Strategizing the future: Free Software won, what's next?

Yesterday I wanted to write a blog post with a bullet list of the many ways microsoft shot themselves in the feet, but I decided I don't want to give them too much attention there. When you look at the situation they created from their perspective, you really wonder what the hell they're thinking they're doing. Putting a suicidal centipede to shame?

Microsoft cannot write all the applications that are needed to make windows useful, for practical reasons, and probably also for legal reasons. That means they should be helpful towards other software developing companies: "Developers, developers, developers!" indeed. But what did they make windows like? Not as programmer-friendly as some other operating systems. Mistake #1.

So what do the young geeks, the ones who will invent the next generation of exciting new applications do? They install GNU/Linux, an operating system that does let them tinker. Is that a problem to microsoft? As long as everyone continues to consider windows the OS the mass market will always use, and therefore the platform to write software for if one wants to make money, it is NOT a problem. But microsoft decides to consider it a problem, further annoying the geeks. Mistake #2.

The geeks find a way around having to develop on the now hated windows platform, while still reaching the windows-using audience: web based applications. The more of these apps appear, the less relevant it becomes which operating system is used. Obviously microsoft would have to create some really great web-development platform to regain the important connection with developers outside the company. First there's ASP, and then there's .NET too, and nobody is truly impressed. Close, but no cigar, I won't call this one a mistake.

Panicking more and more, microsoft continues to try to threaten GNU/Linux. It mostly damages their own reputation. And if they somehow would manage to kill GNU/Linux, what good would it do for them? There are a few more operating systems that are more free and more developer-friendly than windows. Microsoft could try to kill them one by one, but eventually it will find an OS that they can't attack, either because they have a patent cross-licensing deal with a company that distributes it, or because it is distributed by a company that has too many patents to take on. In fact GNU/Linux has powerful friends, and attacking it for real would be foolish. Wake up, microsoft, specific operating systems are not enemies of windows, the web and cross-platform software (which make operating systems irrelevant) are. That's mistake #3.

Mistake #4 is called Vista. It doesn't deliver truly exciting new features, it's not more stable than windows XP, and it's not backwards compatible. It would have been better to iron out all the problems of XP, rebrand it YP, and sell it again. Almost every current XP user would have bought it. Now, the two upgrade paths are as follows:
1) an operating system which may not be compatible with software and hardware you already have, and doesn't have any real advantage over XP
2) an operating system which might run your old software (with wine), has good alternatives for most software that won't run with wine, works with most hardware, is faster, is more stable, and is cheaper.

---

Can microsoft be reformed? Maybe, but we have to remember it has completely alienated a lot of developers. I believe that even if microsoft completely changes its ways today, the biggest part of the damage is still coming.

---

What's the next big problem? I think it will be web-based companies collecting too much information about us, and indeed spam. Keeping information from the hands of those who it isn't intended for is a freedom-related issue, and spam is a big practical problem.

I think we will soon see communication software that only allows a message to be sent if the recipient, or someone trusted by the recipient (friends, family, boss...) gives permission to the sender. This permission doesn't have to be explicit, for example if B is a friend of A, and B puts C in his address book, then C can send messages to both B and A. "Not being able to send messages" could mean that the messages are sent and received, but put in a spam box by default.

I think there will be more and more demand for legislation against both spam and privacy violations, but local laws don't help much on a worldwide internet. The solutions will be technical.

That's a nice analysis. I think Microsoft still has some developers, maybe even outside of the company, which actually like the development environment that Microsoft provides, mostly because it makes things convenient for them, you know, the big full IDEs with lots of GUI ways of doing things. I mean, I've seen an MS developer recently say that GNU/Linux still supposedly doesn't have a real IDE, which is of course wrong because I think he forgot Eclipse or some such.. and besides, is anything more bloated really needed?

But I guess it's safe to assume that there are developers which like the Microsoft way because they maybe like being spoon fed from a centralized location (Microsoft, the big daddy, will provide for us).

