Criteria for computer software - why software must be user-controlled

[Frank Fremerey]

All of that "public choice theory" stuff you present as fact is and always was counter-factual.  Do you not even notice that you contradict yourself by claiming that in public enterprises "unnecessary risks are taken on behalf of tax payers money" and that "risks that foster innovation are not taken"? 

It is not contradictive, but I anticipated that you might see it so.

The unnecessary risks that are taken are not those that lead to innovation.

Public money invested in Research and Development is not wasted.

Public money invested in trying to foster the influentials private interest is wasted.

Public money invested by appointing incompetent people to projects they do not oversee is wasted.

***

Back to software:

-- Software is not a public issue. Software is a tool, people create because they wants to reach a certain goal

-- There is Software used in Infrastructure that is critical in the sense that lives depend on it. This is a public concern and has to be treated with immense care. A hospital had to be evacuated because it was infected by ransomware

-- Software in these areas should be owned by the governing body in the sense that they know what the software is doing and how the software is doing it. Measures have to be taken that external competence that can be lost is not mission critical. There has to be backup (people, know how)

-- I think that attaching critical infrastructure to the public internet is like having unprotected sex in a darkroom in a, area with 50% HIV rate

-- In these cases public competence in IT Infrastructure and high digital hygiene standards should be the norm, no external rentals

-- Photoshop is not mission critical for my business and I can afford the 8,99€ it costs per month easily, I love to do this because it assures the existence of the company and I enjoy the tool

-- "Creative Cloud" in the sense that I have to give away my data into the control of others who might use it for their purposes without paying me is not what I want & use & need

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

[...]

Saas is the slogan the software industry has chosen to conceal its aim to make proprietary licences the sole basis on which we can use software.  It is proprietary licences that threaten us, and mixing up the advantages of short or long-term rental of software with the dangers of proprietary licences is not getting us anywhere.

The above is absolutely correct.

We can illustrate the point by contrasting the two opposite directions of software development.

Open Source software is like all software regulated by licenses, but the Open Source licenses expressly give the users the right to unlimited use and control over the software - even to the point of legally modifying it. With Open Source software and compatible hardware, no one can prevent the users from installing and running the software and use the computer whenever the user wants and for an unlimited period of time - independent from any software companies and their services.

Software-As-A-Service (SAAS) is the proprietary software industry's attempt to establish and maintain their control over our computers. SAAS should therefore be uncompromisingly rejected, and we should all contribute to public awareness of the issues involved.

This article is about these issues:

http://efn.no/free-desktop.html

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Software must be user-controlled but it won't be. There are probably many reasons but here are two: Piracy and corporate greed.

[...]

Dave Hartman

You are right in pointing out the motivations behind.

Fortunately, we have a choice.

We can refuse to use software that is cloud-based and software that requires a subscription.

One way to do this, is to use Linux and Open Source software that is copyable and can be backed up and installed, re-installed and even legally modified at any time. Open Source software is also governed by copyright and should be, but the Open Source licenses expressly state that we can legally control the software. The Open Source licenses even give us the legal right of modifying it - or paying a skilled programmer to do it for us. This is a true win-win situation for users and software programmers as well. The contrast could not be starker to Software-As-A-Service schemes.

Software-As-A-service forces us to lose control over the software we need and thereby we lose the control over our information-processing tools, and places our access to our own data at the mercy of the software service and its availability.

That is the bottom line.

Those who want software to be a service, want us to lose the user-controlled computer and instead use "dumb" service-boxes that cannot function without connections to the software service. This is profitable for the businesses which are ensured their stream of revenue. But it is a major loss for users.

What is the main strength, the great advantage of a user-controlled computer?

It is the fact that a user-controlled computer - which means that the hardware can run user-controlled software - gives the users a personally controlled working tool that can always be used no matter what the external circumstances. We live in a forever changing and inherently unpredictable world. Any kind of national or international crisis or disaster or a cessation of service for whatever reason can and will happen. The only way to minimize the risk of losing our use of our tools is to ensure that we an no one else control them.

Further; if others than the users of the tools and equipment we use in our daily life control these, there is a one-sided and unfree relation because those who claim control over the tools we need thereby claim control over us - which is bordering on ownership over us when these tools are central to our daily life.

Therefore, we should consistently refrain from supporting business schemes that lure, pressurize and force other humans into unnecessary vulnerabilities, dependencies and restrictive relations - which is what Software-As-A-Service and other schemes based on subscription and rental do by design. When we as humans create and acquire tools as a result of the creative properties of the human mind, no one should be allowed to prevent our possession of these tools or impose any form of time limits on our possession or use of them.

That can only be ensured by the possibility of unlimited and independent use and the right to local and personal possession.

That is what makes it imperative that the tools and equipment we need must be controlled not by companies through subscription and rental, but by the users. This holds true irrespective of how the SAAS is financed. A hypothetical public Software-As-A-Service would still not give the users a personally owned and personally controlled functional computer that can be used no matter what the external circumstances.

When Product Activation was introduced in 2000 I saw what it foreboded, and wrote an article about the problem with restrictive licenses and subscription schemes and how to solve it, and in this article these points are elaborated on with a conclusion that Open Source is very promising and can be the solution. It is a fact that Open Source has been created as a principle and a reality because proprietary and restrictive software cannot meet the needs of humans - it may be suggested that as humans we will always strive for freedom.

Here is the article, which was written in 2002 but is equally relevant as long as there are companies and people who want us to lose our personally controlled computers:

http://efn.no/free-desktop.html

[David H. Hartman]

pity to hear you are doing not so well, David. pn me what is up, maybe I can help

Thank you so much for inquiring. I just sent you a PM.

Best,

Dave Hartman