Re: [libreplanet-discuss] commments on LibrePlanet 2016

[Mike Gerwitz]

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 14:20:22 +0200, Catonano wrote:
> Now I use Emacs regularly. Without the outstanding work from Peepcode and
> bythe Live people this wouldn't have been possible.
>
> This is the live testimony of the lack of effectiveness of the freedom
> provided by the free software.

You're citing a problem with a specific program (or, rather, suite of
them)---GNU Emacs---which is arguably one of the most sophisticated,
complex, and time-honored projects available to the public, free/libre
or otherwise.  You'll have trouble learning Emacs because it is
daunting, and you'll continue to learn something about it for the rest
of your life.

That's not a testament toward the lack of effectiveness of free
software; it's a testament toward the versatility of the
system.  Different people get different things out of Emacs and approach
their problems in very different ways, and so one resource may not work
well for another.  I can guarantee that from personal experience. ;)

> The Peepcode project is still available here
> https://www.pluralsight.com/courses/meet-emacs#invite-modal
>
> I believe the Emacs web site and manuals should cite this resource. More,
> they should praise it.
>
> That's one of the most valuable non coding contribution to the Emacs project
>
> GNU should, in my opinion, acknowledge that and try to help, show empathy
> to the Pluralsight people AND to their potential audience, to give back,
> pointing people to that resource.

I can't say for sure---since I haven't signed up, nor have I tried
to---but it seems like this site might require proprietary JavaScript to
function;[0] if that's the case, then it's not possible for GNU to
even begin to consider endorsing it.

Perhaps you can talk to them about the issue, or see if they provide the
material in another format that others can read?

[0]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

> This is exactly the case where the freedom provided by the license is not
> enough
>
> Emacs is made by a restricted circle of highly talented, higly educated,
> privileged people, with a knack for long linear reads.. And it shows. It's
> cut for them

I think you're mixing freedoms.

Free software provides the freedom to use as you wish, study, modify,
and share software.[1]  GNU Emacs exemplifies this philosophy better
than perhaps any other program I have ever witnessed, down to the
architectural level.

Emacs has a broad range of users, not just technical.  If you want to
use it for technical things, then it becomes more technical. ;)

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

> If it's not, a solution should be worked out. Because those guidelines are
> being unfair to a large swath of people like me, I'm inclined to believe.

It's unfortunate that you didn't find the resources that allowed it to
click for you sooner.  There are innumerable resources out there about
Emacs, and surely there are some that cater to your needs that don't
require proprietary JavaScript; we cannot suggest that users give up
their freedoms in order to learn about Emacs; in fact, it's antithetical
to education.[2]

But there is a way you can help the community: perhaps you can get
together resources, examples, and personal experiences to help others
learn in a manner similar to how you did.

[2]: https://www.gnu.org/education/edu-schools.html

> Having non Free Software organizations cooperating in bringing people to
> the GNU projects is an invaluable resource, it should be exploited to the
> maximum of its potential.

Not when it's a conflict of interest.

It may or may not be in this case; I can't say, since I haven't
researched it.  But I've mentioned my immediate concern.

> It's not only about delivering great and free technology. It's about
> EFEFCTIVELY bring it to the people out there

Free software is about freedom, first and foremost.  If others use our
software, great!  But a wide user base is more of a goal of "open
source" software, and authors might be willing to put freedom aside in
order to help advertise their program or reach a wider audience.[3]
That's not the case here.

That's not to say that we wouldn't want more people using GNU Emacs; of
course we do.

[3]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

> I took a machine learning course on line with Coursera

Coursera suffers from the same problem: requiring proprietary
JavaScript.  I've missed a number of courses I would otherwise be very
interested in because of that platform.

> If a Guix profile for the machine learning course was provided, people coud
> get bootstrapped with all the tools and configurations needed to take the
> course and that could be a break to introduce even more people to the GNU
> platform.
>
> Coursera could provide unified instructions (with footages made on purpose
> maybe ) about how to get started assuming the common tools selection and
> configurations provided by the profile

Teachers/authors on Coursera are free to reference profiles on, say,
Guix, or even contribute them; but the former shouldn't be required for
the latter, and that documentation should be available outside of
Coursera.[4]

[4]: shttps://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.htm

> A collaboration with Coursera should be established. They have tens of
> different courses !

Many have tried---unsuccessfully, unfortunately---to get them to
liberate their platform.  The necessary first step is in their court.

> the author of this talk observed that ease of use DOES matter. He gave the
> example of Github and Slack that surclassed the number of users of Git
> alone and of Irc

I attended that talk at LibrePlanet.  It was well researched, but
unfortunately, I recall disagreeing (to varying degrees) on some
fundamental points.  I don't recall what those points were, but I
do recall that this was one of them.

And it's not because it's not important, it's because it's a dangerous
focus that tends toward the open source philosophy, putting freedom
(perhaps unintentionally) on a lower platform.  And I observe this every
day, especially in the web development community.

Yes, software should be accessible.  But keep in mind that those
projects have other things working "for" them: huge sums of money and
user lock-in.

When free software projects have huge sums of money, they succeed in the
general population as well.  Android, for example, is largely a free
software project---granted, it's heavily littered with proprietary
software by the time it reaches the user, but you can have a beautiful
free system (e.g. Replicant) that looks the same as any other.

But going back to GNU: even then, it still misses the point.  We want
our users to recognize and understand _freedoms_.  If users use software
because it's cool or "better" than others' software, then they don't
value their freedoms and will simply move back to a proprietary program
when it appeals to them more.  We're offering ethical
software.  Anything else is secondary.

Now, if that ethical software becomes exceedingly popular, that's great,
because more people will be introduced to the free software
philosophy...unless it's not emphasized.  Back to Android as an example:
how many users are learning about their freedoms from that?  Yeah.

> I had hoped that because both GNUNet and Guix are GNU projects they would
> have been more integrated and that I could have install GNUNet with guix
>
> But the current port doesn't work. I read someone managed to install it on
> Gentoo Linux, but I don't know anymore abouth that

Those are two wholly independent projects.  But I'm sure they'd like bug
reports or patches.  They're a very (very) busy team of volunteers.

Remember: GNU is an organization of mostly volunteers.  Some are
paid, but most often by their employers, not the FSF.

> I mean, the Freedom to run GNUNet AS I WHISH is NOT effective !
>
> And in the meantime I can run and play with IPFS and Ethereum that are less
> powerful and general, they are not free, but yet I can play with them.
>
> They offer more effective empowerment than GNUNet does.

You're confusing two separate issues: freedom and usability.  The latter
provides different types of freedom.

This is also something specific to the GNUnet project.

> But as the speaker remarked about his crashing LibreOffice, the power or
> the right to fix it myself is not EFFECTIVE enough
>
> Ease of use DOES matter !

This is a more extreme case: instability to the point of not being able
to use the software.  Though I can't comment on it, since I haven't had
that situation myself.  Perhaps a different version may have fixed it; I
don't know.

It was a good example for demonstrating his point, but it is a different
concern than general usability (stability being a rather important
subset), which you've been discussing thus far.

> One last bit of thought: the html Guix manual is not readable on mobile
> phones

Please bring that up with the Guix folks.  Or, better yet, consider
submitting a patch, since you seem to know what the cause is:

  https://gnu.org/software/guix/contribute/

> I hope I didn't irritate anyone

Don't let my comments give the wrong impression: I'm not irritated; I
hope that I was able to convey and rationalize my thoughts effectively.

In any case, thank you for sharing; this is something I know many others
are thinking about as well.

-- 
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer
https://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature