I’d imagine gatekeeping based on a percentage of FOSS used isn’t going to win many hearts and minds in the long run for our communities. Imagine if the Linux community decried using the Steam Store on FOSS operating systems.
If the tool is best for the job, people will use it. Our role is to make FOSS that tool in each category.
Having used Discord, it’s hard to see how anything could be behind it in terms of functionality, since “using nothing” is literally an improvement over Discord.
If you want to make a comprehensive chatroom, and specify how it works to minor details - Revolt (for instance) is far behind. If what Discord is doesn’t appeal to you in the first place, then neither would any of the Discord alternatives.
IMO that’s the very reason why the FSF failed to gain significant traction over the years. Using a 100% libre device is HARD, even if you really want to. But yeah, gatekeeping is never gonna be helpful to push people towards better habits…
However, I would politely disagree with the “best tool for the job” argument. I believe that FLOSS software is an inherent quality, and that some degree of trade-off is acceptable, and even needed if we want to further promote it.
Like, is Darktable worst than Lightroom? Sure, but it’s an awesome piece of software with minimal trade-offs for most people, so I think it’s still meaningful to promote it above a potentially better software for the job, feature-wise but that requires to give up all freedom to Adobe.
Eventually that limit of acceptable trade-off is matter of personal choice, and again, it sound silly to gate-keep people on the Fediverse for that…
The principle of copyleft is that you can’t encourage a free environment without some level of militantism. If you accept user hostile software like Steam alongside copyleft applications, then you’re fighting on the side of that hostility, on the side of theft and oppression.
Many newer popular FOSS softwares advocates stronger for libertarianism than collective protection, but it’s the strictly libre software that has been the backbone historically.
Users benefit from software, not from other users. Non-FOSS software already exists, and would exist without libre initiatives.
Do you think more users, even if apolitical or incidental will best increase the amount of quality FOSS software being written in the long run, or a smaller but principled and politically motivated user base? Will no-strings free-to-use softwares encourage more new FOSS software or a treasure trove of existing quality libraries that can only be used if you agree to stop oppressing the user?
If we use Valve as a case-study, then they have taken freely available software and created a product out of it. They have contributed back to that software, and because of their contribution Windows-emulation is now better for FOSS users. But they haven’t made any of their previous products less oppressive. They created a Linux-product to escape Microsoft’s power over them, and their business is charging rent from all game developers. Compared to almost anyone else, they have very little to loose by making their products user respecting and FOSS. They didn’t chose to do this. Would they have had, if the work they appropriated to create the Steamdeck software had even more militant terms of use?
I’d imagine gatekeeping based on a percentage of FOSS used isn’t going to win many hearts and minds in the long run for our communities. Imagine if the Linux community decried using the Steam Store on FOSS operating systems.
If the tool is best for the job, people will use it. Our role is to make FOSS that tool in each category.
Yeah, and in terms of usability Discord alternatives are really quite substantially behind Discord in terms of functions.
I don’t think the same is with Reddit and Lemmy/Piefed. The distance is not so vast.
Having used Discord, it’s hard to see how anything could be behind it in terms of functionality, since “using nothing” is literally an improvement over Discord.
If you want to make a comprehensive chatroom, and specify how it works to minor details - Revolt (for instance) is far behind. If what Discord is doesn’t appeal to you in the first place, then neither would any of the Discord alternatives.
Discord is supposed to be a chatroom? I thought it was a voice chat service for videogames that didn’t have it built it.
Many people use it exclusively as text chat.
It has extensive text chat
IMO that’s the very reason why the FSF failed to gain significant traction over the years. Using a 100% libre device is HARD, even if you really want to. But yeah, gatekeeping is never gonna be helpful to push people towards better habits…
However, I would politely disagree with the “best tool for the job” argument. I believe that FLOSS software is an inherent quality, and that some degree of trade-off is acceptable, and even needed if we want to further promote it. Like, is Darktable worst than Lightroom? Sure, but it’s an awesome piece of software with minimal trade-offs for most people, so I think it’s still meaningful to promote it above a potentially better software for the job, feature-wise but that requires to give up all freedom to Adobe.
Eventually that limit of acceptable trade-off is matter of personal choice, and again, it sound silly to gate-keep people on the Fediverse for that…
The principle of copyleft is that you can’t encourage a free environment without some level of militantism. If you accept user hostile software like Steam alongside copyleft applications, then you’re fighting on the side of that hostility, on the side of theft and oppression.
Many newer popular FOSS softwares advocates stronger for libertarianism than collective protection, but it’s the strictly libre software that has been the backbone historically.
Users benefit from software, not from other users. Non-FOSS software already exists, and would exist without libre initiatives.
Do you think more users, even if apolitical or incidental will best increase the amount of quality FOSS software being written in the long run, or a smaller but principled and politically motivated user base? Will no-strings free-to-use softwares encourage more new FOSS software or a treasure trove of existing quality libraries that can only be used if you agree to stop oppressing the user?
If we use Valve as a case-study, then they have taken freely available software and created a product out of it. They have contributed back to that software, and because of their contribution Windows-emulation is now better for FOSS users. But they haven’t made any of their previous products less oppressive. They created a Linux-product to escape Microsoft’s power over them, and their business is charging rent from all game developers. Compared to almost anyone else, they have very little to loose by making their products user respecting and FOSS. They didn’t chose to do this. Would they have had, if the work they appropriated to create the Steamdeck software had even more militant terms of use?