But it's definitely true that the FOSS development community seems much more vibrant and increasingly so.

Anyway, that is Microsoft today, which is in the framework of this thread in the past... Back to the future, we have spam, web based companies not behaving and privacy issues that go with it.

I do agree that most solutions will have to be technical and that's in fact one point I thought of making in the original post, that as the Free Software way of developing software becomes a widely accepted norm, more people will get back to what many see as what *really matters*, the technology, the code, the solutions, the innovation. And the remaining causes will be increasingly ones that would be targeted more by good technology than by politics. I like that, actually, although even newer technologies will soon require big new shifts in policies. The world wont stop spinning because Free Software won. The new revolutions are creeping in at an increasing pace.... nanotech comes to mind.. hardware essentially turned into software.. a topic for other threads.

Btw, mentioning web based applications and them making OSs increasingly irrelevant, I do agree that this is to some extent the effect they may have, but I still remain a bit vary of moving everything online. I would feel most confident if the data that I store online were on my own servers than on ones owned by Google, Yahoo and other companies which offer such services. This is exactly because of privacy concerns, but also partly because of reliability concerns, the uptime, security from data corruption etc.

I think that the biggest shift yet would not be to move most of the computing online, but through big corporations and their services, but making it easy for each individual to run their own online servers and running applications they want on them. I can have my computer on all the time and serving on the net 24/7 the applications and data that I need, available to me from wherever I am. I prefer that more to the idea of this server being run by Google, for example.

But something tells me I am a minority.

Anyway, that is one of the issues which remains after the Free Software take over.

Which is a better place for your data:

1) your house, and your backups are in the other room
2) two bunkers on different sides of the world

In principle, my answer is 2, but only if:
- I am the only one who can access my data
- I am sure I will always have internet access and therefore access to my data

I've said many times, my definition of victory doesn't mean a defeat of Microsoft. My definition of victory means that people VALUE freedom and demand it.

In this world, Windows can still exist. Even a Vista, with shiny Aero interfaces. Heres why:

Windows has source code. In a world where ALL code is Libre or unused, Windows would be software libre. We'd just remove the DRM stuff, take out the binary blobs and recompile everything. Imagine the power of GNU/NT system - all of the libre drivers.

Hell, after a year of hacking, Windows would be as stable as GNU/Linux and BSD.

And since, at this point, people have already DEMANDED freedom in their digital lives, the RIAA is offering ultra-high quality, DRM-free downloads of the latest music. A quick trip to MPAA.com will let you download the newest movies, and MPAA.org is discussing how to improve movie going experience - since the POPULACE demand freedom, they know anything restricting will loose them business.

By my definition, once we win, we're done. To me, there's one goal - for the masses to call for freedom. Spreading GNU/Linux helps, but ONLY if the Freedom is spread THROUGH GNU/Linux. Microsoft going bankrupt today may HARM that cause, because people will flock to GNU/Linux WITHOUT first hearing about the Freedom.

Microsoft bowing out today doesn't help, either. Adobe is still restricting users with non-free software. As is Apple, and Symantec and McAfee and VMWare Inc and Linspire Inc.

The companies are unimportant.

Good point, easily overlooked.

I suppose there are a multitude of victory stages and each stage represents only one kind of victory and only a part of the final victory, the achievement of the final goal which is that everyone demands freedom.

That said, an ubiquitous acceptance of Free Software is I believe a significant victory even if the circumstances that led to it don't yet include everyone valuing their freedom in all areas, but if we don't remain static that goal can soon after be reached as well.

I am not sure about that. Some people may very well demand solutions they want on GNU/Linux regardless of whether they are offered with freedom or not, and I agree that would be harmful. But I think many others, by becoming GNU/Linux users, will make themselves much receptive to the philosophy of freedom as well as much more appreciative to the state of freedom because they would now be experiencing it themselves. Once you taste freedom you don't want to give it up. I think this may apply to a lot of people, and that may lead to the appreciation that would make people demand freedom more in the future.

