zlacker

>>gnufx+(OP)
He laments that users "don't know about the freedoms we promote which are increasingly in their interest", but wasn't this the point of Open Source as compared to Free Software, to refocus the messaging from the user's freedoms to the economic benefit for companies?

The Free Software Definition mentions "user" 22 times and "freedom" 79 times, whereas the Open Source Definition has zero occurrences of these terms. It doesn't seem surprising that the user freedom message isn't getting through if you completely scrub it from the messaging.

>>ptx+a5
The freedoms we promote require users to run locally installed software, which people are no longer able to do for important applications.

>>kazina+4m
Yeah this is the elephant in the room. Running a powerful, centralized web service that gets accessed by many users on many different clients with everything synchronized and patched and updated in one place is such a better model than self-hosted for so many software use cases.

Edit: simplified.

>>apante+qG
Sure if not taking privacy ("is my data being sold to competitors and anyone who pays? Will it leak to the web?") and strategic vision ("will this critical dependency be shutdown tomorrow") into consideration.

Other than that it's cool, sure.