Man Tries to Live an Open Source Life for a Year(shareable.net)
shareable.net
Man Tries to Live an Open Source Life for a Year
http://www.shareable.net/blog/kicking-off-a-year-of-open-source
10 comments
> I don't really understand what it means for physical items like shoes to be open source in the sense that some software is.
Tangentially related, but despite the article's definition of open source: "It's definitely not just software", it's a peeve of mine nonetheless to hear the term "open source" applied in non-software/programming contexts. Especially with some of the examples you've pointed out:
> He also claims he wants to be open source in "how I get around." What would it mean for walking to be open source or closed source? Is it "open source" to ride a bus?
Not sure if I'm alone on this.
Tangentially related, but despite the article's definition of open source: "It's definitely not just software", it's a peeve of mine nonetheless to hear the term "open source" applied in non-software/programming contexts. Especially with some of the examples you've pointed out:
> He also claims he wants to be open source in "how I get around." What would it mean for walking to be open source or closed source? Is it "open source" to ride a bus?
Not sure if I'm alone on this.
Why is the term "open source" not applicable to any context in which the design of a product is distinct from its final form, and in which that design is conventionally covered by copyrights or patents?
If an architect released a set of standard building plans under an open license, would that not be legitimately "open source"?
If an architect released a set of standard building plans under an open license, would that not be legitimately "open source"?
Consider that shoe piracy is actually pretty prevalent. You are free to make and modify shoes, but you are not free to sell copies (knockoffs, as they are commonly known) of existing closed source shoes.
Actually you are free to sell an exact copy of shoes or other clothing als long as you don't copy the trademark logo.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_fro...
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/johanna_blakley_lessons_fro...
Fascinating. Interesting that the courts deem fashion too utilitarian to copyright or patent, but purely utilitarian computer programs can be copyrighted and applications of algorithms can be patented.
Fashion has been around for a little bit longer the computer programs, the courts have had more of an opportunity to understand and make reasonable decisions about it. See what you think in 2112.
"Open source life for a year"
scroll
Macbook.
scroll
Macbook.
This is strange indeed. He provides some explanation in FAQ (but I don't buy it)
*http://yearofopensource.net/faq/
*http://yearofopensource.net/faq/
He should buy one of those Lemote laptops Stallman uses.
Yeah, your EFI won't be open source.
More like "I used linux for a year"
More like "I used linux for a year"
FTA: "I'm not buying any proprietary or traditionally copyrighted products unless all other options are exhausted."
I'm pretty baffled by his mention of copyright here. The linux kernel is 'open source' by most people's standards yet the copyrights are held by thousands of people. Living a modern life with only open source products is very doable, living with only products which have no copyright would be almost impossible
I'm pretty baffled by his mention of copyright here. The linux kernel is 'open source' by most people's standards yet the copyrights are held by thousands of people. Living a modern life with only open source products is very doable, living with only products which have no copyright would be almost impossible
Key word being traditionally
Got you covered in terms of web apps: http://libreprojects.net
very cool resource. Thanks. Any other lists like this, for instance for hardware or desktop apps?
Or whatever else.
Or whatever else.
There's the Free Software Directory: http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page
I don't go as far as strcitly using open source, but I've managed to improve my productivity with a lot of open source software. To me, the software I use is just well designed, quick, and hackable. The only non-open source software I still use is the one included with Ubuntu, the one in my cell phone (non-smartphone (runs java)), my appliances (Linux probably, not no source), and the code that runs in my cars computer. Could I survive without closed software? Not yet. Though I keep looking for ways to replace closed systems with open ones.
Yes, good point about RMS.
Thinking about hosting a discussion about this. Seems like there's a lot of knowledge out there. Any interest?
Or maybe there is already a forum for this. Pointers welcome.
Thinking about hosting a discussion about this. Seems like there's a lot of knowledge out there. Any interest?
Or maybe there is already a forum for this. Pointers welcome.
I suppose he'll have to start with defining which licenses he thinks are acceptable. CC-SA? Probably. CC-BY-NC-ND? Maybe? Maybe not?
How about patents? Trademarks?
How about patents? Trademarks?
... Grows a Beard.
Toilet paper. Is there open source toilet paper? I don't think anyone is 3D printing that yet.
The source for toilet paper is always available. You are free to compile your own. Personally, I prefer the "Charmin" distro. I think their current release is "squeeze".
You don't find the license restrictive?
No, but I do fold the code to allow for tail recursion. It makes deployment less resource intensive. This often prevents overflows.
I'm pretty sure I don't want tail recursive toilet paper. That may just be me.
Poison Ivy/Oak: DOS of the TP world.
Pinecone?
water
Here's the source code for water: "H₂O"
The build requirements and procedures are openly documented on the Internet. GL;HF!
The build requirements and procedures are openly documented on the Internet. GL;HF!
RMS does this every year
He also recommends not using mobile phones, and reads the web using wget. Software freedoms are all very well, but I don't think many people would consider regressing about 20 years technologically a price worth paying.
