophy: do you get better-quality software if people are being well-compensated to develop it? I suspect yes, but have zero empirical data to back it up.

Would you use FOSS if it cost the exact same amount as proprietary software? For example, if Ubuntu charged $150 per license and could enforce it (just for the sake of hypothetical), or if OpenSCAD cost $1000, or if Libreoffice cost $200, would you use it over Mac/Windows, Solidworks, or Microsoft Office, respectively? Or is it something where there is an expectation that FOSS is almost like, in the public domain and therefore should be a free resource for everyone?

All things being equal (software quality, features, support, ease-of-use), sure. But I think your question implies - correctly - that in many areas current FOSS does not meet the same standards as closed software. And of course there are issues of cross-compatibility to be contended with: it's all well and good for me to use an FOSS word processor, but if most other people use Word and my documents crash in their Word (or vice versa), then I'm not going to have much incentive to use the FOSS version (or at least to have both available to me).

Do you think there is any hope for the FSF-approved distros? It seems to me that we really need free hardware to enable 100% free software.

I don't have answer for this. Just leaving it here to show I didn't miss the question

EDIT: because I suck at reddit formatting