> being forbidden from sharing things with friends because of DRM
Is it? When it comes to media, it used to be that you would have a collection of music/movies ripped from physical formats or pirated, both of which are time-consuming.
It is indeed a problem that media nowadays can't be easily shared, but is it a complete loss? You could argue that the widespread availability of near "all" media (at least when it comes to music, such as Spotify) for an affordable price makes up for it. Not disagreeing with your point, but the current model also has its upsides, at least for the time being (it is indeed a possibility that once piracy has been extinguished by the low demand thanks to legal offerings being available and affordable, nothing prevents them from raising the prices or altering the terms of the deal to be unacceptable, such as with ads/etc).
> Free software has already succeeded
Free software has succeeded, in the form of libraries and developer tools. The ideology of free software and freedom (not as in beer but the other one)? Far from it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.
Free software has succeeded in areas where it benefits the gatekeepers and the purveyors of proprietary and freedom-limiting software or services. It has definitely not succeeded in areas which are against that.
> quality comes after, not before freedom
The problem is that there are a lot of people out there, rightly or wrongly (we don't know their individual circumstances and the reasons behind their choice), do not know nor care about freedom as an ideology. The only way to win them over is not by pushing the ideology, but by delivering results, in the form of free software being better, or at least on par with proprietary offerings. This is where the free software "industry" has failed us and keeps failing us.
> Please consider what better thinkers have already said [...] before rehashing the same arguments.
I am not fully aware of those arguments, I am just talking from my own perspective. I try to do my bit as much as possible, but there are cases where free software just doesn't cut it at the moment, thus I have to fall back on the "lesser evil" proprietary services (as in those whose business model doesn't rely on ads, even if more expensive, for example) and recommend those to people in the same boat. For a lot of software/services, the alternative isn't a slightly worse free software experience, it's outright no experience at all.
I don't disagree with some of what you say, but I'm depressed about these points:
- Free software is better in many areas. The internet as we know it wouldn't exist without it. If you feel passionately about a piece of free (or open, whatever) software that in your opinion is lacking in some regard, why not contribute to it?
- If people aren't aware or "don't care" it's our job as tech-minded people who read HN and other technology related sites to make them care. Yes, it's our job, as important -- or more important -- as creating the next fancy startup to disrupt this or that. It's our job to push back whenever someone here or anywhere argues that walled gardens are convenient and we can't have users actually owning the computers they paid for because of malware yadda yadda.
- If you are not personally aware of the battle-tested arguments for users' rights, the right to tinker, and for general purpose computing, it's your job to educate yourself. Yes, it matters that much.
Is it? When it comes to media, it used to be that you would have a collection of music/movies ripped from physical formats or pirated, both of which are time-consuming.
It is indeed a problem that media nowadays can't be easily shared, but is it a complete loss? You could argue that the widespread availability of near "all" media (at least when it comes to music, such as Spotify) for an affordable price makes up for it. Not disagreeing with your point, but the current model also has its upsides, at least for the time being (it is indeed a possibility that once piracy has been extinguished by the low demand thanks to legal offerings being available and affordable, nothing prevents them from raising the prices or altering the terms of the deal to be unacceptable, such as with ads/etc).
> Free software has already succeeded
Free software has succeeded, in the form of libraries and developer tools. The ideology of free software and freedom (not as in beer but the other one)? Far from it, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with.
Free software has succeeded in areas where it benefits the gatekeepers and the purveyors of proprietary and freedom-limiting software or services. It has definitely not succeeded in areas which are against that.
> quality comes after, not before freedom
The problem is that there are a lot of people out there, rightly or wrongly (we don't know their individual circumstances and the reasons behind their choice), do not know nor care about freedom as an ideology. The only way to win them over is not by pushing the ideology, but by delivering results, in the form of free software being better, or at least on par with proprietary offerings. This is where the free software "industry" has failed us and keeps failing us.
> Please consider what better thinkers have already said [...] before rehashing the same arguments.
I am not fully aware of those arguments, I am just talking from my own perspective. I try to do my bit as much as possible, but there are cases where free software just doesn't cut it at the moment, thus I have to fall back on the "lesser evil" proprietary services (as in those whose business model doesn't rely on ads, even if more expensive, for example) and recommend those to people in the same boat. For a lot of software/services, the alternative isn't a slightly worse free software experience, it's outright no experience at all.