> With free software, you have the option to do whatever you like to it, but no-one has the obligation to work on it on your behalf.
Absolutely and that's the problem. Say my wife (not a programmer) doesn't like it, she isn't going to learn to program, understand the code, make the changes she wants and implement them.
While it's theoretically possible, it's so impractical as to effectively be impossible.
The number of people for whom free as in speech software is actually freer than close software is a very small percentage - for others, such as my wife, Android or Linux is no freer (as in speech) than iOS or Windows.
But it is possible in the free software domain, for your new-Gnome hating wife to read a blog or article about other people who also hate new-Gnome and who have put together, or suggest, an alternative. That alternative can be as little work for her as installing something else from the package manager (which can be at the skill level of a search and point and click).
This doesn't take skill in programming, no more than (in the venerable tradition of car metaphors) it takes mechanical skil to know that the dealer can install the leather seat or roof-rack options for your car if you request that of them.
You drastically understate the percentage of people who have alternatives to choose from at their skill level.
I think you're over estimating how IT literate my wife and many others are. I bought her a MacBook because she used to shout at the PC too much.
And it's not just her. My mum wouldn't get a Mac as she didn't want to have to relearn Windows. My aunty had Linux installed by one of her sons on her PC (for security reasons) and couldn't do a thing (another one returned it to Windows so she could go back to reading her mail and looking at the funny things her friends sent her). And before anyone asks about how all these examples are about women, my father is so IT illiterate I can't even form a coherent example of his lack of knowledge because there's so little of it (though he still surfs the web and looks at his photos).
For these people the idea that you'd go and look for an alternative is a pretty big stretch and that's before you ask whether they actually have the skills to carry out a proper assessment of what is available, what meets their needs, what's robust, what's actively developed (a major consideration in the FOSS world) and so on to make a choice. And even if they do do all that suddenly a major part of their world changes and there is (for them) a major investment in relearning how things work.
If you've got the skills and genuinely worry about these things then I agree FOSS is great but for a massive, massive number of people they just want something basic that makes some sensible choices they can live with and get on with doing stuff. Right now that's a need FOSS is doing little to meet.
for others, such as my wife, Android or Linux is no freer (as in speech) than iOS or Windows.
Not entirely true. Windows can run into licensing problems from time to time, which you don't get with the other major OSes. Buy a used macbook? OS is fine. Buy a used Windows PC? Well... the vendor said it was genuine. Turns out if you try to get the security updates, it starts complaining about not being genuine. I had to sort out exactly this problem for a nontechnical ex-colleague of mine who'd bought such a PC for her new small business.
That's an argument for free as in beer, not free as in speech.
But I'd say that's a pretty niche scenario. In over 20 years of PC use I can't say that I've ever come across it, either personally or seeing a friend or colleague go through it.
I think it's less niche than you say. Instead, there's been an entire culture built up around avoiding windows licensing. Non-technical users have frequently asked me for 'free' windows, and many folks know they have pirated stuff but avoid the security upates because they know it'll break their licensing. Others have Windows installer discs that are pirated but valid - 'free, working Windows'.
For the most part, it 'just works', but it's not doing so in a legal way.
That's different though. The first example was someone who thought they'd bought a valid license but had been duped. This one seems to be about people who want Windows but don't want to pay for it.
Those people need to do a total cost of ownership assessment and work out whether they go with something FOSS or something closed. While FOSS is great in cash out the door terms if you value your time it may not be as good a choice.
But again both are scenarios around free as in beer, not free as in speech.
* Incidentally, I should note I'm not against FOSS. I'm typing this into Chrome and I work for a company who build their products using Java and JBoss and who run an extensive Linux infrastructure. For us those have been great decisions but for my family who are not IT literate, I think the FOSS assessment looks very different.
Your wife and all non-programmers get a major benefit when they use free software. When your wife uses proprietary software, she can never have any level of confidence that the software does what it claims to do and nothing more. Microsoft or Apple can do anything they want behind her back, and the only chance she'll ever have of knowing about it is if some disgruntled employee decides to spill the beans and doesn't immediately get silenced by Microsoft or Apple's huge legal team.
But when she uses a program whose the source code can be examined by a worldwide community of programmers, her chances are greatly improved that if the code plays any dirty tricks someone will already have discovered the offending code, they will have screamed bloody murder, and the offending code will already have been removed. Even if she's unfortunate enough to have encountered the malicious code before it's been discovered, she can be confident that when it is discovered: 1) it will quickly be fixed, and 2) since it's in Microsoft's and Apple's interests to disparage F/OSS software, it will be prominently reported on the 11:00 news.
But I am claiming that her chances of being harmed by having her data misused are far, far greater when she uses software that can only be examined by a very few programmers inside an organization that has a vested interest in hiding the misuse. She's much safer when she uses software that can be examined by a worldwide community of programmers whose vested interest is in achieving status within the programmer community by producing code they can be proud of.
I don't dispute that that's a benefit, I do dispute that it's a big enough benefit to counter all the downsides from the perspective of a regular user.
Part of this is that I think the whole "programmers eyes" benefit is over stated.
"Can be examined" and "is examined by people who know enough to do a useful assessment" are different things. The number of programmers who really understand security isn't that high and the number of those who are committing time to review this sort of code is a fraction of this.
Most exploits aren't down to subterfuge, they're down to incompetence and the people coding (and reviewing) Linux are no less prone to that than those working on Windows or OSX. Those programmers are still human and still make mistakes. Oh, and not everyone reviewing the code has my best interests at heart. I'm not saying that security through obfuscation is good (it's not) but nor is openness without some drawbacks - on balance it's good but it's two steps forward, one step back.
And even if there are exploits in there for the NSA and the like, that's not actually that big a deal for most people. Don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to the "privacy is only for those with something to hide" line, but security is about trade offs, and I can't see that the potentially greater security that comes from the code being open isn't worth the trade offs that come with it for non-technical users.
For me the positive thing about OSS is that to a large degree it keeps the competition honest. OSS keeps a focus on security and openness that I don't think existed in the same way before it was so prominent. I think this is a massive benefit, just one that I don't have to use OSS to take advantage of.
Because of this I love that OSS exists, and benefits from the fact it does, I just don't want to use it.
Absolutely and that's the problem. Say my wife (not a programmer) doesn't like it, she isn't going to learn to program, understand the code, make the changes she wants and implement them.
While it's theoretically possible, it's so impractical as to effectively be impossible.
The number of people for whom free as in speech software is actually freer than close software is a very small percentage - for others, such as my wife, Android or Linux is no freer (as in speech) than iOS or Windows.