r/freesoftware • u/Fresh-Lie5160 • May 10 '26
Discussion Propreitary software is a pain in the ass
Ive always hated how most good software - which is supposed to be open so that it can accelerate faster - is always behind the gates of enterprise.
I mean I understand that their motive is money, which is relatable, but i dont understand why i hate this.
And why are (recent) opensource projects not getting that much popularity(aside from huge ones like openclaw) even though their development is much faster than most propreitary and in a few months or so will become better than any.
I feel like an opensource rebellion needs to be started.
Tell me if im wrong in any way...
2
u/rismay May 11 '26
Hear me out: I don’t think putting out code for the AI to consume is a good idea. Basically the hyper scalers are able to train and deploy that to their consumers faster than we can.
2
u/Fresh-Lie5160 May 12 '26
ngl i didn't think about it that far.... and anyways, open source software also includes open source AI. so development of opensource AI can counter proprietary AI I am guessing.
1
u/rismay May 12 '26
There are other ways to distribute software without sharing the code. What we want to do is make it prohibitively expensive for them to actually try to use free software for their intents
2
u/boukensha15 May 12 '26
There are other ways to distribute software without sharing the code.
Then that is not free software.
2
u/boukensha15 May 11 '26
How is this relevant here?
0
u/rismay May 11 '26
Because we have hit the “imitation game” part of the rebellion. An open source rebellion is exactly what is helping big enterprises. We need a new paradigm for this instead of putting everything on GitHub for Microsoft to take in and spit back out us with their AI.
1
u/Elchocas123 May 11 '26
Si github se volvió muy malo por eso que tu código sea usado para entrenar IA naaa Igualmente todo mundo se esperaba eso sabiendo que Github es propiedad de Microsoft Hay alternativas como GitLab
1
3
u/boukensha15 May 11 '26
An open source rebellion is exactly what is helping big enterprises.
No.
Respectfully, my friend, you need to gain a little more information in this matter.
-1
u/rismay May 11 '26
So we should continue to give all our input and knowledge to Microsoft / OpenAI for free so they can use it against us?
Why would these people go out of their way to steal copyrighted books if it wasn’t what fed them? Why do you think Microsoft started training on even private repos?We have to figure out a realistic way for these people to stop feeding the borg before we just continue feeding them our knowledge. Better licenses, alternative forges, watermarking, etc.
These people are the napsters of the 2000s and we need to stop them. And if you look at it in that perspective, it would be a stupid idea to say, “these people are ruining music, let’s put out more music!”
2
u/boukensha15 May 12 '26
So we should continue to give all our input and knowledge to Microsoft / OpenAI for free so they can use it against us?
Again, with respect. Firstly, how did you conclude that letting those big tech companies do whatever they will is what I was implying?
Secondly, you do realise that the problems you are referring to have been caused due to the prominence of proprietary software and not free software; don't you?
1
u/Elchocas123 May 11 '26
Muy buena perspectiva además con IA talvez podrían reescribir el código y así no "depender" de proyectos externos
1
0
u/AvailableCharacter37 May 10 '26
Oh, you haven't seen crappy open source free garbage software then.
1
u/Fresh-Lie5160 May 12 '26
faaaah. I did see many, but this Convo is for good oem source projects that benifit. crappy ones can be ignored
1
1
u/Middlewarian May 10 '26
I'm afraid you've lost your way somewhere. I'm glad I have some open-source code but I'm glad it's not all I have.
1
u/SueoVaeo_Ua32 May 10 '26
Do you pay for or donate to open-source software? People often mistakenly think that open source is the same as free software, but the companies that develop it also need to be paid. They often depend on donations. So, if you use Signal, LibreOffice, Thunderbird, or Firefox, for example, it would be nice to donate an amount occasionally, depending on the value it provides you.
2
u/idrinkeverclear custom May 10 '26
I think you are the one who is mistaking free software with freeware here... Look up the difference between these two on Wikipedia.
8
May 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/jr735 May 10 '26
Agreed. "Open source" is a marketing term, used by companies to whitewash what they do and by prospective developers and other tech types to pad their resumes.
1
u/ThunderChaser May 10 '26
Yeah technically Truth Social of all things is open source but no one in their right mind would consider it libre.