While there are abuses in the worlds of business and government today that might (might) have been prevented if we had insisted on open code and/or open data all along, I am reasonably confident that the various power imbalances as we learn to cope with things like the Internet will have been corrected long before 2032. I don't know what the technological, social and political landscapes will look like by then, but if I were a betting man I'd go with something much more open in most respects than we have today but with a renewed emphasis on personal privacy when it matters.
While there are abuses in the worlds of business and government today that might (might) have been prevented if we had insisted on open code and/or open data all along, I am reasonably confident that the various power imbalances as we learn to cope with things like the Internet will have been corrected long before 2032. I don't know what the technological, social and political landscapes will look like by then, but if I were a betting man I'd go with something much more open in most respects than we have today but with a renewed emphasis on personal privacy when it matters.
RMS doesn't read the web using wget because it's the only free software way. It's not like there aren't free browsers, even in gNewSense.
Conventional mobile phones have become (some say they always were) Big Brother tracking and surveillance devices. The amount of surveillance your are subject to reduces the value of mobile phones. For some people, reduces it so much as to make them, even when balanced against their usefulness, undesirable.
As for regressing 20 years, how often are you able to pick up an incoming call right away? Your phone is 90% of the time a mini Internet tablet, not a portable version of a land-line phone.
The privacy issue isn't just theoretical. There is a blacklist of more than 3000 activist construction workers maintained by police and UK companies. Could the people on that blacklist have kept themselves under the radar by paying closer attention to communications privacy?
As for regressing 20 years, how often are you able to pick up an incoming call right away? Your phone is 90% of the time a mini Internet tablet, not a portable version of a land-line phone.
The privacy issue isn't just theoretical. There is a blacklist of more than 3000 activist construction workers maintained by police and UK companies. Could the people on that blacklist have kept themselves under the radar by paying closer attention to communications privacy?
Your phone is 90% of the time a mini Internet tablet, not a portable version of a land-line phone.
Your phone might be. Mine isn't.
The privacy issue isn't just theoretical.
No, I agree, it's not. In fact, I'm an active campaigner for privacy in various ways, and I don't share my life with on-line social networks for privacy reasons.
However, it's easy to get into a black-and-white mindset that values only complete privacy and assumes no value at all otherwise, which I don't think is helpful. Of all the ways someone could technically spy on me if they had the resources to do it, monitoring the location of my mobile phones is unlikely to be what causes me problems.
We are in an interesting and potentially dangerous time at the moment, because it's been too long since a mass of people all suffered due to a major invasion of their privacy. It is easy to dismiss the creeping invasions we see with things like CCTV, monitoring of the Internet and telecomms services, and social networking sites asking for ever more personal information, when these aren't yet causing serious consequences to most people. And of course, people often give up that information voluntarily because it benefits them in some way that they value more than any perceived intrusion. Privacy isn't about withholding data entirely, it's about controlling who know what and how they can use that information.
I think the pendulum will swing back in a few years, though things will get worse before they start to get better. As people start to find that they really can't get jobs because of some minor indiscretion, or that their credit rating is damaged, or that they simply can't get complete health insurance because they know too many people at a high risk of some lifestyle-related condition, social norms recognising the importance of privacy and the political climate that follows will rein in the likes of Facebook and Google. All that convenience won't look quite so cost-free any more. I also don't see the kind of abuses we see by governments, for example the excessively personal searches at places like airports, continuing indefinitely. These measures are unpleasant, and no matter how much the airlines/governments stick their heads in the sand publicly, the fact is that it puts some people off flying and that costs those airlines/governments some of their profits/taxes.
At the rate things are going -- even 10 years ago, Google were the new kid on the block and Facebook didn't even exist yet -- I don't think it will take 20 years for this to happen. The abuses (and resulting concerns) are already starting, and we're already starting to see savvy politicians try to get ahead of the curve on things like blocking employers from demanding to see their employees'/applicants' private social network content. The security theatre and government intrusion is getting tiresome, and ever more expensive at a time when the global economy isn't exactly doing well.
In short, I think far more powerful social pressures than open source software are going to be what preserves useful privacy and establishes new social norms for what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in the era of the Internet and big data mining. Open source may provide a valuable tool for audit purposes and watching the watchers to keep them honest, but it's only one tool in the box.
Your phone might be. Mine isn't.
The privacy issue isn't just theoretical.
No, I agree, it's not. In fact, I'm an active campaigner for privacy in various ways, and I don't share my life with on-line social networks for privacy reasons.
However, it's easy to get into a black-and-white mindset that values only complete privacy and assumes no value at all otherwise, which I don't think is helpful. Of all the ways someone could technically spy on me if they had the resources to do it, monitoring the location of my mobile phones is unlikely to be what causes me problems.
