Ploum.net En June 2023

en@listes.ploum.net

1 participants
2 discussions

How to Kill a Decentralised Network (such as the Fediverse)

by Ploum.net (English posts only)

HOW TO KILL A DECENTRALISED NETWORK (SUCH AS THE FEDIVERSE) by Ploum on 2023-06-23 https://ploum.net/2023-06-23-how-to-kill-decentralised-networks.html Year is 2023. The whole Internet is under the control of the GAFAM empire. All? No. Because a few small villages are resisting the oppression. And some of those villages started to agregate, forming the "Fediverse". With debates around Twitter and Reddit, the Fediverse started to gain fame and attention. People started to use it for real. The empire started to notice. Capitalists Against Competition =============================== As Peter Thiel, one of Facebook’s prominent investor, put it: "Competition is for losers." Yep, those pseudo "market is always right" people don’t want a market when they are in it. They want a monopoly. Since its inception, Facebook have been very careful to kill every competition. The easiest way of doing it being by buying companies that could, one day, become competitors. Instagram, WhatsApp to name a few, were bought only because their product attracted users and could cast a shadow on Facebook. But the Fediverse cannot be bought. The Fediverse is an informal group of servers discussing through a protocol (ActivityPub). Those servers may even run different software (Mastodon is the most famous but you could also have Pleroma, Pixelfed, Peertube, WriteFreely, Lemmy and many others). You cannot buy a decentralised network! But there’s another way: make it irrelevant. That’s exactly what Google did with XMPP. How Google joined the XMPP federation ===================================== At the end of the 20th century, instant messengers (IM) were all the rage. One of the first very successful ones was ICQ, quickly followed by MSN messenger. MSN Messenger was the Tiktok of the time: a world where teenagers could spend hours and days without adults. As MSN was part of Microsoft, Google wanted to compete and offered Google Talk in 2005, including it in the Gmail interface. Remember that, at the time, there was no smartphone and very little web app. Applications had to be installed on the computer and Gmail web interface was groundbreaking. MSN was even at some point bundled with Microsoft Windows and it was really hard to remove it. Building Google chat with the Gmail web interface was a way to be even closer to the customers than a built-in software in the operating system. While Google and Microsoft were fighting for hegemony, free software geeks were trying to build decentralised instant messaging. Like email, XMPP was a federated protocol: multiple servers could talk together through a protocol and each user would connect to one particular server through a client. That user could then communicate with any user on any server using any client. Which is still how ActivityPub and thus the Fediverse work. In 2006, Google talk became XMPP compatible. Google was seriously considering XMPP. In 2008, while I was at work, my phone rang. On the line, someone told me: "Hi, it’s Google and we want to hire you." I made several calls and it turned out that they found me through the XMPP-dev list and were looking for XMPP servers sysadmins. So Google was really embracing the federation. How cool was that? It meant that, suddenly, every single Gmail user became an XMPP user. This could only be good for XMPP, right? I was ecstatic. How Google killed XMPP ====================== Of course, reality was a bit less shiny. First of all, despites collaborating to develop the XMPP standard, Google was doing its own closed implementation that nobody could review. It turns out they were not always respecting the protocol they were developing. They were not implementing everything. This forced XMPP development to be slowed down, to adapt. Nice new features were not implemented or not used in XMPP clients because they were not compatible with Google Talk (avatars took an awful long time to come to XMPP). Federation was sometimes broken: for hours or days, there would not be communications possible between Google and regular XMPP servers. The XMPP community became watchers and debuggers of Google’s servers, posting irregularities and downtime (I did it several times, which is probably what prompted the job offer). And because there were far more Google talk users than "true XMPP" users, there was little room for "not caring about Google talk users". Newcomers discovering XMPP and not being Google talk users themselves had very frustrating experience because most of their contact were Google Talk users. They thought they could communicate easily with them but it was basically a degraded version of what they had while using Google talk itself. A typical XMPP roster was mainly composed of Google Talk users with a few geeks. In 2013, Google realised that most XMPP interactions were between Google Talk users anyway. They didn’t care about respecting a protocol they were not 100% in control. So they pulled the plug and announced they would not be federated anymore. And started a long quest to create a messenger, starting with Hangout (which was followed by Allo, Duo. I lost count after that). As expected, no Google user bated an eye. In fact, none of them realised. At worst, some of their contacts became offline. That was all. But for the XMPP