Stallman on SaaS [video](mashable.com)
mashable.com
Stallman on SaaS [video]
http://mashable.com/2010/06/09/stallman-on-saas/
7 comments
Things are very different now than in 1999. 1999 we were talking a few cgis and perl script that did funny stuff. Now we have google docs and facebook. I think that is a very significant change that would account for the different view.
I think the idea is the same, but the scales and implementation and hugely different.
I think the idea is the same, but the scales and implementation and hugely different.
Yes but Stallman is an unrelenting moral absolutist when it comes to software. Scales wouldn't make him change his stance, just the scale of his stance.
But he did changed his stance. What is your point anyway ?
Well, yes he changed his stance altogether, that's sortof what I'm saying. He's not giving a different position for a different situation, because as you said, the idea is the same. From what I've seen of him, he's not into gray areas, so this is an altogether different point of view coming from him. In other words, if you asked him today about the 90s, he would say the same thing as in this recent video.
This leads me to think that Free Software, while a good, ambiguous ideal, can't be made into a strict moral system because it's impossible.
Stallman is right on both counts. Software running on another computer isn't unfree to you, you just have to be careful what you send to it. And, there's really no difference between that and having a server running proprietary software in your living room. Or on a guest user account on the same computer. Really if you treat proprietary software as a dangerous black box it's no different from interacting with the outside world. So, unless you never send data to the outside world, you can't reach the ideal.
Stallman is right on both counts. Software running on another computer isn't unfree to you, you just have to be careful what you send to it. And, there's really no difference between that and having a server running proprietary software in your living room. Or on a guest user account on the same computer. Really if you treat proprietary software as a dangerous black box it's no different from interacting with the outside world. So, unless you never send data to the outside world, you can't reach the ideal.
This is correct. O'Reilly kept harping on this issue whenever he talked to RMS but I don't think RMS could intuit the future as well as Tim could.
Here is his full opinion on SaaS http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se...
Thanks for the link. What I take away from it is that Stallman's full opinion on SaaS is internally inconsistent, either that or I am completely misunderstanding him. The "Distinguishing SaaS from Other Network Services" section was exceptionally incoherent; here's one quote:
> Multiplayer games are a group activity carried out on someone else's server, which makes them SaaS. But where the data involved is just the state of play and the score, the worst wrong the operator might commit is favoritism. You might well ignore that risk, since it seems unlikely and very little is at stake. On the other hand, when the game becomes more than just a game, the issue changes.
So, SaaS is okay so long as the "risks" are sufficiently small? Who defines that risk, me? So that makes it okay for me to use Google Docs, since I deem the risk of Google doing something evil with my documents to be small? (Well, no, because Stallman explicitly calls out Docs as unacceptable. So I guess I better not use that.)
Or from the conclusion:
> Don't buy or install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use them with your server.
...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?
This is (one of the reasons) why it's so hard to take Stallman and his "four essential freedoms" seriously.
> Multiplayer games are a group activity carried out on someone else's server, which makes them SaaS. But where the data involved is just the state of play and the score, the worst wrong the operator might commit is favoritism. You might well ignore that risk, since it seems unlikely and very little is at stake. On the other hand, when the game becomes more than just a game, the issue changes.
So, SaaS is okay so long as the "risks" are sufficiently small? Who defines that risk, me? So that makes it okay for me to use Google Docs, since I deem the risk of Google doing something evil with my documents to be small? (Well, no, because Stallman explicitly calls out Docs as unacceptable. So I guess I better not use that.)
Or from the conclusion:
> Don't buy or install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use them with your server.
...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?
This is (one of the reasons) why it's so hard to take Stallman and his "four essential freedoms" seriously.
> So, SaaS is okay so long as the "risks" are sufficiently small? Who defines that risk, me? So that makes it okay for me to use Google Docs, since I deem the risk of Google doing something evil with my documents to be small?
Yes, if you don't put anything too private in there, it's ok (according to him), he also said in another interview that it's ok to use Facebook as long as you don't put any private stuff there.
> ...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?
Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?
Yes, if you don't put anything too private in there, it's ok (according to him), he also said in another interview that it's ok to use Facebook as long as you don't put any private stuff there.
> ...thus violating the "essential freedoms" of anyone who uses your thin clients?
Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?
> Yes, if you don't put anything too private [on Google Docs], it's ok (according to him), he also said in another interview that it's ok to use Facebook as long as you don't put any private stuff there.
Actually, he says the opposite. Docs was his "clear example" of SaaS:
Which online services are SaaS? Google Docs is a clear example. Its basic activity is editing, and Google encourages people to use it for their own editing; this is SaaS.
And, of course: "don't yield; don't use SaaS". So Google Docs is out, regardless of what goes on it.
> Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?
Because according to him you should never do "your" computing on anyone else's machine. Since he says it's okay to set up thin clients if they're using your server, I guess he must have meant you can set up a bunch of thin clients for yourself to use, since if anyone else used them they'd be using someone else's (your) server to do their computing.