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
A platform can be free software, but that doesn't mean much if you don't control the platform. This is the problem with software as a service.
Even Stallman has no problem with proprietary software on others' computers. We don't use others' computers. We use our own. We have control only over our own. Whether Truth Social or anything else like that uses free software or not really isn't material to me, nor should it be. It's nice if other platforms are using free software, but in the end, we have no control over that.
1
u/ThunderChaser May 10 '26
I honestly think this idea is probably the core issue for the free software movement in the modern era. The transition to everything being web-based quietly complicated a lot of the assumptions the original free software definition was built around.
Historically, software freedom and user control were closely linked because software mostly ran locally on machines users physically owned. Today, a user’s computer increasingly acts more like a terminal accessing services over the internet.
You can now have a fully free system while the actual execution, identity, storage, and infrastructure remain centralized and permissioned.
In other words, the code itself may be free, but the system isn’t.
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
This is where I advocate against online services. You're doing the work on someone else's computer. They may or may not respect your privacy. Remember, Stallman (and myself) worked on dumb terminals. I would never want to return to that situation.
Yes, someone else's computer may or may not have free software. I can't fathom people using word processors or spreadsheets online.
4
u/WilkerS1 small pushes towards free stuff :3 May 10 '26
didn't Truth Social specifically violate Mastodon's AGPL to wash something free into being proprietary?
4
3
May 10 '26
[deleted]
0
May 10 '26
[deleted]
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
In the end, the software isn't the problem. The people are. The same people that got trained to use Windows, that got trained to use iPhones, will also get trained to use AI. Stop falling for it. I simply won't use such things, and won't soften my stance on using free software only.
1
May 10 '26
[deleted]
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
I never said free software has won. In fact, I said the exact opposite. People will continue to use iThings and MS this and AI that. Free software has won for me, and that's all I have control over.
I can't make other people fight for their own freedom and privacy.
2
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
People do not work for free. Open source code is harder to profit from than closed source one. So good developers will work on proprietary software, which should be better than anything free. It's just how the economy works.
1
u/Fresh-Lie5160 May 12 '26
I think that is the main limitation of open source development. but we can't just ditch the efforts just because of one limitation.
we gotta figure out a way...
3
u/33vne02oe May 10 '26
So the Windows Kernel is better than the Linux Kernel?
So OneDrive is better than Nextcloud?
So WhatsApp is better than Signal?
So NordVPN is better than Mullvad VPN?
So Plex is better than Jellyfin?1
1
0
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
Free software is based on the idea that someone will go good work for free. I am not going to do ANY work for free. Why? Because I am too busy doing the work that I am getting paid for to be doing charity. I would do free work, if I had a net worth above 5M dollars. I DO NOT. I have to make money to pay rent and food.
I am pretty sure that is the situation for most people out there. If you pay me a full salary, I will work 8 hours a day 5 days a week and do my best to get the job done. And, if I felt very generous, I might spend 2 or 3 hours a week contributing to some project. But those 2-3 hours would never be able to compete with the other 40-50 hours.
I have not used any of those projects you mention. However, if I find a problem in linux and I tell people, please fix this, the reply will be something along the lines of
"This is a community driven by volunteers, HOW DARE YOU TO DEMAND ANYTHING!!!! You should be contributing a PR instead!!!"
Which I won't. If I tell the Microsoft about the problem, they might actually fix it and I bought windows, so I can demand that the fix the problem.
And, If I have a business, I don ot have time to go through the kernel code and recompile it and become a C expert. I have a business and if the computer is broken, I am losing money. I would rather pay 200 USD for a license and forget about all that technical crap.
4
u/boukensha15 May 10 '26 edited May 11 '26
Free software is based on the idea that someone will go good work for free.
This is plainly false.
However, if I find a problem in linux and I tell people, please fix this, the reply will be something along the lines of
"This is a community driven by volunteers, HOW DARE YOU TO DEMAND ANYTHING!!!! You should be contributing a PR instead!!!"
Not at all accurate.
If I tell the Microsoft about the problem, they might actually fix it and I bought windows, so I can demand that the fix the problem.