But how do we make people value their freedom? It is human nature to resist change unless it is perceived an improvement. I think many people don't see the current situation as a big problem, but they do consider learning to install and use different software (no matter how easy or similar) a problem.

To learn to value freedom, you have to experience that freedom first. To let people experience software freedom, we need to get them to use free software for a reason different from freedom. Let the free software solve a problem for them, make it cross-platform so solving one problem doesn't introduce a bigger one, make sure free software is at least as powerful and easy to use as proprietary software, but also make sure usage gets even easier the less proprietary sofware one uses.

An example:

Q: I want to make vector art
A: use inkscape

Q: I want to mix vector art with bitmaps
A: use inkscape and gimp and a plugin set that lets these two cooperate nicely
A: or would you rather export, load in photoshop, export, load in inkscape, ... ?

Q: Hey, I like this software combination. Can you make it print and scan easily for me?
A: sure, try GNU/Linux distro for graphic designers

Things in italics still need to be made.
Note that the possibility to link software from different authors together is a result of software freedom.

I agree with that, but I have to clarify that this doesn't mean I support pre-installing of non-free software as a way to attract people to experiencing freedom, especially for things which aren't that essential. I think we have quite a bit of leverage with Free Software only for that.

So I do agree, people should first practically experience the results of having freedom so that they can make a proper comparison between it and their proprietary software experiences.

I agree that we, the hacker and libre community, will see alack of these things as a motivator to seeking alternatives.

However, I've also found that "average" people now have this idea that their needs should be tailored around their software. Nothing bugs me more than to chat with my wife's IT people and hear them say how they "couldn't" do something and took it as that.

Non-free applications (not so much as the OS) really instill people with a sense of "it's not a feature so it can't be done." This mentality is a huge barrier to freedom.

People (other than the hacker community) would rather go without something, even something critical, than to seek alternatives. How many people use Windows and "deal" with virii because they "know Windows"?

To me, providing "practical solutions" is a GREAT way to pull in those who already are considering a change, but to those content right now with their world: those that use ONLY a browser and perhaps a mail client and a word processor, have no incentive OTHER than freedom to make a change.

Ask yourself, seriously, how well you'd sell the idea of "software libre" to someone who doesn't understand how software works and doesn't want to. To those who have NO idea that source code exists, or that programs CAN be modified. People who never travel outside of their region, and hence, have never had an "encoding" problem with a DVD.

I've been taking every chance I get to spread the mantra. It catches on, in some places, by those who like the sharing mentality. Some people, who have been beFUDdled by the cartels think such is contrary to the ideas of free enterprise.

The only solution I see is education, and that takes time.

It seems that those who don't know how software works, even in basics, would have just as hard time understanding the relation between software and freedom as understanding the way software works. So in a way we would really have to teach them not only about freedom, but about a way software works. That's a tough job indeed.

And if we instead just say, without teaching them about the existence and the way the source code works, that Free Software is one you can freely share and modify without understanding the implications of "modification" or even full implications of "sharing" in terms of software, they may not be getting the whole picture and may mix it with freeware and shareware.

Hackers are easiest to get to appreciate freedom. It seems to me that the only way to get the rest of the world to appreciate it as much is to bring their mentality closer to the hacker mentality.

Because, as many proponents even say, what's the freedom to modify and distribute modified copies worth it to them if they *never* modify software? Of course, they do miss something here (just because they don't modify it doesn't mean that they wont benefit of paying someone to do it or that this freedom doesn't affect the overall quality of software), but it's quite hard for them to see this.

How does one "sell" freedom to someone who has no problems they would like to be solved? I like to talk about DRM (and a possible future super-DRM) and how it will only (kind of) work when programs are not available in human-readable format.

I don't think I managed to "convert" anyone in real life, but at least they know they will have an alternative when things get too bad.