Submitted by Terry Hancock offers a detailed dissection of the critical difference between power and freedom when it comes to understanding why Microsoft and GNU/Linux respectively are playing different games – and freedom is the only game in town for the free software.
Read the full story at Freesoftware Magazine
Well, I kind of got lost in the middle of the article, but I did want to highlight one thing:
Freedom cannot be forced on people. Freedom to choose GNU/Linux means also the freedom to choose Windows as well. We can argue that it’s a bad deal, but we don’t have the right to force people to choose one over the other. Nor should we pass value judgements on them for their choice: we don’t know the basis of their decisions, nor can we claim superior knowledge of their business.
Stallman, are you reading this ?
Edited 2008-08-05 21:33 UTC
<sarcasm>Yes, we shouldn’t pass judgements on people who choose to use unsafe electrical equipment, or who choose to drink too much, or who litter, or who … <add stupid idea here>. </sarcasm>
What a crock of sh!t. Everyone should be liable to be criticised for every foolish decision! (politely and rationally, mind you). Allowing ‘sacred cows’ or political correctness stop intelligent criticsm stiffles both individual and human progress.
For the maladjusted freaks out there – neither is this an excuse for trolling.
Exactly. All these namby-panby, lily-livered, pussy-mouthed, shit for brains do-gooders have completely screwed up life in the UK.
“Social Workers” put pressure on the government to get smacking banned, there is no discipline in schools and there is rampant knife crime.
Some parts of the UK, (leicester, sheffeild, north london), and more dangerous than chicago, la, and miami in terms of your chances of getting stabbed.
Kids do not understand the differences between right and wrong. This needs to change.
Same as the original post. If someone I know goes out and buys Vista, then has problems with it… but keeps it on as it “looks better than XP”. I will slap him for being a retard.
People need to be shown the errors of their ways.
Retard is such a strong word.
Could you not have said, hmm, INEXPERIENCED ?
Indeed everyone should have right to shoot Freetard by law. I think Microsoft would have enough money to oil UK politics atleast for this, I mean it’s a good start.
That may be true but you have a much higher chance of getting shot in Chicago or Miami. Also Chicago and Miami are middle of the pack when it comes to murder rate as compared to the places you mention in the UK where the murder rate is very high compared to the rest of the country. The small city that I live in has a higher murder rate than Chicago and Miami. “Rampant” crime is in the eye of the beholder I guess.
Comparing using Windows to any of the crap you mentioned is just stupid. Alienating people by comparing them to alcoholics or idiots is not going to win OSS any supporters, and it might lose some
I agree with you – although a little hyperbole is a staple of rhetoric. It depends subtly on the manner you do it and the relationship you have with that person. You’ll note I didn’t actually do any such comparison, Windows <-> Linux, since they each have their place.
What I was trying to say, but probably didn’t accurately convey, to the earlier poster is that while you can respect people’s choices it doesn’t mean that choice should be immune from critical analysis. Which was his principle assertion.
Back to O/Ses. If someone found that (heaven forbid!) Linux was giving them grief I’d be disappointed if you didn’t question their choice and try to point out the merits of Windows. Likewise, I’d hope you’d expect the reciprocal to occur if they were having trouble with a decision to install Vista.
Stallman doesn’t have to read this. I’m not the “lawyer” of RMS but i have listen to many of his talks and speak with many people from the FSF (mostly FSFE because i live in Europe and you can find them on many GNU/Linux Tradeshows).
Nobody from them wants to force people to use Free Software. They argue why Free Software is important and i think that’s their right as it is the right of e.g. Greenpeace to argue why environment protection is important.
Also their goal is not to force people to use Free Software but to create a situation in which people really can choose to use Free Software or non-Free Software. Today people often doesn’t have this choice. They don’t use Windows or MacOS because they like it to be forbidden to share with their friends or they like it to be dependent on one company. They use it because they have to, either because for their tasks only non-Free Software exists or because they have their data in proprietary file formats and so they can’t switch even if they want.
So the goals are:
(1) Have Free Software for every task
(2) Establish Open Standards so that you can communicate with everyone and freely choose your application.
That’s the goal of the FSFs and RMS as i understand them and they have confident that if they reach (1) and (2) most people will use Free Software because “forbidden to share” is not the feature which make people choose non-Free Software.
But the important think is that people have a real choice today often people don’t habe this choice.
Edited 2008-08-06 08:52 UTC
Having said all of that, you kind of missed the point, having overlooked the portion of the pasted text that I actually highlighted
I agree 100% with this article.
Might seem strange as I agreed with the MS article yesterday ‘MS menaced by open source’. But that was more along the lines of MS having the ‘right’ to complain. They definitely have a beef with the movement and the various legal rulings that have put MS at a disadvantage to its competitors.
In this article I agree with it. Mostly in that open source is about freedom. And that should be the prime importance. Market share and others are not measures of success for the open source movement. Those seeking to monetize the process and create market share are inevitably going against freedom.
To put it in a political context. Can you think of any ‘free’ countries that also desire power and influence in the world? The answer is no. The two goals are incompatible. This does not mean you cannot be a successful country while remaining free. It does mean you cannot seek to dominate the world or use your power unjustly.
The disadvantage is only relative to the current situation (overwhelming power due to a monopoly situation). The legal rulings are conscious decisions by governments to try and preserve some competition – which has declined enormously in IT relative to the situation 20 years ago.
Yes! All of them do, although perhaps it is too subtle for some to recognise since they tend to use ‘soft power’ these days. If you watch the shenanigans in the World Trade Organisation you would realise just how much brutal wrestling goes on behind the scenes, even between “allies”. Although the hordes that only get news from the MSN homepage are unlikely to ever become aware of this (mostly since they don’t care which, is their right).
Edited 2008-08-06 19:04 UTC
I don’t.
BTW… I don’t think the USA is a free country
So perhaps I should have clarified that much.