federation, it was like the majority of users suddenly disappeared. Even XMPP die hard fanatics, like your servitor, had to create Google accounts to keep contact with friends. Remember: for them, we were simply offline. It was our fault. While XMPP still exist and is a very active community, it never recovered from this blow. Too high expectation with Google adoption led to a huge disappointment and a silent fall into oblivion. XMPP became niche. So niche that when group chats became all the rage (Slack, Discord), the free software community reinvented it (Matrix) to compete while group chats were already possible with XMPP. (Disclaimer: I’ve never studied the Matrix protocol so I have no idea how it technically compares with XMPP. I simply believe that it solves the same problem and compete in the same space as XMPP). Would XMPP be different today if Google never joined it or was never considered as part of it? Nobody could say. But I’m convinced that it would have grown slower and, maybe, healthier. That it would be bigger and more important than it is today. That it would be the default decentralised communication platform. One thing is sure: if Google had not joined, XMPP would not be worse than it is today. It was not the first: the Microsoft Playbook ============================================ What Google did to XMPP was not new. In fact, in 1998, Microsoft engineer Vinod Vallopllil explicitly wrote a text titled "Blunting OSS attacks" where he suggested to "de-commoditize protocols & applications […]. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS project’s entry into the market." Microsoft put that theory in practice with the release of Windows 2000 which offered support for the Kerberos security protocol. But that protocol was extended. The specifications of those extensions could be freely downloaded but required to accept a license which forbid you to implement those extensions. As soon as you clicked "OK", you could not work on any open source version of Kerberos. The goal was explicitly to kill any competing networking project such as Samba. This anecdote was told Glyn Moody in his book "Rebel Code" and demonstrates that killing open source and decentralised projects are really conscious objectives. It never happens randomly and is never caused by bad luck. Microsoft used a similar tactic to ensure dominance in the office market with Microsoft Office using proprietary formats (a file format could be seen as a protocol to exchange data). When alternatives (OpenOffice then LibreOffice) became good enough at opening doc/xls/ppt formats, Microsoft released a new format that they called "open and standardised". The format was, on purpose, very complicated (20.000 pages of specifications!) and, most importantly, wrong. Yes, some bugs were introduced in the specification meaning that a software implementing the full OOXML format would behave differently than Microsoft Office. Those bugs, together with political lobbying, were one of the reasons that pushed the city of Munich to revert its Linux migration. So yes, the strategy works well. Today, docx, xlsx and pptx are still the norms because of that. Source: I was there, indirectly paid by the city of Munich to make LibreOffice OOXML’s rendering closer to Microsoft’s instead of following the specifications. Meta and the Fediverse ====================== People who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Which is exactly what is happening with Meta and the Fediverse. There are rumours that Meta would become "Fediverse compatible". You could follow people on Instagram from your Mastodon account. I don’t know if those rumours have a grain of truth, if it is even possible for Meta to consider it. But there’s one thing my own experience with XMPP and OOXML taught me: if Meta joins the Fediverse, Meta will be the only one winning. In fact, reactions show that they are already winning: the Fediverse is split between blocking Meta or not. If that happens, this would mean a fragmented, frustrating two-tier fediverse with little appeal for newcomers. I know we all dream of having all our friends and family on the Fediverse so we can avoid proprietary networks completely. But the Fediverse is not looking for market dominance or profit. The Fediverse is not looking for growth. It is offering a place for freedom. People joining the Fediverse are those looking for freedom. If people are not ready or are not looking for freedom, that’s fine. They have the right to stay on proprietary platforms. We should not force them into the Fediverse. We should not try to include as many people as we can at all cost. We should be honest and ensure people join the Fediverse because they share some of the values behind it. By competing against Meta in the brainless growth-at-all-cost ideology, we are certain to lose. They are the master of that game. They are trying to bring everyone in their field, to make people compete against them using the weapons they are selling. Fediverse can only win by keeping its ground, by speaking about freedom, morals, ethics, values. By starting open, non-commercial and non-spied discussions. By acknowledging that the goal is not to win. Not to embrace. The goal is to stay a tool. A tool dedicated to offer a place of freedom for connected human beings. Something that no commercial entity will ever offer. Picture by David Revoy https://framapiaf.org/@davidrevoy/110583258129951932