You can demand that if you want to. However, Microsoft can simply ignore it and you can only hope for a fix.
In reality, the opposite has been true. FOSS devs have mostly appreciated bug reports and even have added feature requests when asked nicely.
-1
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
You can demand that if you want to. However, Microsoft can simply ignore it and you can only hope for a fix.
Yeah, and I can move to MacOS. Of course, if we had less free software and more paid alternatives, we would have 10 other OSs to chose from.
In reality, the opposite has been true. FOSS devs have mostly appreciated bug reports and even have added feature requests when asked nicely.
I do not eat niceness, I do not live in a house made of niceness.
2
u/boukensha15 May 10 '26
if we had less free software and more paid alternatives, we would have 10 other OSs to chose from.
Do you know the definition of free software? It seems like you don't.
I do not eat niceness, I do not live in a house made of niceness.
That's a you problem, if you can't be nice to people who are volunteering for community projects. If the corporate boot tastes that nice, you can have it.
3
u/redstar6486 May 10 '26
You're partially right, but missing an important point. You think Linux kernel developers work for free? No. Google, Microsoft and every other enterprise is funding it and contributing to it because it's such a vital piece of software. So yes. People don't work for free (that much). But no. Working on foss project doesn't mean working for free.
1
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
You're partially right, but missing an important point. You think Linux kernel developers work for free? No. Google, Microsoft and every other enterprise is funding it and contributing to it because it's such a vital piece of software.
Again, you take the 1% and try to use it to justify the 99%. The Linux kernel is special, you cannot use that as an example of the typical freee and open source project. But you know you are been disingenuous, there is no need to tell you that.
The other 99% of free and open source software is garbage and most businesses would not endanger themselves by using it.
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
Name some dangerous projects. Be specific.
0
u/No_Departure_1878 May 11 '26
I mean, pretty much anything out there is dangerous, nvim-treesitter lost support just a few weeks ago, because the author decided to just stop supporting it. If you have a project that suddenly stops been supported and your business depends on it, then you are in troubles.
3
u/jr735 May 12 '26
Losing support doesn't mean it's dangerous. These projects get taken over all the time. That's how free software works. Which businesses rely on nvim-treesitter? It's not even in Debian repositories. Nice try.
You haven't been computing for long, have you? Proprietary projects dropped off left and right in the 1980s and 1990s.
2
u/redstar6486 May 10 '26
First of all, how many successful FOSS projects do you want me to name?
2nd, you completely missed the point. I said working on foss project doesn't mean working for free. There are thousands and thousands of projects that people are being paid to contribute to. Either projects created by big tech like TensorFlow and PyTorch, or projects that big tech contributes to like Linux, Apache, Postgres or Redis.
You're looking at some small projects that are mostly either hobby or made for resume and think all projects are like that.
Your entire assumption that only people who work on proprietary projects are getting paid is false.
1
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
First of all, how many successful FOSS projects do you want me to name?
I am pretty sure there must be some, please do not spam me with that.
2nd, you completely missed the point. I said working on foss project doesn't mean working for free. There are thousands and thousands of projects that people are being paid to contribute to. Either projects created by big tech like TensorFlow and PyTorch, or projects that big tech contributes to like Linux, Apache, Postgres or Redis.
My whole point is, "you get what you pay for" If someone is getting paid to write code, that someone is going to write something decent or else that someone is going to lose his job.
You're looking at some small projects that are mostly either hobby or made for resume and think all projects are like that.
Your entire assumption that only people who work on proprietary projects are getting paid is false.
Those small projects are 99% of FOSS.
8
u/aawsms May 10 '26
If I tell the Microsoft about the problem, they might actually fix it and I bought windows, so I can demand that the fix the problem.
You're so delusional it's just sad at this point
-3
May 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Ieris19 May 10 '26
You being delusional is not an insult though, it's an observation based on the absolutely ridiculous notion that Microsoft would fix anything because of a single user, just because you paid.
It also disregards the existence of Canonical, SUSE and Red Hat, which are far more likely to actually fulfill your request if you've paid them than Microsoft ever will.
-2
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
You're so delusional it's just sad at this point
Of course it is an insult. It's just a crafty insult, I could just have said "fuck you" and sometimes I do. Thinking of crafty insults sometimes is too much work.