Of course, he also says it can be okay if you sufficiently trust the person running the server (provided it's a person and not a company)...which again is not consistent, because even if you trust the operator you don't have the ability "to study and change the source code so it does what you wish", which is one of his "essential freedoms".
The whole essay left me with the impression that Stallman was just trying to avoid being completely written off by sane people (in the unlikely event that hasn't already happened). This was actually a surprise, because it previously seemed abundantly clear to me that Stallman didn't care at all what other people think. But since SaaS so obviously provides vast benefits in some cases, and people naturally want to take advantage of those benefits, he has to find loopholes in his philosophy instead of taking the hard line of consistency. This inevitably results in contradictions, because his premises were not reasonable to begin with.
Actually, he says the opposite. Docs was his "clear example" of SaaS:
Which online services are SaaS? Google Docs is a clear example. Its basic activity is editing, and Google encourages people to use it for their own editing; this is SaaS.
And, of course: "don't yield; don't use SaaS". So Google Docs is out, regardless of what goes on it.
> Could you explain why it violates "essential freedoms"?
Because according to him you should never do "your" computing on anyone else's machine. Since he says it's okay to set up thin clients if they're using your server, I guess he must have meant you can set up a bunch of thin clients for yourself to use, since if anyone else used them they'd be using someone else's (your) server to do their computing.
Of course, he also says it can be okay if you sufficiently trust the person running the server (provided it's a person and not a company)...which again is not consistent, because even if you trust the operator you don't have the ability "to study and change the source code so it does what you wish", which is one of his "essential freedoms".
The whole essay left me with the impression that Stallman was just trying to avoid being completely written off by sane people (in the unlikely event that hasn't already happened). This was actually a surprise, because it previously seemed abundantly clear to me that Stallman didn't care at all what other people think. But since SaaS so obviously provides vast benefits in some cases, and people naturally want to take advantage of those benefits, he has to find loopholes in his philosophy instead of taking the hard line of consistency. This inevitably results in contradictions, because his premises were not reasonable to begin with.
Stallman's worldview is so paranoid and cynical. And maybe it's for good reason. Facebook and Apple have been doing evil things. But Facebook and Apple have paid dearly for their behavior, whether they've felt the repercussions yet or not. Their value on the Global Hacker Reputation Index has plummeted, and they will have to pay the piper sooner or later.
Question of the day: Is reputation among hackers enough to keep tech companies honest? I think for the smart companies the answer is Yes.
Question of the day: Is reputation among hackers enough to keep tech companies honest? I think for the smart companies the answer is Yes.
NO!
there are no tech companies! there are advertising, media, luxury goods etc. companies. Tech is just what drives their business, as many other businesses, just slightly more noticeably.
there are no tech companies! there are advertising, media, luxury goods etc. companies. Tech is just what drives their business, as many other businesses, just slightly more noticeably.
Pshh, splitting hairs. You know what I mean. Next time I'll be sure to fully enumerate the infinite list.
I think that Stallman is discussing 2 points at the same time.
First thing is freedom of data (easy import/export and ability to completely delete your data from a SaaS app) - in the world where each MB of information is replicated around 7 times (archiving, backup, replication etc.) and therefore it's virtually impossible to delete information...
Second thing - free software - you have no control of the app when it's run by the service provider. Again - reality is that most of the people can not read code and sourcode or even executable binary is almost equal to 90% of the population. Biggest advantage of SaaS is that it can provide value that normal "behind the firewall" software can not match. What kind of value? I.e. cost reduction (thanks to consolidation effect). This leads us to the democratization of access to the computing power/software power - and it's, after all, what Stallman is all about, right?
Second thing - free software - you have no control of the app when it's run by the service provider. Again - reality is that most of the people can not read code and sourcode or even executable binary is almost equal to 90% of the population. Biggest advantage of SaaS is that it can provide value that normal "behind the firewall" software can not match. What kind of value? I.e. cost reduction (thanks to consolidation effect). This leads us to the democratization of access to the computing power/software power - and it's, after all, what Stallman is all about, right?
With SaaS I think there is always a danger of developing an unhealthy dependency, and some Facebook users are beginning to recognise this phenomena. As Stallman says, with SaaS the user has no access to or control over the program, either at source code, executable, or often even the raw data level.
Potentially this can mean that the user is totally disempowered - effectively they're no longer using a "personal computer", and their computer might be operating primarily for the benefit of someone other than the user.
Potentially this can mean that the user is totally disempowered - effectively they're no longer using a "personal computer", and their computer might be operating primarily for the benefit of someone other than the user.
I can appreciate the fact that Richard Stallman fights for FOSS, and I would say I am a huge supporter and proponent of FOSS however in this instance(and many others), he is just completely way out there.
His standard may not be completely unrealistic, but it is borderline and would make my life and work, pretty inconvenient.
His standard may not be completely unrealistic, but it is borderline and would make my life and work, pretty inconvenient.
His fans alway point out that his ideas are for some greater good, but don't ever bother to elaborate how the ultimate future according to Stallman would look like.
Another common point is that they adore the guy sticking to his believes. You know what, believes can be wrong too…
His is way out simply because his needs and thinking is waaaay different from ordinary people (software users). I couldn't care less how proprietary is equipment in my car, all I want is it to run smoothly. On the other hand mechanic servicing my car couldn't care less what powers his computer as long as it does what he needs.
