Achieving Software Freedom in the Age of Platform Decay
canopic jug writes:
Here are two related essays on software freedom in light of the current environment where platform decay has become the norm.
Lead developer of Linux-Libre, FSFLA board member, and previous FSF board member, Alexandre Oliva wrote a piece back in June about platform decay (also known colloquially as enshittification) and how to fight it through software freedom. It's from his May 5th, 2024 LibrePlanet presentation with the same title ( video and slides). This weekend, developer Daniel Cantarin wrote a follow up addressing the nature of software freedom and the increasing communication, philosophical, and political barriers to actually achieving software freedom.
The two essays are essentially in agreement but raise different points and priorities.
Alexandre Oliva's essay includes the following:
[...]Software (static) enshittification
Back in the time when most users could choose which version of aprogram they wanted to run, upgrading software was not something thathappened automagically. Installing a program involved getting a copyof its installable media, and if you wanted to install a newerversion, you had to get a copy of the installable media for the newerversion.
You could install them side by side, and if you found that the newerversion was lacking some feature important to you, or it didn't serveyou well, you could roll back to the older version.
This created a scenario in which the old and the new versions competedfor users, so in order for the newer version to gain adoption, it hadto be more attractive to users than the older one. It had to offermore interesting features, and if it dropped features or engaged inenshittification, it would need even more interesting features to makeup.
This limits how much enshittification can be imposed on users in newerversions. It was much harder to pull feature from under users in thatstatic arrangement.
Software (dynamic) enshittification
But now most users are mistreated with imposed updates, and since theyare required to be online all the time, they are vulnerable all thetime, and they can't go back to an earlier version that served themwell. The following are the most enshittifiable arrangements to offercomputing facilities to users. Most enshittifiable so far, HomerSimpson would presumably point out.
Apps that run on remotely-controlled telephones (TRApps) and that aretypically automatically updated from exclusive app stores, and theircounterparts that run on increasingly enshittified computers (CRApps)are cases in which the programs are installed on your own computer,but are controlled by someone else. They've come to be called apps,so that you'll think of them as appliances rather than as somethingyou can and should be able to tinker with.
Web sites that, every time you visit them, install and demand to runJavascrapped programs on your computer, are a case in which, even ifthe program is technically Free Software, in this setting, someoneelse controls which version you get to run, and what that versiondoes.
And then, there are the situations in which, instead of getting a copyof a program, you're offered a service that will do your computing foryou, under somebody else's control, substituting software that couldhave been respectful of your freedom. [...]
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.