[Tfug] 2 weeks of Hackintosh fun..

[Claude Rubinson]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 07:47:46PM -0600, Tim Ottinger wrote:
> If the people using it are happy, it is successful.  If they can change  
> it so that they're more happy, then they are successful and Linux is  
> also. The fact that there are other successful and popular (or even just  
> prevalent in M$ case) desktops is neither here nor there.   If a handful  
> or a million people like other desktops better, it still successful.   
> FOSS doesn't play a zero-sum game.  That's why it's inevitable.

<snip>

> My kids like Linux. My wife uses it.  I used to have rooms full of kids  
> enjoying it for no cost.  I didn't have to monitor licensing and buy  
> seats.  I simply wiped and reinstalled contributed computers and all was  
> well.  That was winning to me, too.  It was sweet to not have to fight  
> or police the users.  Whatever one liked, I gave to all.  It was *fun*  
> in ways that windows boxes are clearly not.

<snip>

> It has won. It just hasn't won the game you wanted it to play.

Mind if I use that final quote the next time I'm teaching?  In my
Social Inequality class, we talk about how, under capitalism, there
are certain things that we've taken [or tried to take] "off the
market."  Slavery, sex, organs, babies, etc.  Typically, we legislate
away things that we find morally reprehensible.  It works somewhat but
never completely.

Richard Stallman believed that allowing market relations to dominate
the social relations was morally reprehensible.  The success of the
movement he started is that its found a way to take it's own product
off of the market.  You can sell it, of course.  But free software is
not subject to the dynamics of supply and demand (though RedHat may
be) nor to "friendly" competition (which drove Libranet out of
business).  Free software continues regardless of its position in the
market.  It survives because we want it to, not because of any market
success.

This is not to say, of course, that market share (perhaps more
appropriate is the term "mindshare") doesn't have incidental benefits.
It's easier today for me to explain why I can't read my students'
newfangled DOCX files.  It's more likely that hardware will "just
work."  It's easier for me to find a bunch of like-minded people with
whom to kick back and have a few drinks with every few weeks.  Those
are all great things.  But ultimately, as Tim explains, what matters
is that using it makes me happy.  It makes me happy because I've been
able to craft a desktop environment that I've used for over six years
and continue to improve.  It makes me happy because I'm not beholden
to any overlords, except my tinkerer spirit.  It makes me happy
because it makes me more efficient, which gives me time to play with
my cat and go on dates with my girlfriend.  It makes me happy because
I really, really enjoy piping things to awk. And all of that happiness
isn't magnified by its marketshare.

At the same time, the biggest threat to FOSS today is market-related.
If, by manipulating the market via, for example, patents or DRM, a
proprietary software company is able to monopolize any part of the
computing infrastructure, they would be able to effectively control
the conditions under which we're able to use computers.  And they'd do
their best to restrict our choice of software to one: theirs.

We're not in competition with Microsoft, Apple, Sun, et. al.  We're
just having fun doing our own thing.  But they are dependent upon the
market.  And our doing our own thing prevents them from controlling
the market and exploiting that position.  So, they do see us as
competitors and, consequently, it's wise to look over our shoulders
once in a while and see what they're up to.  If I knew that they'd
play fairly, I wouldn't worry about it.  As it is, I try to give a bit
of money to the FSF and the EFF.  Because they're out there trying to
protect my right to have fun.

In a previous post, I made mention of how free software developers
aren't very good at marketing.  Perhaps part of the problem is that
we've been trying to emphasize this esoteric concept of freedom when
we should be emphasizing fun: "Free as in fun.  Not free as in beer."

Claude