On the other hand, almost everything comes with hidden costs and risks as well. Pretty much every new technology or cool gadget comes to the public as a double-edged sword especially when it's "free" or inexpensive. In the open source/developer space things are often far better, but the general public is just screwed. Right now our lives are filled with very cool tech, but nearly always at a hidden price no matter what we've paid for it.
Even the hardware is increasingly controlled and inaccessible (thanks to trusted computing and DRM) and most of the software and devices people use today routinely get code pushed to them remotely (often silently) with little if any ability for the supposed "owner" to control or understand what's being done.
Still, in very specific spaces there really is some great hardware and software available and information is accessible to help people willing to put in the work to take advantage of it. It's nice to take some time to appreciate how far tech has come and how much technology is still open, accessible, and working for us without also being used against us.
You bring up a great point: how do we deliver high-quality software to the general public that is stable, easy-to-use, and secure, yet respects user privacy? Ad-tech and other forms of surveillance technologies have become quite prevalent in consumer technology in recent years, such as the proliferation of smart TVs with ads. I find free, open source software to respect my privacy and generally be stable and secure, but I find it harder to use than proprietary alternatives, and I think the reason it's harder to use is because there's no money being poured into making it easier to use. With the exception of Firefox it's hard for me to think of a commercially-backed desktop FOSS project, while when it comes to system software (e.g., operating systems, compilers, databases, Web servers, Web frameworks, etc.), I can list plenty of examples of commercially-backed projects. I don't think it's a coincidence that FOSS has done so well in the server room (where big companies have backed the development of Linux, MySQL, Node.js, LLVM/Clang, and many other projects) and in computer science academia (funded by grants from industry and government, as well as the free time of students and faculty; heck, RMS himself had an office at MIT and won awards with large monetary prizes), yet it has struggled to gain a significant foothold on desktops used by the general public except for LibreOffice and Firefox, the latter of which was quite popular during the interregnum of Internet Explorer 6 and Google Chrome.
There are two possible avenues to improve the situation on the desktop:
1. One challenge is the sheer complexity of modern desktop software. Take a program such as GIMP, LibreOffice, Firefox, and consider how many lines of code these programs are written in. Even for a senior-level software engineer it will take some on-boarding time to become familiar with the codebase of one of these projects. Modifying the program could become quite an effort. If even experienced software engineers struggle to find the time to contribute code to FOSS projects, then making such a contribution would be almost impossible for members of the general public, the vast majority of whom have no coding experience.
I'm wondering how much of this complexity could be pared down such that it would lead to a FOSS software ecosystem where it's easier for users, technical and non-technical, to make contributions. The easier it is to make contributions, the greater the likelihood we'll have a thriving ecosystem of FOSS for desktop computing. Alan Kay's Viewpoints Research Institute's STEPS project (http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2012001_steps.pdf) appears to be an interesting starting point.
2. Another challenge is thinking of new funding mechanisms for FOSS that don't rely on unpredictable donations, the backing of large corporations, or licensing changes (such as the moves that MongoDB made a few years ago in an attempt to stop cloud service providers like Amazon). For example, there should be other business models Mozilla could use in case Google shuts off its funding, but the challenge is I'm struggling of thinking of them.
> how do we deliver high-quality software to the general public that is stable, easy-to-use, and secure, yet respects user privacy?
I don't think volatilizing users' privacy for money helps to make a product more stable, secure, or easy to use. It's just something companies do because they are allowed to and it makes them more money.
> I find free, open source software to respect my privacy and generally be stable and secure, but I find it harder to use than proprietary alternatives
It's a problem certainly. It's not universal (VLC comes to mind), but the trend is real. Open source software does tend to lack the polish but the authors often lack the resources of commercial software.
> If even experienced software engineers struggle to find the time to contribute code to FOSS projects, then making such a contribution would be almost impossible for members of the general public, the vast majority of whom have no coding experience.
I'm not sure the goal should be for non-coders to contribute to code. I think projects could try to make the process of submitting code less intimidating, maintain standards that are clearly defined, and try to avoid cliques that might make it hard for newcomers.
The best thing non-coders can do is what they love doing already: complain and offer suggestions. If something in a program like libre office is counter-intuitive let them know. If the UI in firefox is terrible let them know. It does mean that the people working on those projects have to be willing to accept criticism and respond to their users concerns though.
> Another challenge is thinking of new funding mechanisms for FOSS
I agree that this is an issue. The fundamental problem with software written by single dev hobbyists or many volunteers in their spare time is that is that the result is about what you'd expect. The more money there is behind a project the more likely it'll be polished and professional looking, but there's only so much you can if you want to keep the F in FOSS
The monetary reward for users using your app (say, in an ad-supported case) provides the clear linkage of “well, if I want the money, I have to show the ads; if I want to show the ads, I need a user using it; if I want a user to use it, I better make it easy to use…”
You're right about that. Some projects work well enough for the person who wrote it and was kind enough to release the code, but they aren't necessarily interested in attracting a huge userbase. It's often "Hope this helps someone else out" and that's about it. Still, there are some incentives for writing and maintaining popular open source software. Bragging rights if nothing else.
Many of us leapfrogged the desktop age and instead skipped straight from CLI apps to WWW apps. Most of the computers I've used don't have desktops because they're in a datacenter somewhere, or inside something like a Docker container. It's easier to get the backing of big corporations when you've created something that can be part of automated backend infrastructure. Those are the people who want privacy the most, since protecting confidential information is a big concern. Backend systems also usually have the necessary tools in place that make sure programs don't do anything evil. That's a feature where most desktop operating systems leave much to be desired, and it therefore means that desktop apps still require a similar level of trust as a web service. But the automation aspect is probably most key to getting support, since desktop apps are better for consumers, and consumers want convenience more than privacy. If you're really passionate about privacy then backend CLI is something worth pursuing, since that's where you're most likely to find people who share your values.
I'm not sure why you're discounting Chromium, which powers Electron which makes it trivial for anyone with web skills to deploy desktop FOSS. Am I missing some component of your take? [edit] As far as how polished the UI is, your mileage may vary, but the avenue is there.
> You bring up a great point: how do we deliver high-quality software to the general public that is stable, easy-to-use, and secure, yet respects user privacy?
You have an honest business model where people pay for things.
"Free" is the cornerstone of surveillance capitalism.
You really just need an honest product. Plenty of companies are perfectly happy to charge several hundred dollars for their product and then still use it to spy on their users so that they can stuff their pockets with even more money at our continued expense.
> “Free” makes honest software impossible because software is labor intensive.
I wouldn't say "impossible", because lots of really great and privacy respecting software exists even while being well maintained. VLC is my go to example: Free, popular, as good if not better than commercial alternatives (given all it's capable of), and still extremely privacy friendly after all these years.
