5 ms·

> "I gave you an example by quoting how expensive it is to run a "free" jitsi service." That's an entirely meaningless argument. Here's what you're doing: > "

> "I gave you an example by quoting how expensive it is to run a "free" jitsi service." That's an entirely meaningless argument. Here's what you're doing: > "I run a large-ish jitsi instance: approx €50/month just for the VPS, my hours probably add another €2000/month to that." Here's what Sussman is doing: > "I used a Jitsi Meet server that I installed on an obsolete and otherwise useless computer that was sitting idle in my laboratory, on its way to the electronics junk heap." The two scenarios are not comparable. I'm not making exaggerated claims here. The University can absolutely afford to do better, the students (who pay exorbitant tuition fees) deserve better, and any "libre software" idealism here is simply people trying to cut costs, jeopardizing the quality of education and the overall experience, while touting moralistic superiority... Distance learning, for example, could've been a much more widespread and accepted thing, had it not been for instructors cobbling up together scrapyard-bound hardware to use as a chat server. Coming up with a proper solution takes investing (time, money, expertise) - which some people will evidently avoid at all costs...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
"It made available licenses for various nonfree programs, but I objected to them on grounds of principle.". Which is to say Sussman could effectively, for the purposes of this course, get _any_ license for free-as-in-beer. So the actual decision would purely be on some other grounds. Since Sussman is a world renowned CS teacher, I choose to believe he made his choice based solely on whether it was most suitable to teaching CS. (This is not an unreasonable belief: The concept of "Free Software" guarantees that the student is able to take the software apart to see what makes it tick. That is obviously a very valuable property when learning how things work!)
- gspr 6y ago
  > (This is not an unreasonable belief: The concept of "Free Software" guarantees that the student is able to take the software apart to see what makes it tick. That is obviously a very valuable property when learning how things work!) And something that resonates very well with the basic attitude and culture of academia/research.
  - bergstromm466 6y ago
    > And something that resonates very well with the basic attitude and culture of academia/research. I wish! Good joke! (I hope it was?) For those who believe otherwise -> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27538183_For_Money_or_Glory_Commercialization_Competition_and_Secrecy_in_the_Entrepreneurial_University https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27538183_For_Money_...
    - gspr 6y ago
      The article you point to illustrates that that basic attitude and culture is under threat. I agree. Openness, being able to build on the works of others, and learning "how something ticks on the inside" are still basic to science though. I, too, wish that what the article illustrates weren't happening, but are you really arguing that you can't take the idea from a published paper, understand it and build your own work on it? The FOSS philosophy is the closest equivalent for code.
      - bergstromm466 6y ago
        > are you really arguing that you can't take the idea from a published paper, understand it and build your own work on it? The FOSS philosophy is the closest equivalent for code. I am saying that rentier capitalists benefit from monopolies. I am saying that the reality you describe is only available for a very privileged few. Access is not based on a human ability to understand it's complexity, but purely on luck. This is systemic fuckery. It's theft. It's systemic racism and systemic disinheriting when considering the reality of the pre-dominantly white Global North, and it's strangehold on the Global South, as well as the Precariat classes of both the North and South. What we need is Commons based peer production, not digital rentier capitalism. This is Guy Standing's definition of rentier capitalism: "…today, a tiny minority of people and corporate interests across the world are accumulating vast wealth and power from rental income, not only from housing and land but from a range of other assets, natural and created. ‘Rentiers’ of all kinds are in unparalleled ascendancy and the neo-liberal state is only too keen to oblige their greed. Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions." + "They assert a belief in ‘free markets’ and want us to believe that economic policies are extending them. That is untrue. Today we have the most unfree market system ever created…. How can politicians look into TV cameras and say we have a free market system when patents guarantee monopoly incomes for twenty years, preventing anyone from competing? How can they claim there are free markets when copyright rules give a guaranteed income for seventy years after a person’s death? How can they claim free markets exist when one person or company is given a subsidy and not others, or when they sell off the commons that belong to all of us, at a discount, to a favoured individual or company, or when Uber, TaskRabbit and their ilk act as unregulated labour brokers, profiting from the labour of others? Far from trying to stop these negations of free markets, governments are creating rules that allow and encourage them. That is what this book is about."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Kim_Bruning 6y ago

