Free software hasn't won

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

What “winning” means

  • Participants disagree on the baseline: is “winning” mass deployment of code, or end‑user freedom?
  • Many argue open source “won” infrastructure (Linux, databases, tooling), but free software as a political project (user control over computing) has not.
  • Some see the article’s framing (“loss”) as absolutist; others say that’s accurate given how much control users have lost since the 1990s.

Infrastructure success vs user freedom

  • FOSS dominates servers, cloud, dev tools, and programming languages, but most user‑facing apps, firmware, and services are proprietary or SaaS.
  • Several note an irony: FOSS slashed the cost of building infra, which enabled a wave of highly closed cloud services and surveillance capitalism.
  • Open components deep in the stack (kernels, libraries) don’t help much if the software and services people actually touch are locked down.

Hardware, firmware, and locked platforms

  • Phones, TVs, cars, tractors, printers, IoT, pacemakers, and modems are cited as areas with either no viable FOSS options or critical proprietary blobs.
  • Remote attestation and device “security” are seen as the next front: banks and other services can refuse to talk to rooted/custom OS devices.
  • Some accept a “dual device” compromise (a locked phone for banking, FOSS elsewhere); others see this as normalizing second‑class status for free‑software users.
  • Right‑to‑repair and lawsuits over GPL compliance (e.g. TVs) are mentioned as possible levers, but progress is slow and contested.

Economics, funding, and corporate capture

  • Thread repeatedly returns to sustainability: “free as in beer” undermines the ability of developers to get paid.
  • Many projects exist mainly because corporations fund them; truly user‑oriented FOSS often languishes or pivots to SaaS/closed models.
  • Permissive licenses are criticized as enabling free labor for megacorps without reciprocity; GPL seen as better at preserving commons but harder to monetize.
  • Startup culture and current capitalism are described as structurally hostile to FOSS except as a cost‑saving input.

Users, incentives, and education

  • A recurring theme: most people don’t care about freedom, only convenience and immediate cost; they accept DRM, app stores, and tracking.
  • Advocates compare this to public‑health or democratic struggles: a small organized minority must fight for long‑term interests a passive majority ignores.
  • Some blame FOSS culture itself: poor UX, painful installs, and a sysadmin‑centric mindset make it unrealistic for non‑technical users.

Language, politics, and future strategy

  • “Free software” vs “open source” vs “libre/freedom software” is debated; many think the original branding was a strategic failure.
  • Several call for more political action: regulation for interoperability, bans on using attestation to discriminate, public funding of FOSS infra, and pro‑repair laws.
  • Others emphasize “frontier, not failure”: infra victories are real, but the next battles (devices, law, norms) are harder and slower.
  • Long‑term optimists argue that even if behind proprietary tools today, cumulative FOSS value grows over decades and can still “win” on its own timescale.