Why do libertarians dislike talking about open-source software and its advantages? Shouldn’t a libertarian use only free software (Linux instead of Windows and MacOS, LineageOS instead of Android and iOS) if they respect their own freedom and privacy? Free software helps protect against surveillance by the state and corporations—it allows one to achieve true freedom. Or do most libertarians not respect their own privacy? If it is too difficult to understand all the technical intricacies, why not pay others to create accessible programs and educational materials?

Richard Stallman

Someone recently tried to teach me how to write Telegram bots. For some reason, this meant I had to install Linux. The system was installed without any problems, but then the “dancing with a tambourine” began. Let’s install Python. Open the console, write this specific incantation. Did it work? Come on, send a screenshot. Aha, a correction, write this incantation instead. Now let’s install these libraries. Write this incantation. That’s it, launch PyCharm. Why not from a shortcut on the desktop? Why must even such an elementary action be done from the console? And now in PyCharm, open its internal console and write this incantation there to install the libraries. Wait, we already installed them! It doesn’t matter, they need to be installed locally for each project. And don’t forget to select the interpreter. I’m already in PyCharm; it’s an IDE, why do I need ten interpreters to choose from? What prevents them from making one by default and ten optional ones for the masochists? Who taught you UX?..

I have nothing against open-source software or content. I went to Wikipedia and made edits to the article about David Friedman. Five minutes—and millions of Russian-speaking users get access to up-to-date information. Spontaneous orders are power! But if handmade clothing is expensive and uncomfortable, then only historical reenactors will wear it. If an open-source OS requires far more effort for simple things than a proprietary one, then only geeks obsessed with security will use it.

Whoever steals the Windows source code from Microsoft and posts it in the public domain on some maximally decentralized platform will do humanity a huge favor. Because this system quite deservedly holds its market share—even despite being proprietary and spying on the user. I have written repeatedly that we are already ready to live in conditions of “new sincerity,” where everyone can and has the full moral right to spy on everyone else, so the system’s spying is not perceived as something terrible—as long as it doesn’t steal your money or snitch on you to the Investigative Committee (and people stay on VKontakte even knowing that it snitches on users). There are many examples of software that was proprietary for some time and then was released into the public domain, and thereafter is developed by the community. And obviously, the weaker the state protection granted to IT giants, the more often this will happen.

I had never heard of Lineage OS, so I looked it up, and it turned out that my phone model is not supported. So, when I change my phone, I’ll buy one with this factor in mind (if supported models don’t turn out to be disproportionately expensive), and then we’ll see. I hope it will be more like the Wikipedia experience than the Linux one.

Using open-source software is like being a vegan. If you live in India, it’s no problem; there’s plenty of delicious vegan food everywhere. If you’re in Russia, you pointlessly condemn yourself to a more expensive life of lower quality for the sake of certain ethical principles. The more these principles mean to you, the greater the sacrifices you will make to follow them. Free software is cool, but software that is convenient to use is much cooler for the vast majority. The market has decided.