Show how you'd use technology to solve this problem.
Put on clothes and shoes made by children in slave labor factories, get into a car made by robots running on proprietary softwares. Drive to pizza parlor with proprietary pizza recipe
Selectively disable the crap JS I guess.
Way too easy.
Write myself the correct program to interface with the website.
as far as I'm concerned the only way interfacing with a remote API could be harmful is if it is insecure (when and where it would otherwise be deemed necessary), non-standard (and undocumented), or malicious.
saying software as a service is "an evil" is really bogus because there are examples of softwares being services and nothing really bad coming of it.
>4chan is software as a service
who gives a shit?
RMS is just a guy who <i>really</i> doesn't want to pay for any software ever, so he's invented a company to create FUD about all the bad things that you're doing by supporting professional developers whose programs you bought with your own money. it's logical that he invents something "as being wrong with Software as a Service", and goes on to list all the possible things that could go wrong if you ever tried using one.
I meant remote APIs are non-free because you can't modify the structure of the API to suite your own needs. the article is irrelevant to my post...he chimps out on some tangent about how some services are an afront to his liberty to have everything he wants as he sees fit, and does some innocuous hat-tipping at the idea that some people may use his shitty software to run certain "services". it's just about the only part of the article that isn't self perpetuating the meta of "lel let's make a software utupia guys hurrr I don't actually write any programs but still...who wants to write these programs for me...also some people are producing services, and while this doesn't directly harm me any way, those people are people who aren't doing my bidding and by heck, let's rip 'em a new one"
gpl makes it impossible to actually profit from the software in itself from what I can see. the only way to do so is if you somehow charge your "future customers" for its creation (fat fucking chance), if you manage to have continuous employment maintaining the software (it was shit to start with and needs constant fixing, and/or have a cash shop for auxiliary "features"
either way it's way easier just to have a binary that is guaranteed to work on systems X Y & Z which are maintained by Legitimate Companies A B & C and put a price on that
heck the easiest way (most deterrent of thieves) to profit from software is to keep it on a server you control and say if you want to get some of this, you're going through me or remaking it yourself
in the article he outlines
>that it should not be on the server because it should be free on my computer
this is my philosophy
>the simpler the program the harder it is to fuck up
>the more complex a program is the more care must be applied in creating it
>the more ambitious a software is in its resource consumption, the more important abstraction becomes
using C (or just about any language compiled by gcc) to write userland software is erroneous in my opinion.
I did not suggest that maintenance is bad, I just said it shouldn't be your entry point for profitability.
I like GNU grep.
it is an instance of why there are exceptions to my generalizations.
>gpl makes it impossible to actually profit from the software in itself from what I can see.
This is correct according to your opinion. protip: software is always subject according to a specific situation. The software needs to be updated and changed when the situation changes. Guess what programmers who use GPL are paid to do.