"It made available licenses for various nonfree programs, but I objected to them on grounds of principle.". Which is to say Sussman could effectively, for the purposes of this course, get _any_ license for free-as-in-beer. So the actual decision would purely be on some other grounds. Since Sussman is a world renowned CS teacher, I choose to believe he made his choice based solely on whether it was most suitable to teaching CS. (This is not an unreasonable belief: The concept of "Free Software" guarantees that the student is able to take the software apart to see what makes it tick. That is obviously a very valuable property when learning how things work!)

gspr 6y ago
> (This is not an unreasonable belief: The concept of "Free Software" guarantees that the student is able to take the software apart to see what makes it tick. That is obviously a very valuable property when learning how things work!) And something that resonates very well with the basic attitude and culture of academia/research.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > And something that resonates very well with the basic attitude and culture of academia/research. I wish! Good joke! (I hope it was?) For those who believe otherwise -> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27538183_For_Money_or_Glory_Commercialization_Competition_and_Secrecy_in_the_Entrepreneurial_University https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27538183_For_Money_...
  - gspr 6y ago
    The article you point to illustrates that that basic attitude and culture is under threat. I agree. Openness, being able to build on the works of others, and learning "how something ticks on the inside" are still basic to science though. I, too, wish that what the article illustrates weren't happening, but are you really arguing that you can't take the idea from a published paper, understand it and build your own work on it? The FOSS philosophy is the closest equivalent for code.
    - bergstromm466 6y ago
      > are you really arguing that you can't take the idea from a published paper, understand it and build your own work on it? The FOSS philosophy is the closest equivalent for code. I am saying that rentier capitalists benefit from monopolies. I am saying that the reality you describe is only available for a very privileged few. Access is not based on a human ability to understand it's complexity, but purely on luck. This is systemic fuckery. It's theft. It's systemic racism and systemic disinheriting when considering the reality of the pre-dominantly white Global North, and it's strangehold on the Global South, as well as the Precariat classes of both the North and South. What we need is Commons based peer production, not digital rentier capitalism. This is Guy Standing's definition of rentier capitalism: "…today, a tiny minority of people and corporate interests across the world are accumulating vast wealth and power from rental income, not only from housing and land but from a range of other assets, natural and created. ‘Rentiers’ of all kinds are in unparalleled ascendancy and the neo-liberal state is only too keen to oblige their greed. Rentiers derive income from ownership, possession or control of assets that are scarce or artificially made scarce. Most familiar is rental income from land, property, mineral exploitation or financial investments, but other sources have grown too. They include the income lenders gain from debt interest; income from ownership of ‘intellectual property’ (such as patents, copyright, brands and trademarks); capital gains on investments; ‘above normal’ company profits (when a firm has a dominant market position that allows it to charge high prices or dictate terms); income from government subsidies; and income of financial and other intermediaries derived from third-party transactions." + "They assert a belief in ‘free markets’ and want us to believe that economic policies are extending them. That is untrue. Today we have the most unfree market system ever created…. How can politicians look into TV cameras and say we have a free market system when patents guarantee monopoly incomes for twenty years, preventing anyone from competing? How can they claim there are free markets when copyright rules give a guaranteed income for seventy years after a person’s death? How can they claim free markets exist when one person or company is given a subsidy and not others, or when they sell off the commons that belong to all of us, at a discount, to a favoured individual or company, or when Uber, TaskRabbit and their ilk act as unregulated labour brokers, profiting from the labour of others? Far from trying to stop these negations of free markets, governments are creating rules that allow and encourage them. That is what this book is about."