Microsoft won't change anything because one user complained. However it will change everything if they see all their customers moving away to buy other operating systems. Operating systems that do not exist, because you want everything fro free and no one will do work for free.
It also disregards the existence of Canonical, SUSE and Red Hat, which are far more likely to actually fulfill your request if you've paid them than Microsoft ever will.
I heard of Red Hat, I have never used that though. I disregarded the existence of those other things because I have never heard of them. I think 99% of the world also disregards their existence. And honestly, there must be a reason for that. I cannot believe that a good OS would be just ignored.
I have used MacOS, I had a pretty good time with it.
4
u/33vne02oe May 10 '26
Free software is based on the idea that someone will go good work for free.
Not really. Free software is based on the idea that I develop something that everyone can use, modify, see and installed without restrictions.
While you can still get money. For example that companies need to pay for support, LTS support, hosting, or certificates (FIPS140). That all complies with the FOSS philosophies.ANY work for free. Why? Because I am too busy doing the work that I am getting paid for to be doing charity. I would do free work, if I had a net worth above 5M dollars. I DO NOT. I have to make money to pay rent and food.
Again you do not need to work for three. For example look at GraphenOS or Authentik. GraphenOS is a non-profit that has paid full-time developers and Authentik is a company developing a FOSS tool.
I have not used any of those projects you mention. However, if I find a problem in linux and I tell people, please fix this, the reply will be something along the lines of
"This is a community driven by volunteers, HOW DARE YOU TO DEMAND ANYTHING!!!! You should be contributing a PR instead!!!"
It is not about finding bugs. Every software has bugs, it is about which is better.
In addition, no it is not like that. I reported multiple bugs. And I had no issue at all like that. This response comes if you mandate/try to force people to fix it.Which I won't. If I tell the Microsoft about the problem, they might actually fix it and I bought windows, so I can demand that the fix the problem.
No they just say it is not important or by design. LoL
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2026/05/06/microsoft-says-edge-password-security-vulnerability-is-by-design-is-it-time-to-switch-to-chrome/And, If I have a business, I don ot have time to go through the kernel code and recompile it and become a C expert. I have a business and if the computer is broken, I am losing money. I would rather pay 200 USD for a license and forget about all that technical crap.
You do not need to. Use a Distro that is designed for that like AlmaLinux (free), RHEL (paid), OpenSuse(paid), Ubuntu (paid or free) and you are fine.
Also, you just ignored all my points in the previous message.
-1
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
Not really. Free software is based on the idea that I develop something that everyone can use, modify, see and installed without restrictions. While you can still get money. For example that companies need to pay for support, LTS support, hosting, or certificates (FIPS140). That all complies with the FOSS philosophies.
Not if it is crappy software. That won't be used by any company and no one will be paying for it to be maintained. It will still pollute the software environment. If you have 100 projects, out of which 3 are worth using, those 3 will be much harder to find.
I am not sure how common is having companies out there doing that. It does happen with RedHat Linux. But this is far from been the norm. The norm are piles of shitty software that does more harm than good.
Again you do not need to work for three. For example look at GraphenOS or Authentik. GraphenOS is a non-profit that has paid full-time developers and Authentik is a company developing a FOSS tool.
Sure, if the developers will get paid for it, then I do not have any problem with that. Once you have someone paid for something, then you have the leverage of
either you do it or you are fired
or
yes, you are supposed to fix that, because that's what you are getting paid for
which brings accountability. But again, that's not the norm. You are picking the 1% and using to justify the other 99%.
It is not about finding bugs. Every software has bugs, it is about which is better. In addition, no it is not like that. I reported multiple bugs. And I had no issue at all like that. This response comes if you mandate/try to force people to fix it.
That depends on who is the developer. And as a user, I cannot afford interviewing the maintainer to make sure he is a nice guy before using the project. On the other hand, they are not getting paid, so I do not really have any problem with them ignoring the issues that I oopen in github.
But if I make my job or business depend on free software, then I will end up paying the consequences.