11 months

We need more of Richard Stallman, not less

by Ploum.net (English posts only)

WE NEED MORE OF RICHARD STALLMAN, NOT LESS by Ploum on 2023-06-19 https://ploum.net/2023-06-19-more-rms.html The Free Software movement has been mostly killed by the corporate Open Source. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and its founder, Richard Stallman (RMS), have been decried for the last twenty years, including by my 25-year-old self, as being outdated and inadequate. Drew DeValut’s FSF is dying https://drewdevault.com/2023/04/11/2023-04-11-The-FSF-is-dying.html Free Software is not enough by j3s https://j3s.sh/thought/drones-run-linux-free-software-isnt-enough.html Viznut asking if permacomputing should be the successor of Free Software https://venera.social/display/85a863ed-1064-8cb8-f689-e51559784396 Myself arguing for RMS replacement in 2006 https://ploum.net/97-it-s-a-long-way-to-the-top/index.html I’ve spent the last 6 years teaching Free Software and Open Source at École Polytechnique de Louvain, being forced to investigate the subject and the history more than I anticipated in order to answer students’ questions. I’ve read many historical books on the subject, including RMS’s biography and many older writings. And something struck me. RMS was right since the very beginning. Every warning, every prophecy realised. And, worst of all, he had the solution since the start. The problem is not RMS or FSF. The problem is us. The problem is that we didn’t listen. The solution has always been there: copyleft ============================================ In the early eighties, RMS realised that software was transformed from "a way to use a machine" to a product or a commodity. He foresaw that this would put an end to collective intelligence and to knowledge sharing. He also foresaw that if we were not the master of our software, we would quickly become the slave of the machines controlled by soulless corporations. He told us that story again and again. Forty years later, we must admit he was prescient. Every word he said still rings true. Very few celebrated forward thinkers were as right as RMS. Yet, we don’t like his message. We don’t like how he tells it. We don’t like him. As politicians understood quickly, we care more about appearance and feel-good communication than about the truth or addressing the root cause. RMS theorised the need for the "four freedoms of software". - The right to use the software at your discretion - The right to study the software - The right to modify the software - The right to share the software, including the modified version How to guarantee those freedoms ? RMS invented copyleft. A solution he implemented in the GPL license. The idea of copyleft is that you cannot restrain the rights of the users. Copyleft is the equivalent of the famous « Il est interdit d’interdire » (it is forbidden to forbid). In insight, the solution was and still is right. Copyleft is a very deep concept. It is about creating and maintaining commons. Commons resources that everybody could access freely, resources that would be maintained by the community at large. Commons are frightening to capitalist businesses as, by essence, capitalist businesses try to privatise everything, to transform everything into a commodity. Commons are a non-commodity, a non-product. Capitalist businesses were, obviously, against copyleft. And still are. Steve Ballmer famously called the GPL a "cancer". RMS was and still is pictured as a dangerous maniac, a fanatic propagating the cancer. Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond tried to find a middle ground and launched the "Open Source" movement. Retrospectively, Open Source was a hack. It was originally seen as a simple rebranding of "Free Software", arguing that "free" could be understood as "without price or value" in English. RMS quickly pointed, rightly, that the lack of "freedom" means that people will forget about the concept. Again, he was right. But everybody considered that "Free Software" and "Open Source" were the same because they both focused on the four freedoms. That RMS was nitpicking. RMS biggest mistake =================== There was one weakness in RMS theory: copyleft was not part of the four freedoms he theorised. Business-compatible licenses like BSD/MIT or even public domain are "Free Software" because they respect the four freedoms. But they can be privatised. And that’s the whole point. For the last 30 years, businesses and proponents of Open Source, including Linus Torvalds, have been decrying the GPL because of the essential right of "doing business" aka "privatising the common". They succeeded so much that the essential mission of the FSF to guarantee the common was seen as "useless" or, worse, "reactionary". What was the work of the FSF? The most important thing is that they proof-bombed the GPL against weaknesses found later. They literally patched vulnerabilities. First the GPLv3, to fight "Tivoisation" and then AGPL, to counteract proprietary online services running on free software but taking away freedom of users. But all this work was ridiculed. Microsoft, through Github, Google and Apple pushed for MIT/BSD licensed software as the open source standard. This allowed them to use open source components within their proprietary closed products. They managed to