Thanks for speaking the truth.

turn on compiz+effects, now show it to a \”windows\” friend, and make some of the nice effects it has, make it play an mp3 which asks for the plugin to be installed, just click next,next,next and you are hearing it. Please don\’t misjudge me, my first time on the Linux world was with slackware back in 95.

I didn\’t tell him anything like \”you should\” \”you should not\”, just a small demo, and he was amazed. And amazingly also, that notebook behaved properly and fast.

Yes, it\’s a mix of free (95%) and proprietary (5% or so), but that\’s what make it shine, but the free is in a very large majority.

For example, I\’m still using Dropbox just because it works great on any OS, and couldn\’t find any free/open source alternative, but I\’d love to switch to an open source alternative (now I\’m hoping that owncloud will give us something similar, if not better: http://owncloud.org).

Ok, it\’s maybe more difficult to develop software than to say \”don\’t use that!\”, but if for any proprietary software/service out there we could add \”don\’t use that, instead use *this*, because it\’s free and works better!\” it could be a totally different approach.

I\’m thinking about twitter and identi.ca, for example. The former is closed, the second is open and free. It\’s quite easy to convince people that the open source alternative is better than the closed source one: it works better, it has the same features and some more, and still lets you be present on the proprietary service, so you won\’t loose anything, you only have something to gain.
Wouldn\’t it be great if we could say the same thing for a lot of other free projects?

Free Software is about the rights of the end-users, not the rights of the code itself.

• You cannot create instant drop-in free replacements for all software; that does not validate the non-free software. Not being able to produce (yet) a low-fat low-salt all-good-for-your-health hamburger does not make the current hamburger a wise choice for you; you may have to settle for fruits and vegetables meanwhile, which have nothing to do with burgers and can\’t be sold as an alternative. In some cases you need lots of time and expertise to create an alternative (flash replacement, driver reverse-engineering), in some cases you just can\’t (patent-encumbered software). It\’s quite valid to preach against proprietary software when there\’s no alternative yet.
• Some arguments just can\’t be anything else than negativity; how can you build a good alternative to DRM? you can\’t, only no-DRM will do. A good alternative to software patents? A good alternative to lock-in?
• The iPad was released 2 months ago. Of course there is no alternative yet, is the FSF mandate to infiltrate proprietary companies and thus be able to release a competitive product in the same week as Apple?
• A little perspective helps. Even though the free software people always lagged (and even though the Gno argument was always present), few mainstream programs from a couple of years ago don\’t have a free replacement. Yes, there was a time when the FSF complained about Microsoft Office with no serious alternative to push. We just had to wait.

dragonwisard: I\’m very happy to be a part of the so-called \”Stallmanists\”. I believe in Free Software and the Free Software movement. If you don\’t, that\’s fine. Support non-free software, its limitations, and the companies that want to lock you into their software.

I\’m not sure I agree with cm1967 that no one is going to change minds at the FSF. They are human beings and they make choices. If they choose to galvanize themselves and see friends as enemies, there is nothing empirically wrong with that. But it makes the rest of us sad.

Like their recent Kernel contribs that will **NEVER** make into the Linux Kernel LOL!

Yeah, I\’m sorely disappointed in Stallman\’s recent behavioral direction – Like when I ended up at the FSF site on a page that was slamming Google and Mozilla recently, just prior to the open source release by Google of VP8.

Some distros won\’t include \”ANYTHING\” that isn\’t completely free – as per the FSF\’s definition of such, yet, as a Slackware user, I have no problems with using \’pico\’, and find myself invoking it, or expecting it to be on virtually every Linux Box.

Of course, when it isn\’t, I simply use \’nano\’ instead. But if there\’s no real discernable difference, why should this be such a big deal?

Those are questions that will continue to fuel the debate for at least the next decade and a half – What is free? Is it really free? Why isn\’t it considered free if it\’s free? Etc…, :)

I do disagree with the notion that the free software movement is even close to being dead, though. It isn\’t, although it may no longer be so much a movement as a fact of data processing life – having transcended the point where it needs to be a stand and now being a fact of life for a large portion of computing.

The cracks in the Redmond foundation appeared only because of the FSF, and especially the GPL\’d Linux Kernel. Those cracks only get bigger now as they fill with sand and debris form that earthquake that occurred so many years ago on Usenet.

Kindest regards,

Bradley D. Thornton
http://NorthTech.US

.

Please point to the portion of the article where I suggest that the FSF \”change their minds.\”

I simply suggest that the current approach to trying to get what they want is not working, and that they need a new approach.

Even absent an existing alternative, the FSF failed to articulate any vision for a free replacement. The argument was simply \”well, we know you *want* something like this – but don\’t buy it. Because we\’re right, trust us. We know you don\’t think about computing our way, but listen anyway.\” Not terribly effective.