Did Stallman Say Gmail is Worse than Stupidity?
Oct 27 2008 - Tagged in: open source , GPL , google , business
Some Joomla developers were chatting about the possibility of running Joomla on server clouds and someone posted a link to a fascinating post on Richard Stallman on the topic. I read his comments, then re-read them... and then my mind boggled a bit more, and I had to re-read a third time.
Did he just say Gmail is stupidity that is worse than stupidity?
At this point, I couldn't run my business without Gmail. Its increased my productivity tremendously....
Stallman was quoted as saying:
"The classic example of cloud computing might be Gmail, offered by Google."
Stallman says cloud computing forces people to hand over control of their information to a third party. His objections echo his longstanding belief in non-proprietary software. "One reason you should not use Web applications to do your computing is that you lose control," he said. "It's just as bad as using a proprietary program.
Stallman dismisses cloud computing as industry bluster. "It's stupidity. It's worse than stupidity: it's a marketing hype campaign," he said. "Somebody is saying this is inevitable--and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true."
Now, we all know that Stallman is a great advocate of the GPL. I might suggest his views are.... towards one end of the spectrum, and he represents one camp of thought. Linus Torvalds for example argues a different viewpoint with respect to the GPL.
I don't want to discuss the GPL here, but do we really think that software-as-service type applications are inherently bad?
- Gmail?
- Google docs?
- Google checkout?
- Wufoo?
- Basecamp?
- Freshbooks?
- Ning?
- Facebook?
- LinkedIn?
These applications are tremendously useful and bring technology to small businesses and individuals who would otherwise not have access to them. They could not afford the dollar and technological investment of using open source software to implement similar services.
I'd argue high quality remote web applications increase freedom by increasing access to those applications.
Was he making a subtle point that I missed, or is Stallman out of touch with todays web? What do you think?
Show/hide comments
Graham Clarke
said:
|
... Barrie - What would you do if Google decided to charge $5/mo for you to use GMail? GMail is cool, the service is really convenient, it was really easy to sign up and start using. Now what? You're in deep. I suspect one of Stallman's issues is that you hope that Google will never charge you for GMail. Is that a rational decision? Cheers, Graham |
Joseph LeBlanc
said:
|
... People need to pay attention to where there data is going and who has control over it. While web-based applications have brought some much needed competition to the software industry, I'm very leery of using Google Docs for everything I do. There's no easy way for me simply copy all of my data off their servers and store it elsewhere; this is a problem. Also, if you aren't paying close attention, you can easily publish data you intended to keep private. On the plus side, you do get inexpensive/free access to high quality software available worldwide. You automatically get feature updates, can use any Internet-connected computer with a browser, and never have to manage the software. However, software versions are lost: if Google removes or changes a feature that was working fine for you yesterday, you are unable to go back to the old version. While I wouldn't call it stupidity, I tend to lean more towards the side of RMS on this one. We will eventually see a swing back from "the cloud." |
Compass Design
said:
|
... @Graham I actually pay the $50 a year for the pro version of gmail. Gets rid of the ol ads and I get tech support  @Joe Absolutely, you need to make careful decisions. It seemed from my reading that Mr S's objections were based in the GPL, not privacy. I suspect if the application was on your computer, but encoded and proprietary, Mr S would not be a fan of having his private data safe in his own hands |
CoffeeGroupUSA
said:
|
... Kudos to Stallman for continuing his passion for FOSS. It's important...that said: I make a pretty good home-brewed Amber Bock, if I do say so myself. That said, I go to a restaurant where I trust my bartender not to spit in the glass when I order up a proprietary glass. It's all about balance. |
ff-webdesigner
said:
|
... make sure to not handel ultra-sensitive datas on web-applications. But nevertheless take their big advantages and have a little bit trust :-) |
rolygate
said:
|
... So, are you happy that all your information is held by and known to a third party? You can be identified and profiled precisely then. Everything you do is known. That information is for sale or loan (check G Analytics), or available to the government of your country (look what happened in China). So if it's OK that all your personal and private data can potentially be shared by anyone else, including any government agency, that's fine. Why bother having a password on your PC in that case? |
barrienorth
said:
|
... @rolygate Well, from the pov of profiling, aggregate data and web habits have been tracked for years by companies such as doubleclick. When you go on one site, targeted ads will show on another the next day based on where you just surfed. This kind of privacy is not the question here methinks. regarding the "google reads my email" myth, Google's provacy policy states: "We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services" This is independent of being a remote web application. If a lawyer has a court order to do discovery on your email... they'll get it from your hard drive in your basement, or from a google server, it doesn't matter |
rolygate
said:
|
... Barrie, It's true that I'm paranoid. But just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not plotting against you... But mainly I just resent the fact that a small group of people will know everything. I think that's basically wrong. You can paint it any way you like but the possibilities for it all to go massively wrong are huge. Stallman is simply making the valid point that, in theory, this is a bad deal. In practice many of us will take the deal because right now it looks good. Depends what country you live in. There are definitely some countries where you wouldn't want to make this deal. |
barrienorth
said:
... certainly things can go wrong... As I said earlier, I think Mr S was trying to make a GPL point rather than a privacy one: "I suspect if the application was on your computer, but encoded and proprietary, Mr S would not be a fan of having his private data safe in his own hands" |
rolygate
said:
|
... Well, no doubt you are right. As you know, it's often tough to work out exactly what these GPL fellers are really on about... |
ultimas noticias
said:
|
... I'm not sure it was his point. Anyway I think that Gmail, is one of the most successful tools on the web |
dpk
said:
|
... You are right as long as Google and others earn their trust. The problem is, once they have great trust they have a kind of monopoly. These situations tend to be corrupting. This would be true even if the world was full of pacifistic altruists who love the open source ethic--and it's not. At some point you can expect governmental and corporate interference--which is already happening--and the distinction between those two worlds is getting blurred all the time now in the so-called "free-world." Stallman is right in that what you control yourself, you control yourself. Anything else creates more risks and liabilities due to dependencies on external systems you don't control. The real question is, how much risk are you willing to take? It's a bit of a gamble, but not everyone is going to go for the 100% independent route, down to control of their own hardware and data connections. From a radical purist's perspective, there really is no such thing as "off the grid" with the web, so you are always dependent on other systems, people, and organizations who could screw you. The best thing to do is not live in denial about the malevolent potential of Google, etc. and to encourage an informed and active public organized around public interest issues of freedom in communication. |
fares001
said:
|
... ... I'm not sure it was his point. Anyway I think that Gmail, is one of the most successful tools on the web |
frasi
said:
|
... The real question is, how much risk are you willing to take? It's a bit of a gamble, but not everyone is going to go for the 100% independent route, down to control of their own hardware and data connections. From a radical purist's perspective, there really is no such thing as "off the grid" with the web, so you are always dependent on other systems, people, and organizations who could screw you. |
Show/hide comment form
