august on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:10:28 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Re: Review of the CODE conference |
regarding the discussion around CODE and previous points on free software -------------- on basic software use: Even though i don't think it was meant that way, describing switching to a free software as a luxury is drawing upon the, in my opinion, out-dated argument that the users of free software are elitist and that free-software itself is much more difficult to learn. yes, it is somewhat true that up until now, the user base of free operating systems and such where college-aged or younger, individuals who have the free time enough to invest in all the research and reading required to configure such wild and untamed systems. it is also somewhat true, that such individuals, after investing such time and energy into learning to configure their systems, have unlovingly answered newbie inqueries with the brush-off, RTFM (read the fucking manual). However, the learning curve for such free operating systems is indeed becoming less and less steep. And, lets not forget that the age of computing altogether is relatively young...so, as the first generation of hackers approach retirement, it is becoming less and less unusual to find commercial FREE software packages that are easy (if not easier) to install and maintain than commercial CLOSED software equivalents. the point is, i think, that computers are inherently complex entities, requiring a certain amount of education, and that switching from any system to another is relatively time-consuming. all of sudden, now you have to click three times in the upper left corner instead of clicking once on the bottom right corner, and then two times on the shiny blue icon. what is more important, is that the user base of certain proprietary systems are growing and are bound to grow even more: aside from Mexico and China, these systems are now being taught in schools worldwide. the good word of the free software gospel is thus being out-advertised (go figure), and what's even worse, the contending proprietary software is even still today being justified by defenders of user-friendliness (artists are most definitely among them). --------------- regarding more specific software, art: open source software expands the space of possible software. this has conceptual and aesthetic consequences as much as it does, technical, structural, ideological or political. formal limitations of the technology aside, it only takes a quick glance at the web to notice the aesthetic dictatorship of flash and director. knowledge as well as aesthetics are embedded in the tools we use. and with all due respect, I can mention free viable alternatives to "Nato, video editing programs, Max, MMdirector": Gem, broadcast2000 for video editing, PD (afaik, written by the same developer as Max), and SDL respectively. albeit, some of these programs are relatively new and rough around the edges.....some, if not all, of them are also highly-developed, powerful, real-life alternatives to commercial artware. this begs a number of questions: if there are viable alternatives (even if only in matters of *degree*) that are in most cases more innovative and in ALL cases less restrictive, would the "artists" among us really take the time to switch? if not, why? or maybe the question actually is: is the art that uses software really dictated by the software being used? if so, if to any degree, why would any artist choose a proprietary set of tools over a free set of tools? - august. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net