I am sure there will be a lot hand waving about the greater good without any demonstration of such good.
I don't think any radical idea was ever good.
Another common point is that they adore the guy sticking to his believes. You know what, believes can be wrong too…
His is way out simply because his needs and thinking is waaaay different from ordinary people (software users). I couldn't care less how proprietary is equipment in my car, all I want is it to run smoothly. On the other hand mechanic servicing my car couldn't care less what powers his computer as long as it does what he needs.
I am sure there will be a lot hand waving about the greater good without any demonstration of such good.
I don't think any radical idea was ever good.
I don't think any radical idea was ever good.
What? Something that seems radical today is the norm of tomorrow.
Columbus looking for new trade routes was radical, but good. Ending world hunger is a pretty radical idea, but it will be good. Being an entrepreneur is radical.
What? Something that seems radical today is the norm of tomorrow.
Columbus looking for new trade routes was radical, but good. Ending world hunger is a pretty radical idea, but it will be good. Being an entrepreneur is radical.
"Columbus looking for new trade routes was radical, but good." - got a lot of ancestors on my father's side who would disagree.
Genocide of the native population wasn't the initial thought I had in mind.
I figured (should have added the smiley) - the naming he chose really is a (lesser) pain, too.
Although, how radical the idea was pretty dependent on the lost knowledge of Eratosthenes and the black plague cutting off the Mongol lands.
Although, how radical the idea was pretty dependent on the lost knowledge of Eratosthenes and the black plague cutting off the Mongol lands.
You're not supposed take Stallman's claims at face value. His vision is unimportant, what matters is his effect on the world.
The FSF exists to provide balance: remember we have companies radically promoting proprietary software, we just don't notice it because that's what companies normally do. The FSF promoting free software seems a little odd because they're not a company and the software is free, however it's not really any different.
There's absolutely no chance of proprietary software disappearing (at least in capitalist countries), but without Stallman free software might have been much less popular.
The FSF exists to provide balance: remember we have companies radically promoting proprietary software, we just don't notice it because that's what companies normally do. The FSF promoting free software seems a little odd because they're not a company and the software is free, however it's not really any different.
There's absolutely no chance of proprietary software disappearing (at least in capitalist countries), but without Stallman free software might have been much less popular.
[deleted]
I feel the same way. As crazy as people like him are, if he weren't there being all crazy, we probably wouldn't have as much software freedom as we do.
He isn't phrasing it in contemporary terms.
But I think the issues around Facebook and the iPhone show the rising walled-garden environments we see today have serious issues concerning one's control of one's data.
But I think the issues around Facebook and the iPhone show the rising walled-garden environments we see today have serious issues concerning one's control of one's data.
The consistent underlying theme to all of Stallman's writings and musings on software is "don't make a profit on me". He is an anti-capitalist. That his views hold so much weight in the tech industry is a testament to the extreme levels of socialist indoctrination that occurs in universities.
You're completely wrong. He wants developers, musicians, anyone who releases FOSS content to be compensated for their work if they choose.
Regardless of Stallman's preferences, it doesn't seem like that's panning out very well.
Fortunes are made every day by people and companies using OSS, but so rare is the open-source millionaire (or even sole operator eeking out a living) that they're largely exceptions that prove the rule.
So, keeping software proprietary isn't strictly necessary for making money, but the correlation is so strong as to make any alternative interpretation moot.
Fortunes are made every day by people and companies using OSS, but so rare is the open-source millionaire (or even sole operator eeking out a living) that they're largely exceptions that prove the rule.
So, keeping software proprietary isn't strictly necessary for making money, but the correlation is so strong as to make any alternative interpretation moot.
He may say he wants them to be compensated, but he never suggests how they might after decrying their current methods as "evil". Are we supposed to live on donations? Musicians can get away with charging for concerts (though I suspect he'd eventually argue that it was depriving the poor of the right to culture), but software developers have no analogue.
Red Hat sells their product, despite it being open source. When you buy Red Hat, you buy support for your product, as well as a guarantee that it works with a certain set of hardware and has been well tested on that hardware. Red Hat releases everything as open source, and they don't even make it hard to reassemble if you want to (see CentOS, which does just that). They could provide the sources in quite a difficult manner, but they don't. And they still pull in quite a bit of business.
To the contrary, Red Hat is the perfect example for why Open Source does NOT pay. Sure, Red Hat is making money off of OSS, but the thousands of people who built all of those pieces of software are not. Red Hat can make a living off of support contracts because they didn't have to pay for the majority of the development work.
At some point the FSF started pushing for the Affero GPL, which does not seem to be sufficient as now he says it should be avoided even in the case where you do have the source code.
I cannot think of any significant changes in the idea of software as a service over time that would account for such different views on it.
[1] http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/08/open-source-licens...
e:
The talk mentioned: http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_age_of_infoware.pdf
The QA the quote comes from: http://tim.oreilly.com/archives/mikro_discussion.pdf