make thousands of free software developers work freely for them. And they even received praise because, sometimes, they would hire one of those developers (like it was a "favour" to the community while it is simply business-wise to hire smart people working on critical components of your infrastructure instead of letting them work for free). The whole Google Summer of Code, for which I was a mentor multiple years, is just a cheap way to get unpaid volunteers mentor their future free or cheap workforce. Our freedoms were taken away by proprietary software which is mostly coded by ourselves. For free. We spent our free time developing, debugging, testing software before handing them to corporations that we rever, hoping to maybe get a job offer or a small sponsorship from them. Without Non-copyleft Open Source, there would be no proprietary MacOS, OSX nor Android. There would be no Facebook, no Amazon. We created all the components of Frankenstein’s creature and handed them to the evil professor. More commons ============ The sad state of computing today makes computer people angry. We see that young student are taught "computer" with Word and PowerPoint, that young hackers are mostly happy with rooting Android phones or blindly using the API of a trendy JS framework. That Linux distributions are only used by computer science students in virtualised containers. We live in the dystopia future RMS warned us about. Which, paradoxically, means that RMS failed. He was a Cassandra. Intuitively, we think we should change him, we should replace the FSF, we should have new paradigms which are taking into account ecology and other ethical stances. We don’t realise that the solution is there, in front of us for 40 years: copyleft. Copyleft as in "Forbidding privatising the commons". We need to rebuild the commons. When industries are polluting the atmosphere or the oceans, they are, in fact, privatising the commons ("considering a common good as their private trash"). When an industry receives millions in public subsidies then make a patent, that industry is privatising the common. When Google is putting the Linux kernel in a phone that cannot be modified easily, Google is privatising the common. Why do we need expensive electric cars? Because the automotive industry has been on a century-long mission to kill public transport or the sole idea of going on foot, to destroy the commons. We need to defend our commons. Like RMS did 40 years ago. We don’t want to get rid of RMS, we need more of his core philosophy. We were brainwashed into thinking that he was an extremist just like we are brainwashed to think that taking care of the poor is socialist extremism. In lots of occidental countries, political positions seen as "centre" twenty years ago are now seen as "extreme left" because the left of twenty years ago was called extremist. RMS suffered the same fate and we should not fall for it. Fighting back ============= What could I do? Well, the first little step I can do myself is to release every future software I develop under the AGPL license. To put my blog under a CC By-SA license. I encourage you to copyleft all the things! We need a fifth rule. An obligation to maintain the common to prevent the software of being privatised. This is the fifth line that RMS grasped intuitively but, unfortunately for us, he forgot to put in his four freedoms theory. The world would probably be a very different place if he had written the five rules of software forty years ago. But if the best time to do it was forty years ago, the second-best moment is right now. So here are The four freedoms and one obligation of free software ===================================================== - The right to use the software at your own discretion - The right to study the software - The right to modify the software - The right to redistribute the software, including with modifications - The obligation to keep those four rights, effectively keeping the software in the commons. We need to realise that any software without that last obligation will, sooner or later, become an oppression tool against ourselves. And that maintaining the commons is not only about software. It’s about everything we are as a society and everything we are losing against individual greed. Ultimately, our planet is our only common resource. We should defend it from becoming a commodity. Copyleft was considered a cancer. But a cancer to what? To the capitalist consumerism killing the planet? Then I will proudly side with on the cancer side. Disclaimer: I’m aware that Richard Stallman had some questionable or inadequate behaviours. I’m not defending those nor the man himself. I’m not defending blindly following that particular human (nor any particular human). I’m defending a philosophy, not the philosopher. I pretend that his historical vision and his original ideas are still adequate today. Maybe more than ever. Picture of RMS by Frank Karlitschek https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_(124442297).jpeg

11 months, 1 week

2024

2023

2022

Ploum.net En June 2023

2024

2023

2022

Ploum.net En June 2023 ----- 2024 ----- May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 ----- 2023 ----- December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 ----- 2022 ----- December 2022

Ploum.net En June 2023