We are in an interesting and potentially dangerous time at the moment, because it's been too long since a mass of people all suffered due to a major invasion of their privacy. It is easy to dismiss the creeping invasions we see with things like CCTV, monitoring of the Internet and telecomms services, and social networking sites asking for ever more personal information, when these aren't yet causing serious consequences to most people. And of course, people often give up that information voluntarily because it benefits them in some way that they value more than any perceived intrusion. Privacy isn't about withholding data entirely, it's about controlling who know what and how they can use that information.
I think the pendulum will swing back in a few years, though things will get worse before they start to get better. As people start to find that they really can't get jobs because of some minor indiscretion, or that their credit rating is damaged, or that they simply can't get complete health insurance because they know too many people at a high risk of some lifestyle-related condition, social norms recognising the importance of privacy and the political climate that follows will rein in the likes of Facebook and Google. All that convenience won't look quite so cost-free any more. I also don't see the kind of abuses we see by governments, for example the excessively personal searches at places like airports, continuing indefinitely. These measures are unpleasant, and no matter how much the airlines/governments stick their heads in the sand publicly, the fact is that it puts some people off flying and that costs those airlines/governments some of their profits/taxes.
At the rate things are going -- even 10 years ago, Google were the new kid on the block and Facebook didn't even exist yet -- I don't think it will take 20 years for this to happen. The abuses (and resulting concerns) are already starting, and we're already starting to see savvy politicians try to get ahead of the curve on things like blocking employers from demanding to see their employees'/applicants' private social network content. The security theatre and government intrusion is getting tiresome, and ever more expensive at a time when the global economy isn't exactly doing well.
In short, I think far more powerful social pressures than open source software are going to be what preserves useful privacy and establishes new social norms for what is and isn't acceptable behaviour in the era of the Internet and big data mining. Open source may provide a valuable tool for audit purposes and watching the watchers to keep them honest, but it's only one tool in the box.
IIRC he has a bot use wget then mail the page to him. He does this because it means that he will be able to read the page offline as he travels a lot.
If you want fully open browsing you can always use IceWeazel:
http://www.geticeweasel.org/
If you want fully open browsing you can always use IceWeazel:
http://www.geticeweasel.org/
Insightful point. I came here to say, "How is it going without the binary blobs?", but RMS certainly manages.
Even as a Linux user, I doubt I could ever go completely FOSS. (Or that I would ever want to.)
Even as a Linux user, I doubt I could ever go completely FOSS. (Or that I would ever want to.)
I went ~1 year using just one binary blob[1], and it's been about ~.5 years since I replaced the WiFi card that it was for, and have gone 100% FOSS.
I'm extremely happy with Parabola GNU/Linux (one of the FSF endorsed distros), both as an OS, and as a community.
[1] It was for the iwl3495, and it was actually the only blob on my system--I was manually patching a Linux-libre kernel to re-add that one blob.
I'm extremely happy with Parabola GNU/Linux (one of the FSF endorsed distros), both as an OS, and as a community.
[1] It was for the iwl3495, and it was actually the only blob on my system--I was manually patching a Linux-libre kernel to re-add that one blob.
rms uses an open hardware MIPS netbook made in China. According to the Debian wiki, "It is the only laptop with a free BIOS (PMON) and wireless support that doesn't require binary blobs."
>>open hardware MIPS netbook made in China
More specificly, the Lemote Yeelong, which is not only made in China (like most hardware I guess), but also designed there.
It's neat enough if you can find one, with actually a pretty decent keyboard (for a netbook; rms uses a seperate keyboard with his).
More specificly, the Lemote Yeelong, which is not only made in China (like most hardware I guess), but also designed there.
It's neat enough if you can find one, with actually a pretty decent keyboard (for a netbook; rms uses a seperate keyboard with his).
I went OSS only for many years. It's not that hard if you use ethernet and don't need 3d acceleration. Could the average person do it? Definitely not.
The OSS Radeon driver is more than sufficient nowadays for non-3d composting of windows and playback of video.
Intels integrated gpu driver is also really good, to the point where you can play ~5 year old games on it just fine with a high end chip.
I wonder how you would pull off OSS hard drive / ram / mobo / psu / etc. It would require that the design schematics and documentation are public. I assume many of them are, but some might not be, and it would be a pain to investigate open hardware.
Intels integrated gpu driver is also really good, to the point where you can play ~5 year old games on it just fine with a high end chip.
I wonder how you would pull off OSS hard drive / ram / mobo / psu / etc. It would require that the design schematics and documentation are public. I assume many of them are, but some might not be, and it would be a pain to investigate open hardware.
I believe possibilistic was talking about stuff like BIOS firmwares rather than graphics drivers.
RMS is only concerned about the freedom of software on computers. He does not care as much about the freedom of object designs and artistic works.
Users are already free to modify their shoes. And even if you had a video showing how the shoes were made, that isn't enough to replicate the shoes unless you have the machinery and dexterity to make shoes.
He also claims he wants to be open source in "how I get around." What would it mean for walking to be open source or closed source? Is it "open source" to ride a bus?