[CS-FSLUG] The Moral Foundation of Free Software

[Aaron Patrick Lehmann]

On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 07:15:27AM +0100, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Aaron Patrick Lehmann <lehmanap at cs.purdue.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I propose that in a vast array of situations, a closed source
> > alternative is better stewardship nowadays.
> 
> Please let's not forget that good stewardship is not just about
> getting the work done without needless costs, it's also about
> avoiding situations like that described in 1 Sam 16:19-23, where
> only two people in the whole army of Israel had proper weapons,
> because the Philistines had made sure that there were no smiths
> among the people of Israel.  With Microsoft's proprietary software,
> only one company (Microsoft) is able to change the software.  With
> Free Software, everyone has the right to make needed changes, which
> includes many Christians who have the necessary skills.

However, those who have the necesary skill to make these tools (which seem to
me too already be adequately filled) are also the only people who have the
necesary training to use the operating systems they will run on.  I often
wonder if there aren't a great number of people that, without thinking about it
and with the best of intentions, push their churches into a solution that only
they can use and maintain, because they want to be useful to their churches and
they know what is best for THEM.  However, these helpful FOSS congregants will
eventually move on, or not want to run the church office forever.

As a Christian who has the necesary skills to create a spreadsheet program or a
musicplayer program or whatever, my first solution WOULD NOT be to write a new
program.  My first solution would be to look for existing software.  If there
were no software that was compatible, I'd look for a collection of utilities,
and so on.  Writing new software is the LAST solution.  My time is worth more
than to reinvent the wheel to no purpose.

> 
> > More and more, students are taught how to use Microsoft's excellent
> > suite of office tools in high school.  People are growing up with a
> > computer that runs the latest Windows, and even adults are
> > comfortable with it.  This competency is not a result of Microsoft's
> > "intuitive" interface, but of long exposure and hard work.  Be that
> > as it may, from a Church's perspective, its free (as in beer).  The
> > church didn't have to pay to train its office people, they were
> > already trained.
> 
> Fortunately there is Free Software available which is similar enough
> to what these people are familiar with, so that it is possible to
> switch to Free Software without huge re-training expense.

Any number greater than zero is an overhead you are paying in this case.  What
are you gaining by using free software?  Remember that I'm looking at time as a
resource, and at different people's time as being worth different ammounts.  In
order to retrain people to use whatever shiny desktop environment and whatever
shiny office suite you are thinking of, you have to pay the overhead of the
people you're training, the person who is training them, the cost of any
training material (which in some FOSS products is HORRIBLE), etc.

> 
> > The person who maintains the machine already knows how to do it, as
> > he's been doing it on his home machine for years.
> 
> ...using procedures which may be acceptable for a home machine
> without any really valuable data, but which are not adequate
> for maintaining a ministry's mission-critical computer system.
> 

Ah.  You want a truly "production" quality system.  This is a problem that is
not solved by having an amateur sysadmin use a FOSS set of tools, but by hiring
a professional sysadmin to use the appropriate (which may or may not be FOSS)
tools for the job.  By hiring, I mean, "retaining the services of."  This might
be accomplished through a volunteer, if he's sufficiently dedicated to the job.
The point here is that if you want a professional-quality job, get a
professional.  Let HIM choose his tools.

> > Almost everyone has a copy of Windows 95 or 98 around someware that
> > they aren't using if they have been following the Microsoft upgrade
> > treadmill.
> 
> Using old software is not a viable option except for those who want
> to limit themselves to never connect the internet and never exchange
> data with any untrusted third-party.

I am using a Windows 98 computer to connect to a server using ssh through
putty.  It's pretty secure.  I'm not precisely sure what you mean by the last
part.  Thereare ways to use ssl to exchange data with a trusted party over an
untrusted network, and there are protocols to arrange for oblivious transfer of
data, which could be useful for an online ministry, but they aren't bound to
any particular implementation, being scientific white-papers.

> 
> Sorry, but I can't see how it can possibly be "better stewardship
> nowadays" to set up an office in such a way that using email or
> a web browser must be avoided because of the security hazard, and all
> communication has to be done through more expensive methods such as
> telephone and fax!

First of all, I'm not saying there are no good FOSS solutions.  Second of all,
pgp is available in a variety of mail clients, and https works in many
browsers.

The main point here is as David said.  The point of church is to reach and
teach people about Jesus, not to use FOSS or closed source software.  Use what
works.

Aaron Lehmann

-- 
Why do the Democrats complain about Nader losing them Presidential elections?
Republicans don't complain about Libertarians.