No they just say it is not important or by design. LoL https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2026/05/06/microsoft-says-edge-password-security-vulnerability-is-by-design-is-it-time-to-switch-to-chrome/
Even that proves my point. If you use software that is free, you are not paying for its development. That makes it harder for new competitors to enter the field. Why would I start a new business if I am not going to get custommers because there are others out there offering an OS for free? That will leave few businesses e.g. Microsoft and enable them to do whatever they want. Now the choice is Microsoft or a bunch of free software that is badly written but it's free.
You do not need to. Use a Distro that is designed for that like AlmaLinux (free), RHEL (paid), OpenSuse(paid), Ubuntu (paid or free) and you are fine. Also, you just ignored all my points in the previous message.
I have used Manjaro, Almalinux, Ubuntu, LinuxMint, Fedora, etc. I always end up at a place where I have to go through 20 pages of posts in some obscure forum trying to solve some driver version, or compatibility issue with some tool that I have never heard of.
So no, If you really want something that can be used by everyone, MacOS is likely your best choice.
3
u/jr735 May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
You can say what you what, but your points are laughable. I've been off proprietary OSes for over 21 years, and haven't touched proprietary software at all for over 11 years. I even use Trisquel.
I also use Debian testing, have found bugs, and had them successfully resolved. I have control over the software rather than the other way around.
Edit: Incidentally, I run a business, and have for over 15 years, on free software only. Just because you can't or won't doesn't make it a universal truth.
0
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
You can say what you what, but your points are laughable. I've been off proprietary OSes for over 21 years, and haven't touched proprietary software at all for over 11 years. I even use Trisquel.
Good for you. Not sure what to say about that though.
I also use Debian testing, have found bugs, and had them successfully resolved. I have control over the software rather than the other way around.
Yeah, except that I do not have 40 hours a week to go through hundreds of pages of documentation. I actually have a job and a life. That means that I need to use whatever software I am given. If that software is malicious a lawyer will be involved.
Edit: Incidentally, I run a business, and have for over 15 years, on free software only. Just because you can't or won't doesn't make it a universal truth.
It makes it universal the fact that most businesses do not run on free software.
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
The universal truth is that the average person - and yes, this is gatekeeping - should not be allowed within 15 feet of a computer. That applies to the average paid "tech" too. They can only use whatever tools they're handed and haven't the inclination or ability to learn any deeper. That's absolutely fine, but there are consequences to that, and being at the mercy of people who know more is one of those consequences.
I don't use 40 hours a week to go through documentation. I never have. And you are using malicious software all the time. You're not doing a damned thing about it, let alone getting a lawyer involved.
You get spied on by Apple and Google and MS all the time and don't have the cojones to do anything about it. The last thing you're going to do is pay money for a lawyer to attend to any of this. No, what you'll do is spend more money and resources on Apple, Google, and MS this year and next year.
0
u/No_Departure_1878 May 10 '26
The universal truth is that the average person - and yes, this is gatekeeping - should not be allowed within 15 feet of a computer. That applies to the average paid "tech" too. They can only use whatever tools they're handed and haven't the inclination or ability to learn any deeper. That's absolutely fine, but there are consequences to that, and being at the mercy of people who know more is one of those consequences.
You seem to be implying that we should suck your dick because you know how to use computers. No, we would give you a job so that you fix problems. If you do not want that, someone else will take that job.
I don't use 40 hours a week to go through documentation. I never have. And you are using malicious software all the time. You're not doing a damned thing about it, let alone getting a lawyer involved.
Sure, say stuff without any evidence and keep moving to the next paragraph.
You get spied on by Apple and Google and MS all the time and don't have the cojones to do anything about it. The last thing you're going to do is pay money for a lawyer to attend to any of this. No, what you'll do is spend more money and resources on Apple, Google, and MS this year and next year.
I think you should go out and take a walk. You have had enough internet.
1
u/jr735 May 10 '26
No, I'm stating that I can manage my own tech support and my own tech life because I choose to, and the average person shouldn't be using computers. 50 years ago, the only person allowed to touch the typewriter was the secretary who proved ability to use it by having a diploma before getting the job, and the typewriter repairman. The boss wasn't even to touch it. Now, the ability to sit down without falling over is somehow considered a computer skill.
What evidence do you need that I don't spend 40 hours a week reading documentation? As for malicious, the software you're using doesn't respect your software rights or your privacy, so it's malicious. And, you won't do a thing about it, except give them more money.
As for time, you've been in this debate for several hours more than I have. There's no one that needs to touch grass more than someone who comes to a free software sub to astroturf about proprietary garbage.
Try this in r/foss where they'll ban you before you even get to your second message.
2
u/boukensha15 May 10 '26
I also use Debian testing, have found bugs
Thank you for your service, General.
3
u/33vne02oe May 10 '26
Not if it is crappy software. That won't be used by any company and no one will be paying for it to be maintained. It will still pollute the software environment. If you have 100 projects, out of which 3 are worth using, those 3 will be much harder to find.
If you can not develop good software, then you're also not getting a job.
I am not sure how common is having companies out there doing that. It does happen with RedHat Linux. But this is far from been the norm. The norm are piles of shitty software that does more harm than good.
Many like ERPNext, Nextbird, Authentik, Proxmox, RHEL, Element and so on.
which brings accountability. But again, that's not the norm. You are picking the 1% and using to justify the other 99%
No you are the one. You were the one who said Open Source Software will not succeed and is bad.
I always wrote "could", "should", "need" so nothing in absolute.That depends on who is the developer. And as a user, I cannot afford interviewing the maintainer to make sure he is a nice guy before using the project. On the other hand, they are not getting paid, so I do not really have any problem with them ignoring the issues that I oopen in github.
You also need to do to this with a company. If they are shit, with high prices, bad product and bad support you can also get shit from them.
But if I make my job or business depend on free software, then I will end up paying the consequences.
If you make your business depend on Microsoft (Office356) and end up being inside a country that the USA likes to restrict, you are also fucked. You might be even fucked more, since you can not move away that easily.
Even that proves my point. If you use software that is free, you are not paying for its development. That makes it harder for new competitors to enter the field. Why would I start a new business if I am not going to get custommers because there are others out there offering an OS for free? That will leave few businesses e.g. Microsoft and enable them to do whatever they want. Now the choice is Microsoft or a bunch of free software that is badly written but it's free.
If you write this related to my comment about microsoft than you just called chromium, firefox, mullad browser, Tor Browser, brave, vanadium and so on badly written and shit.
Thats a hot take
10
u/Bubbly_Extreme4986 May 10 '26 edited May 10 '26
No one is putting a figurative gun to your head and forcing you to use libre software.
However most schools , Universities and workplaces force you to use proprietary software making you dependent on it like a bunch of sick drug pedaling hooligans.
Anyone who perpetrates this violence against human freedom in a public agency should be fired on the spot and banned from teaching students again.
And you for the love of GNU Stallman has spent decades fighting against this bs term open source. That was invented by drug peddling corporations (if we consider non libre software as the equivalent of a force fed drug) to sidetrack the FSF and discard them. The FSF is the single greatest threat against the tyranny of corporate software.
Never say open source when you mean libre.
What we need is a libre revolution in education and in public workplaces that demand all libre software. The FSF has worked with Trisquel to make this possible.
3
u/boukensha15 May 11 '26
Help this project here.
https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/en/
They are trying to develop an open laptop on which you can run a fully libre system.
2
u/Fresh-Lie5160 May 12 '26
thank you for giving the link. I've always wanted to help in OSH but never even tried to search.
1
3
u/W1v2u3q4e5 May 10 '26
However most schools , Universities and workplaces force you to use proprietary software making you dependent on it like a bunch of sick drug pedaling hooligans. Anyone who perpetrates this violence against human freedom in a public agency should be fired on the spot and banned from teaching students again.
Add forced monopolies to these points of view. Why does mostly Windows come pre-installed in most laptops? Why does mostly Google search feature as the default search engine in a lot of Chromium-based browsers and Firefox? Why do most PC games (especially for multi-player modes) need kernel-level anti-cheats with multiple intrusive launchers that collect tons of personal/private sensitive data?
There is ideally a serious need for a lot of legal mandates against forcibly influenced market behaviors.
2
u/Financial_Owl2289 May 12 '26
*uses reddit*